Just a history note: in Jamaica, during the time the English used slave labor there, all the slave women who became pregnant aborted their pregnancies so that their children wouldn't grow up in the world they were living in. The same would have been true in Brazil, but there were very harsh punishments for abortion there

It's not true that all women who have sought abortions denied the humanity of what they were killing, and this is still true today.

A member of a species has to be an organism, taken as a whole, of that species — Bob Ross


This is circular.

No it is not. In order for X to be a member of the set of all existent square blocks, it must be a square block.

This is basic biology. It is a member of the human species if it that certain kind of animal: homo sapien. — Bob Ross


Well, I wouldn't say that homo sapiens are single-celled animals.

This is basic biology: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-sapiens . When, for you, does an organism become a member of its species? Anything you say is going to be utterly arbitrary, if it is not conception.

There are ways to tell: I was saying to the naked eye. We can examine it in the lab and determine if it is a human being (or, if you prefer, human fertilized egg).

In order for X to be a member of the set of all existent square blocks, it must be a square block. — Bob Ross

And to explain what it means to be a square block you describe the relevant geometry.

How do you explain what it means to be a Homo sapiens?

When, for you, does an organism become a member of its species? — Bob Ross

There is no point. It’s like asking when does a species branch into two? There’s just a bunch or organic matter arranged together and behaving in certain ways, and then for practical reasons we group collections of similar organic matter together under a single name.

There was never a point where a non-Homo sapiens simply gave birth to a Homo sapiens. The evolution into Homo sapiens was a gradual process where we can say at the one extreme that it wasn’t human and at the other extreme it is but then in between there’s a grey, ambiguous area and any attempt at a definitive classification is arbitrary.

How do you explain what it means to be a Homo sapiens?

a homo sapiens is a contradiction in terms: it is a species.

The typical definition of a species, which holds generally for its members and absolutely for its healthy members, is "A group of organisms that share similar physical and genetic characteristics and are capable of interbreeding to produce viable offspring".

"A group of organisms that share similar physical and genetic characteristics and are capable of interbreeding to produce viable offspring". — Bob Ross

A zygote is not physically similar to me.

This is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

@Bob Ross has dragged the discussion back to essentialism again. "It's human, so you mustn't kill it", ignoring capital punishment and war and euthanasia.

It's a bunch of cells. It does nto have the moral standing of the person carrying it.

Could you flesh out exactly what you're saying about fully developed humans like yourself? I'm assuming it's not that you think you have some sort of divine grace. Why should you have legal protection? Is it a matter of sentiment?

Bob Ross has dragged the discussion back to essentialism again. "It's human, so you mustn't kill it", ignoring capital punishment and war and euthanasia. — Banno

The pro-life argument is not "thou shall not kill." It's not to kill unjustly, which would exclude killing the innocent.

We all agree, for example, that holding someone against one's will ought be prohibited, yet we distinguish between false arrest and legal arrest and between kidnapping and incarceration. We allow certain actions in response to other actions, so it's not hypocritical to permit capital punishment yet prohibit abortion. One person has been found guilty and deserving, and the other not.

What constitutes the just taking of a human life (or deprivation of any human right) might be complicated and nuanced, but that doesn't mean the allowance of some deprivation of human rights in some cases means it must be allowed in all cases.

This is consistent with the biblical commandment at Exodus 20:13 that says לֹא תִּרְצָח (do not murder) which is obviously different from לא להרוג (do not kill). That is, killing is sometimes ok, but never murder because murder has a specific definition that excludes war, capital punishment, but I doubt euthanasia. I point out the biblical passage because I am not confused into thinking the pro-life position isn't aligned with it, but I don't think the position is internally hypocritical.

All this is insubstantial in the argument I presented to you. We have on the one hand a woman, perhaps a nurse, perhaps a CEO, perhaps a sister, mother, daughter, perhaps a care giver or volunteer. Someone who can express their needs, who makes plans and seeks to fulfil them and who has a place in our world.

We have on the other hand, a group of cells.

That you value those cells over the person who must carry them is heinous.

What exactly is the argument? Adult humans are also a "group of cells."

An unborn child can be a sister or daughter, unless we want to say that passage through the birth canal turns us into sisters and sons.

They cannot be a caregiver, CEO, etc., true. Is being these things relevant to a right not to be euthanized? Or the ability to express one's needs or "have a place in the world?"

Infants are also largely incapable of these things (temporarily at least). So are those with serve developmental disabilities, dementia, etc. The severely injured also become temporarily unable to do many of those things. In the case of those with dementia, etc., it is pretty much impossible that they will ever be/be able to do any of these things, whereas the unborn child or infant can at least eventually become/do these things.

The need to rely heavily on others is also there in all cases (fetuses, infants, the severely disabled, etc.) In general, taking care of infants is more difficult and time consuming than having them in the womb, and taking care of adults with dementia, severe brain damage, etc. is significantly more difficult (and expensive) than taking care of infants.

Now, people will often claim that pregnancy is different because there isn't a way to transfer the responsibility until birth. I do think this is relevant, but we have to be careful here lest we lapse into assuming that, in the real world, it is in any way easy (or even in many cases possible) to pass off relatives with dementia or brain injuries to others' care. This is often far from easy, and whereas pregnancy and infancy end relatively quickly, care for someone with a brain injury can last decades, precluding any involvement in the workforce or public life. This is why I think arguments about "burden" are generally going to "allow too much." It's far easier to find people willing to adopt children than 30-year-old men with severe brain damage, and the former also tax society much more.

I don't really know if, given our society, those with brain injuries or dementia "have a place in the world." Certainly not much of one. And they might be quite unable to voice their desires as well.

What exactly is the argument? — Count Timothy von Icarus

That "exactly" is again a pointer to essentialism. What gives someone moral worth need not be a single characteristic or even a given group of characteristics. The rope is a rope despite no one thread running through it's whole length. There need be no essential common feature but instead a series of overlapping similarities. But when we stand back and consider what is before us, it is one rope.

Stand back and consider the differences. We ought not give the blastocyst the same moral standing as the person who carries it. If you cannot see the difference then there isn't a lot more to be said.

It ought be the person carrying the blastocyst who has the main say in what to do with it.

Sure, all that. There is a version of the naturalistic fallacy sitting in this thread. Roughly, folk argue as if, if we could only set out explicitly what it is to be a person or a human or whatever, then we would know for sure if we are allowed to do abortions - we need the "is" to decide the "ought". I think that fundamentally flawed. We decide what is to count as human, and what isn't; we don't discover it.