So what distinguishes a human organism with human DNA and a non-human organism with human DNA, and why is the distinction the measure of whether or not it is wrong to kill it?

Which non-human organisms with human DNA are you talking about?

Which non-human organisms with human DNA are you talking about? — NOS4A2

All of them. You claimed, with examples, that some things can have human DNA but not be human. So I want to know what it is that makes something with human DNA human, and why having this thing entails that it “deserves” to live.

None of the things I mentioned are genetically similar to human beings in any way.

None of the things I mentioned are genetically similar to human beings in any way. — NOS4A2

That’s what I meant by “having human DNA”.

So why does anything with our genetic makeup deserve to live?

So why does anything with our genetic makeup deserve to live?

There is nothing else with our genetic makeup. There is only one extant species of human beings.

There is nothing else with our genetic makeup. There is only one extant species of human beings. — NOS4A2

That doesn’t explain or justify your assertion that it is wrong to kill anything with our genetic makeup.

My own take is that our genetic makeup is neither the measure of whether or not it is wrong to kill something (e.g. it can be wrong to kill an intelligent alien even though it would have a different genetic makeup) nor sufficient to entail that it is wrong to kill something (e.g. it can be acceptable to kill an embryo even though it has the same genetic makeup).

i.e. the claim “it is wrong to kill me because I’m a human” is as fallacious as the claim “it is wrong to kill Mork because he is an Orkan” and as fallacious as the claim “it is acceptable to kill a fly because it is not human.”

Whether or not it is wrong to kill something is not determined by its genetic makeup (whether that be human, Orkan, fly, or other), but whether or not the individual organism has developed sufficiently complex cognitive functions - functions that a fly, an embryo, and an early stage foetus have not developed, but that Mork and I have.

A fertilized egg is a human being because it is the earliest stage of development of a completely separate organism of the human species. — Bob Ross

Maybe I'm missing some context and/or not following you, but this seems to be circular reasoning. You seem to be saying that a zygote is a human being because it will develop into a human being. But this begs the question - how do we define a human being? Or put slightly differently, what are the essential qualities of a particular collection of cells and protoplasm that allow us to call it human?

Also (at the risk of going on a tangent) - do you make any distinction between "human being" and "person". In my mind these are synonyms?

As long as you understand that a human fetus would develop those complex cognitive functions—indeed was in the process of development—had you not killed it, had you not deprived it of the opportunity. Flies do not.

That’s why the abortionist is treading in murky moral waters. At what stage in that development is killing her acceptable? Do all the complex cognitive functions need to be developed at the same time, or does one or the other function take precedence? It’s all too arbitrary for my tastes, so I personally need a solid unit of value, and its existence suffices enough for me.

A man is a person who so declares himself to be and a person is who society declares them to be. — Hanover

Do we really want to leave such a social institution to the (let's be honest) whims of a particular class of people who share a political bent? I'm not sure this makes for any good. That may not be quite what you're saying, in that post, though.

There's no such thing as the essence of personhood — Michael

I think this is intimately tied with (as if this is novel, lol) this:

what a human is depends on how we use the word "human", and how we use the word "human" is a contingent fact about the English language, open to change. — Michael

However, a plain reading would intimate there are two things being talked about here. That there can be a 'person' without being a human - something another poster (forgive me for not recalling) bit the bullet on (Echarmion perhaps?) and was willing to call Whales, Dolphins and some speculative others 'persons' without invoking 'human'
This would probably solve the intercessions I'm seeing between people's usage of these words.

Next, we need to understand what in the world we want the words to pick out. 'Human' could be pretty easy, without giving us the discomfort of 'killing humans' because in that phrase, 'humans' includes 'persons'. It shouldn't, to make the moral conversation clearer and easier to digest. So 'human' could easily be some "being which is alive and is constituted from human DNA" (this would capture clones, too).

If, by 'person', we want something like Banno's way of thinking - that there are psychological criteria which can either be met, or not met, then a 'person' could be quite easy to distinguish (perhaps not to test, though) among humans. But finding criteria, re: gestation, as to when a 'human' becomes a 'person' is almost sure to give us those discomforts avoided above - as noted elsewhere, it would mean an infant could be readily killed in service of the greater good (lets say, financially) for the 'persons' involved in the decision.
But, clearly, this just leads to the stupidity of hte entire attempt to cohere views: We just feel differently. No criteria are good enough to shift someone's moral conviction about an act. The language can't help. Banno probably can't conceive genuinely thinking the 'rights' of a fetus could outweight those of an adult woman (i happen to agree, but can conceive otherwise) - NOS (or others) probably can't conceive how anything could outweight an 'innocent life' (notice there's no 'human' or 'person' here - but it means not killing any animals, ever, for any reason, as they aren't moral agents).

So why are we trying?

At what stage in that development is killing her acceptable? Do all the complex cognitive functions need to be developed at the same time, or does one or the other function take precedence? — NOS4A2

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is no single point, much like with the Sorites paradox. It's acceptable when it's a zygote or blastocyst or embryo, not acceptable when it's due to be delivered in a day, and in between there's a large grey and ambiguous area as it develops more and more into a human like us.

It’s all too arbitrary for my tastes — NOS4A2

There is much more to an organism than its genetic makeup. There are very real, significant, and obvious biological differences between myself and a zygote. Your decision to only consider an organism's genetic makeup is not less arbitrary than my decision to also consider these other important aspects of an organism's being. But I do think that your claim that only an organism's genetic makeup has moral relevance is an absurd one.

I personally need a solid unit of value — NOS4A2

Well, biology and morality doesn't work that way, even if you "need" it to.

the Sorites paradox — Michael

Just a random note on this: You can find criteria for a heap.

So I have a heap of rice consisting of 10,000,000 grains. Which grain makes it not a heap?

As far as the abortion debate goes in this analogy, all that is necessary is that we acknowledge that there is some amount that is not a heap (X), some amount that there is a heap ( Y) and some amount where we are uncertain (Z). Abortion would be permissible in X, not in Y, and we can be as cautious or as reckless in Z as our values might might be.

In reverse:

That wont solve the problem of disagreement, which is, in fact, the problem (i.e not having a precise point to rely on isn't a problem, if we were all to accept the grey area is "up to her" as it were). Arguments (and murders) about abortion in the grey area will still occur.

If you have a heap of rice consisting of 10,000,000 grains, you're not properly approaching hte problem.

If you have a heap of eight grains of rice, the proper point at which is becomes a heap, is when at least one grain is no longer on the surface, and is entirely supported by other grains. It is that grain that you're looking for. Not all sorities can be resolved in this way, certainly. But this one can, and I knew it would be example :P

I'll again point out that the interests and preferences of the person carrying are far more apparent than those of the zygot or cyst or foetus.

This argument does not rely on essentialism. One ought not need an agreed definition of the essential characteristics of a person in order to see that a bag made of a few cells does not have the same value as a person, be they an infant, a mute, deaf, or even, in the extreme, a woman.

And again, the motivation of those who claim that the bag of cells has such value that it must be privileged above the woman carrying it are suspect. They overwhelmingly tend to hold these views becasue they wish to remain in agreement with their invisible friend. They hypocritically support capital punishment. They refuse to provide for the needs of the economically disadvantaged, who are the very people most at risk. They exhibit misogyny and authoritarianism. These facts are supported by repeated demographic studies.

In democracies worldwide, this issue has been settled for years. There is one major exception to this. If a referendum were held in the United States, the right to an abortion would be supported by sixty to seventy percent of the population.

This issue is predominantly about the parochial failure of democracy in the USA.

And again, the motivation of those who claim that the bag of cells has such value that it must be privileged above the woman carrying it are suspect. They overwhelmingly tend to hold these views becasue they wish to remain in agreement with their invisible friend. They hypocritically support capital punishment. They refuse to provide for the needs of the economically disadvantaged, who are the very people most at risk. They exhibit misogyny and authoritarianism. These facts are supported by repeated demographic studies. — Banno

Are you entirely sure hte move you want to make is to talk about hte aggregate of the vulgar, rather than the arguments actually at hand? I don't disagree with you at all, regardless of the studies - they seem the only arguments that one can rely on for that position to me too. But, I'm not seeing any of htem in this thread, I guess. And once again, I'll point out:

the interests and preferences of the person carrying are much more apparent than those of the zygot or cyst or foetus — Banno

Isn't objectively relevant. I agree that it's relevant, but that's because I agree that its relevant. If I didn't, it wouldn't. And in that situation, there's no real 'argument'. They are two intuitions butting heads, surely.

Not all sorities can be resolved in this way, certainly. But this one can, and I knew it would be example — AmadeusD

If you'd steelman the position, we could avoid these diversions.

You can't see how ridiculous it is to say that you agree that it is relevant, but insist that it must be objectively relevant?

This is ethics. It's about how you want things to be. Don't discount your view about how you want things to be.

Drop the enchantment of "objective". Those who think the worth of a bag of cells outweighs that of an adult human are wrong.

They overwhelmingly tend to hold these views becasue they wish to remain in agreement with their invisible friend. — Banno

That doesn't mean they're wrong. Hey, you're the one who wanted to employ reason. :lol:

So you think they are not wrong?

What happened to your "Just say it. You don't need to defend it. It's how you feel."

You wanted to approach the question rationally and you're throwing out logical fallacies.

I don't think you are following this part of the argument.

I say they are wrong. You and apparently agree, but refuse to put it in those terms. That despite your previous insistence on honesty.

If there are those who hold views to be in step with God, that doesn't mean their views are suspect. In fact, in both the USA and the UK, the majority of abolitionists were members of religious groups that condemned slavery.

If there are those who hold views to be in step with God, that doesn't mean their views are suspect. — frank

You have the argument arse-about.

It's not that their views are wrong becasue they supposedly come from god - although I would also support that view. It's that their views are wrong. Their views also are incited by an irrelevant mythology, a curious piece of biography that partially explains their motivation.

If you'd steelman the position, we could avoid these diversions. — Hanover

Not sure what you're asking, or what 'diversion' you're pointing at? What position are you wanting steelmanned? I haven't given 'a position'. I've solved hte problem of identifying a heap. And its not even interesting. Onward...

You can't see how ridiculous it is to say that you agree that it is relevant, but insist that it must be objectively relevant? — Banno

Well, that isn't what i've said. Your position seems to assume not exactly that it must but that it is and that anyone holding those values in, lets say, a different order (hierarchically) is morally suspect. That's just like.. your opinion, man. I'm sure you don't actually disagree (as your question seems to indicate). But, you're acting as if it is objectively relevant. It's just the top of your hierarchy (and mine, coincidentally. But hte only reason I'm pointing to our agreements in this is to avoid your less charitable replies because you can't bring yourself to understand disagreement very well).

Don't discount your view about how you want things to be. — Banno

Definitely. That's not what's an odds, in my little comment. With some small differences, we likely want things to be roughly similar in this regard. Though, I find it quite painful to center myself when thinking about how others 'ought' to be.

Those who think the worth of a bag of cells outweighs that of an adult human are wrong. — Banno

"On my view" would do you a world of good. But, i hear your point and it explains you well. No sarcasm or anything else, there. It's good. Though, this does make me want to ask - surely you're aware that 'the worth of' the two things isn't relevant if you're making decisions on principle (deontologically) alone. I take it those who use the 'sanctity of life' arguments without divinity are on that ground.

I say they are wrong. You and ↪AmadeusD apparently agree, but refuse to put it in those terms. — Banno

Correct. I agree that God people are wrong to believe in their God and the surrounding commitments. But that's not a moral statement, is it? Where I would say, if I held the view "abortion is wrong" its a moral statement.

What you just argued is that we don't give as much moral weight to people that can't communicate with us. What about deaf and mute people? Do they have less rights?!? — Bob Ross

Somewhat ableist, don't you think? You could, after all, learn sign language. Or simply write them a note.

Their views also are incited by an irrelevant mythology, a curious piece of biography that partially explains their motivation. — Banno

That doesn't support your assertion that they're wrong.

But if you agree that they are wrong, why would I need to justify that assertion to you?

This thread has been predominately esoteric declamations about personhood and humanity. You advocated honesty in the language being used. I say that a bag of cells has less value than an adult human. You agree. Some here do not. Ergo, we both think that they are wrong.

You have insisted that the question be approached rationally. Your presentation includes

1. An argument that ends up being a rationale for infanticide (see Hanover's comment to you on the preference issue).

2. A complaint that pro-lifers are religious.

3. Continuing misrepresentation of what abortion is (cysts) which you admit is only done for the insult-value.

If you want to apply reason to the question, why don't you say something that makes sense?

Poor .

Hanover assumed my argument was essentialist. It isn't. I did not claim all pro-lifers are religious, but pointed out the correlation. I am using the extreme example of a blastocyst because it is the case in which the conceptus is most different to a human.

So though you claim we should be rational about this, you've got nothing rational to say. :up: