What? :rofl:

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

You think it's irrational to say that a zygote does not have the same value as a person?

Yeah, he lost me too.

I'm interested in hearing a good argument from you. I just haven't so far.

Which casts into doubt your capacity to recognise a good argument.

We (you and I) seem to be mostly in agreement as to what ought be done. But you variously complain that we ought express our feelings honestly, and also that we ought to provide justification for those feelings. Seems to me you are a tad confused, or just looking to be contrary.

I don't think you have a good argument. If you do, present it.

I don't think you have a good argument. — frank

Yeah. That sentence is about you.

Here is a person:

Here is an embryo:


They are not the same.

The ethical standing of the woman is apparent. That of the cluster of cells, not so much.

Clear enough?

So you approve of abortion as long as it's reserved for blastocysts, so up to 10 days after conception.

Ok.

Dude, nothing in what I said limits abortion in that way.

I would agree with "on demand" in at least the first trimester, and leave further restrictions to an open consensus.

But it seems you agree with the argument:

They are not the same. — Banno

It was a "we hold these truths to be self-evident" kind of argument and I'm American, so of course I loved it.

They are not the same. — Banno

What is their important distinction for the purposes of claiming one has rights and the other doesn't.

You would agree these are different:



picture share

Yet they both have the same rights.

Why?

They share some rights. In some, they may differ.

Why do you ask? Do you disagree with

They are not the same — Banno

??

I agree that in my post and yours we have chosen obviously different images, but the point made is that the visual distinctions don't play a role in whether they are designated rights. Visual similarity is not what determines rights

Yeah, he lost me too. — Banno

Maybe he thinks you’re irrationally biased against zygotes for some reason.

Oh, you are talking about the images? Yes, four different images. Images do not generally have rights, I believe - but you would know more about that.

Might be.

LOL.
I think I'm still curious as to why you, Banno, think there's such a stark ethical difference between the embryo and the person (i assume you're using the concept - not a person of some example that could be given). I agree, but I don't see why it's being put forward as somehow inarguable. Both positions rely on intuition. You say 'apparent', but obviously not to all. So, curious. We certainly agree, even in detail, on what ought be done here from different principles.

Well, ethics is about what we do. And I'm off to an art exhibit and lunch with friends.

Not something that can be done with a zygote.

Hmm. I see. So, ethics must be a bi-directional consideration (i.e if we are to act, only acts related to other moral actors matter?) Novel - and I'm sympathetic.

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.

The only thing grey and ambiguous about it is the position. The vagueness of the terms used to describe it and the arbitrariness of the acceptable time to kill indicate this. This is because the position lends itself to incoherence. I do not think an incoherent belief should be used to justify killing a human being.

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.

The biological difference between you as a zygote and you as an adult was that you were in a different stage of your development. You never once deviated from being this particular human, you still occupy the same location in space and time, no matter what nouns you use to identify the state of your development.

I never once claimed an organism’s genetic makeup has moral relevance. I’ve mentioned many times that I’m speaking about members of the species homo sapiens. I believe members of the species homo sapiens have moral relevance. I’ve never considered the genetic makeup only; I thought it was clear that I was speaking of the entire human organism, because I’ve said as much.

Well, ethics is about what we do. And I'm off to an art exhibit and lunch with friends.

Not something that can be done with a zygote.

Every single one of you were zygotes. Luckily no one treated you with such disregard.

Every single one of you were zygotes. Luckily no one treated you with such disregard. — NOS4A2

We wouldn't know, or care. That's not a moral consideration.

The vagueness of the terms used to describe it and the arbitrariness of the acceptable time to kill indicate this. This is because the position lends itself to incoherence. — NOS4A2

None of this is the case, and the quote you responded to points each out. There is no incoherence. There's just potentially uncomfortable bullet biting.
THe 'vagueness' of the terms doesn't exist. The facts are vague. The terms refer to them. This is no point at which a zygote 'becomes a person'. It does not exist. It occurs somewhere in the grey area and any position has to choose an arbitrary point here if that's what the view is based on.
(though, its very, very much worth noting that 'arbitrary' is not apt here. There are reasons which very much restrict what's acceptable on most views except absolutists ones (i.e killing an infant is also fine, or there is no form of contraception which is acceptable).

Well, ethics is about what we do. And I'm off to an art exhibit and lunch with friends.

Not something that can be done with a zygote.
— Banno

Every single one of you were zygotes. Luckily no one treated you with such disregard. — NOS4A2

I’m an art lover and don’t recall ever being invited to an exhibit/lunch.

We wouldn't know, or care. That's not a moral consideration.

I wasn’t aware that one needed to know and care if he was being treated morally.

None of this is the case, and the quote you responded to points each out. There is no incoherence. There's just potentially uncomfortable bullet biting.
THe 'vagueness' of the terms doesn't exist. The facts are vague. The terms refer to them. This is no point at which a zygote 'becomes a person'. It does not exist. It occurs somewhere in the grey area and any position has to choose an arbitrary point here if that's what the view is based on.
(though, its very, very much worth noting that 'arbitrary' is not apt here. There are reasons which very much restrict what's acceptable on most views except absolutists ones (i.e killing an infant is also fine, or there is no form of contraception which is acceptable).

What facts are vague? I ask because we actually know a lot about zygotes.

I wasn’t aware that one needed to know and care if he was being treated morally. — NOS4A2

Now you are. Morality is strictly to do with how we treat one another. A Zygote is not a 'one another'. This is probably the only intuition of Banno's I think needs no defense. This just, as noted, leads to some hefty bullet-biting.

What facts are vague? I ask because we actually know a lot about zygotes. — NOS4A2

At what point the zygote becomes a 'person', or variably 'baby', 'a human' etc... etc... These are the 'facts' on which most people's positions rely(i have excluded those absolutist positions that are doctrinaire rather than reasoned) and they aren't stable or lets say 'complete' enough to objectively inform us of anything within that grey area as to why we would place the flag 'there'. Yes, we know a lot about zygotes and their development, but which way-point would you choose? It sounds like for you it's conception. Others might be implantation, heartbeat, viability, pain reception among others. But none of these are hard-and-fast in terms of telling us when a 'person' comes into being (or, when that might be morally relevant). I can only really understand taking conception to be the salient point if one is to be, lets say, overly cautious, because of the above indeterminacies. If you're not copping to that, I'm unsure how to make sense of it. But this doesn't seem to me a moral question, anyway. It's similar to saying "well, I can't figure out the precise moral facts, so I'll give it a wide berth". I can't see a real problem in that, other than tryig to make others assent (which you're not doing, so that's fine).

Now you are. Morality is strictly to do with how we treat one another. A Zygote is not a 'one another'. This is probably the only intuition of Banno's I think needs no defense. This just, as noted, leads to some hefty bullet-biting.

But it is genetically distinct from the mother. If it’s not another, what is it? An organ? A parasite?

At what point the zygote becomes a 'person', or variably 'baby', 'a human' etc... etc... These are the 'facts' on which most people's positions rely(i have excluded those absolutist positions that are doctrinaire rather than reasoned) and they aren't stable or lets say 'complete' enough to objectively inform us of anything within that grey area as to why we would place the flag 'there'. Yes, we know a lot about zygotes and their development, but which way-point would you choose? It sounds like for you it's conception. Others might be implantation, heartbeat, viability, pain reception among others. But none of these are hard-and-fast in terms of telling us when a 'person' comes into being (or, when that might be morally relevant). I can only really understand taking conception to be the salient point if one is to be, lets say, overly cautious, because of the above indeterminacies. If you're not copping to that, I'm unsure how to make sense of it. But this doesn't seem to me a moral question, anyway. It's similar to saying "well, I can't figure out the precise moral facts, so I'll give it a wide berth". I can't see a real problem in that, other than tryig to make others assent (which you're not doing, so that's fine).

A zygote is a very brief stage of development of an individual human organism, and it will be the same particular entity, a human being, from fertilization onward.

If it’s not another, what is it? An organ? A parasite? — NOS4A2

Do you have an aversion to the term zygote?

Do you have an aversion to the term zygote?

Not if it classifies a stage of human development. But when it’s posited as a different being, certainly.

Luckily no one treated you with such disregard. — NOS4A2

Odd, this turn of phrase. Lucky for me? No. Since I am here it is inevitable that some zygote survived. No luck involved, just bland necessity. Any other zygote would not have resulted in me, but someone else. Lucky for the Zygote? It should have bought a lottery ticket? Happenstance, not luck.

Let me know next time you are in Canberra.

The biological difference between you as a zygote and you as an adult was that you were in a different stage of your development. — NOS4A2

And I have developed morally relevant faculties that a zygote lacks. The actual possession of intelligence is an important biological difference.

I believe members of the species homo sapiens have moral relevance. — NOS4A2

Being a member of the species homo sapiens just means having a particular genetic makeup. What about having that genetic makeup is morally relevant? Because I say that the possession of a particular set of chromosomes is insufficient, and having actually developed the appropriate cognitive capabilities is required (regardless of chromosomes, allowing me to extend the same or similar moral consideration to non-humans).

You never once deviated from being this particular human, you still occupy the same location in space and time, no matter what nouns you use to identify the state of your development. — NOS4A2

A zygote also develops into a placenta. Why not say that a zygote is a placenta at the moment of conception?

And a zygote can develop into twins. If each twin is a distinct individual then at least one of them is not identical to the zygote (and it would be special pleading to claim that it was one of them but not the other).

Biology and identity just doesn't work the way you claim it does.

having actually developed the appropriate cognitive capabilities is required — Michael

Are these capabilities that a newborn would have? Newborns are unable to focus their eyes, their muscle movements are reflexive, and when they smile, it's a sign that they just passed gas. Do they have enough cognitive capability to show up as human?