You're fixed on essentialism.

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. — Banno

It is clear that, ruling out mysticism, a blastocyst is not a person. Abortions on demand at least in early pregnancy are not morally problematic. We can have further discussion as to when pregnancies ought not be terminated, but your position has already been bypassed.

Late gestation pregnancies might be needed because of foetal abnormality, or if symptoms of pregnancy were not clear, or if there were reproductive coercion, difficulty accessing abortion, illness during he pregnancy or other difficult personal circumstances. For these reasons an arbitrary cut-off date is problematic, and a case-by-case approach is preferable.

Data collection varies, but over 90% of abortions occure in the first few weeks of pregnancy, and about 2% after 20 weeks.

Also I'm not sure if it's coincidental. I suspect that a sufficient degree of consciousness is required for an animal life to be viable, and as the brain is the most complex organ it stands to reason that everything else is likely to have already developed enough. — Michael

Viability is about the connection between the vascular system and the alveoli in the lungs. It's called the AC membrane (alveolar capillary). It starts approaching functionality around 22 weeks.

Viability is about the connection between the vascular system and the alveoli in the lungs. It's called the AC membrane (alveolar capillary). It starts approaching functionality around 22 weeks. — frank

It requires more than that. Those born with anencephaly, if still alive when born, don't last very long. As far as I can tell from reading that, they don't have issues with their vascular system or lungs; they're just missing a significant part of their brain, and because of that the wider body cannot function properly.

But let's assume that a human could be born and be viable even with anencephaly. Well, it's okay to kill it. It has no cognition, no consciousness, no capacity for pain or sense of the world. It's just a beating heart and pumping lungs wrapped in a skeleton, muscles, and skin.

It requires more than that. Those born with anencephaly, if still alive when born, don't last very long. — Michael

If an infant's brainstem is intact it can live for a long time. They could put a feeding tube in and maybe a tracheostomy for mechanical ventilation. What we don't want to do is hand a parent a horror movie that they'll have to watch for the next however many years it lives. Let it die.

But let's assume that a human could be born and be viable even with anencephaly. Well, it's okay to kill it. It has no cognition, no consciousness, no capacity for pain or sense of the world. It's just a beating heart and pumping lungs wrapped in a skeleton, muscles, and skin. — Michael

This seems more akin to the question of when you can pull the plug on a person in a permanent vegetative state. It's not that you can kill the person as in proactively euthanizing it, but you can remove all artificial means of life support and allow it to die naturally. That again is a viability standard and not a consciousness standard. The question being asked is whether it can survive on its own. Of course, should you consider a feeding tube artificial means, it will certainly die if you remove it (and the same being the case for the infant who is no longer offered its mother's milk).

There are also issues related to permanency of one's limitations that are considered. We can withhold life support from a person with severe brain damage because we realize he will never recover. We don't do that for someone who is passed out drunk, despite his consciousness being severly limited. The fetus strikes me as more like the drunk to the extent it will eventually gain consciousness but more like the brain injured to the extent it has no capacity for consciousness in its current physical state.

I tend toward @Bannos analysis to the extent we can look at an embryo and just say it doesn't look enough like an infant that it remains ok to abort it. I move away from that analysis to suggest it's just screamingly obvious and no one should question my criteria because I recongnize that analysis is highly subjective and pragmatic, not really based upon any particular reliable principle.

I also believe the "come on dude, no way you think that thing is a person" is the right's response to the transexual question, substituing "man" or "woman" in for person. You have to consider the implications of your position in how it affects other positions you might hold.

I'm mostly addressing NOS4A2's reasoning. He argues that because a zygote/embryo/foetus is a living organism with a human genetic makeup then it is human and it is wrong to kill it, even if it is not conscious. The same reasoning would then entail that it is wrong to kill a baby born with anencephaly (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is viable).

I think that the conclusion is false, therefore the reasoning is false. The capacity to be conscious is morally relevant.

It's true that if there is no consciousness, it helps in making the decision not to intervene and let a baby die, but ultimately the decision is more about prognosis than whatever the present state is. For instance, if a baby has a head bleed and the brain is squashed because of that, we go ahead and intervene because of the possibility that the brain could recover and grow. And we do make death easier for children who are fully conscious, but can't live off of special machinery. That's basically killing them, again, because of what we know the future holds.

Think about how that focus on what the future holds bears on the disposition of a fetus. The human potential includes Einstein and Mozart. :grimace:

Think about how that focus on what the future holds bears on the disposition of a fetus. The human potential includes Einstein and Mozart. :grimace: — frank

And Hitler.

I don't think future potential is all that relevant. What matter is what the organism is now and what the parents want. Forcing a mother to carry to term and birth a child because the 1 day old zygote in her womb is a living organism with human DNA just ain't right.

I don't think future potential is all that relevant. — Michael

Maybe your society is different from mine. Where I am, prognosis is more important for life and death decisions than present state.

Forcing a mother to carry to term and birth a child because the 1 day old zygote in her womb is a living organism with human DNA just ain't right. — Michael

I agree. The day-after pill pretty much solves that problem. All women should be able to get it at no cost. Men don't have to pay anything if they generate a zygote. Women shouldn't either.

That's not true, at all. Men creating a zygote tethers them to a legal requirement that can be absolutely life-destroying for a man who did not intend the zygote to be created.
I don't think they should be off the hook, to be clear, but this is wrong.

"come on dude, no way you think that thing is a person" — Hanover

I see your point now. Unfortunately perhaps the only answer is reliance on good judgement.

Just immigrate to Canada, dude. They won't be able to find you!

Banno, my position is that a blastocyst is a human being, not that it is a person. Can you please critique that instead of a straw man? I want to hear why you don't think that the blastocyst is alive, a separate alive entity than the mother, and is a member of the human species. It is really weird, to me, to say that it is not a new member of the human species.

and is a member of the human species. — Bob Ross

What does it mean to be a member of the human species? Is the placenta a human being? It has human DNA, is a living organism, and develops from the blastocyst. Is the heart a human being?

If a blastocyst separates into twins, is that one human being becoming two? Was it already two human beings before the split? Are twins a single human being with two bodies?

Why would it even matter if it was a human being?

What does it mean to be a member of the human species?

It means you’re a certain kind of animal, a great ape, and a member of the last extant species of man.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

And what does it mean to be that kind of animal?

I’m sure you can figure that out. But if you go watch one, or look in the mirror, you’ll notice they’re not placentas and hearts.

I’m sure you can figure that out. But if you go watch one, or look in the mirror, you’ll notice they’re not placentas and hearts. — NOS4A2

Nor are they zygotes.

All human being were zygotes. That is irrefutable.

All human being were zygotes. That is irrefutable. — NOS4A2

All placentas and hearts and lungs were zygotes. That does not entail that zygotes are placentas, hearts, and lungs. And so that all humans were zygotes does not entail that zygotes are humans.

Placentas and hearts were zygotes? I don't follow. The fact zygotes develop human organs seems to me to suggest that they are human, not something else.

Placentas and hearts were zygotes? I don't follow. The fact zygotes develop human organs seems to me to suggest that they are human, not something else. — NOS4A2

Your reasoning is "X was A, therefore A is X". I am explaining that this reasoning is flawed.

That a placenta was a zygote does not entail that a zygote is a placenta.
That glass was sand does not entail that sand is glass.
That a human was a zygote does not entail that a zygote is a human.

Your reasoning is "Parts of X were A, therefor A isn't X." Flawed doesn't even begin to explain it.

Your reasoning is "Parts of X were A, therefor A isn't X." — NOS4A2

Except that wasn't my reasoning. Read carefully what I wrote.

I've read it again carefully and I don't follow it.

These are two different arguments:

1. A placenta was a zygote, therefore a zygote isn't a human
2. That a human was a zygote does not entail that a zygote is a human

You accused me of arguing for (1), when in fact I am arguing for (2).

I understand your assertion, I just don't follow your reasoning. "All placentas and hearts and lungs were zygotes," therefor, "That a human was zygote does not entail that a zygote is a human".

Those are independent claims, not a premise and a conclusion. I am simply explaining that "X was A, therefore A is X" is a non sequitur, offering an example to make it clearer.

I'll try to break it down even further for you:

(1) X was A, therefore A is X
(2) X was a zygote, therefore a zygote is X
(3) A human was a zygote, therefore a zygote is a human
(4) A placenta was a zygote, therefore a zygote is a placenta

In none of these does the conclusion follow from the premise. You have been asserting (3). It's an invalid argument, just as (1), (2), and (4) are invalid.

If you want to argue that a zygote is a human then you need something more than just "a human was a zygote" as a solitary premise.

I appreciate the explainer and I apologize for the confusion.

But you're speaking as if placentas, hearts, and lungs were disembodied, as if zygotes develop into them. Placentas, hearts, and lungs, as intimated, are parts of human beings.

It is really weird, to me, to say that it is not a new member of the human species. — Bob Ross

This is an image of in vitro fertilization. It may be before or after fertilization. You can't tell if it's a new member of the human species, can you?