But insisting that abortions are the killing of a person — Clearbury

I insist that an adult pregnant woman, for example, is a person. I think we all agree there.

But what do all the examples of a person have in common? What is human being? Are they only adults?

Without insisting anything more, I hypothesize that a person, a human being, is a distinct, living organism having a human set of DNA.

Analyzing further what a person is, what human being” means, using my reason and observation, I see that the adult woman was once nothing more than a fetus, and before that, a zygote, and before that she was not anything at all. It was not until after her conception that there was a distinct living organism having a human set of DNA.

It’s not much, what a human being is, to me. Just the same type of thing as any other mammal. We are the human kind of living organism. All individual living organisms started their individual lives sometime after an individual conception, or at conception.

To me conception is all you need to have a whole life. How long that life endures, and whatever it becomes is all born at conception.

The woman certainly didn’t exist before her conception. And as far as I’ve ever heard or been able to think of for myself, any set of functions or other attributes I add to my simple definition, like a heartbeat, or sensation and brain activity, or consciousness, or self-awareness, or reasoning/willing abilities, or spirits or souls, these are either arbitrary (meaning non-essential), usually they are themselves undefined or vague and untestable, and/or they end up excluding newborns.

So I’m not “insisting” that fetuses are persons, I’m trying to argue it based on what I observe to be a new human life.

Similarly, the majority of folks have concluded that an adult human mother's interests outweigh those of a human fetus' — LuckyR

And if the majority decided we need to have a human sacrifice to help the crops that would settle it for you? :roll:

Show me any definition that states otherwise.

Show me where I stated it isn't. Also, show me a person who has eaten all types of meat and/or wants to eat all types of meat.

Miscarriages are not the intentional killing of a human life, so no.

Miscarriages are abortions. Therefore, according to your definition, "that the act of abortion itself, the act of killing this organism," Miscarriages are the acts of killing those organisms.

I am not in any way setting out to prove that a cyst has less value than Mrs Smith. So I am not begging the question.

Here's why I said it is question begging: you are saying that is it morally permissible to abort because it is obvious that the woman should be able to abort. You are just masking it with other words now.

We might at again flip the question you keep asking of me, and ask you why you think that Mrs Smith has only the value of a zygote.

It's not that they, in total, have the same value: it's that they both have equal, basic human rights. I have consistently kept this conversation in terms of rights, not in total value. I do not disagree that in some circumstances, like when you have to choose between saving one person or the other in a manner that doesn't use one as a means towards saving the other, that we can, and should, value a newborn over an extremely old person.

I have never suggested that all humans are completely equal in value, but have consistently held that we have basic, inalienable rights.

So the question becomes: why don't you believe that all humans have equal, basic human rights? Do you not believe in rights?

I apologize: I was not intending to sidestep any of your response. If there's something I missed, then please feel free to bring it up.

Likewise, I enjoyed our conversation; and until we meet again, Praxis!

The question is whether a miscarriage is the end of the short life of a person, or not. Why jump to asking for blame and “wrongness” without addressing the moving pieces of the argument.

A miscarriage is by definition, an abortion. Therefore, according to

that the act of abortion itself, the act of killing this organism,

a miscarriage(abortion), is the act of killing the organism, which is wrong.

Why is absolute morality only absolute sometimes and relative some other times?

Ok, if it’s not a human being then what is it? — NOS4A2

What if we were to start off with a definition like this: a human as a viable (it can survive on its own without artificial life support) organism descended from apes with a brain to body ratio of at least 2%

This does not mean that parents that want to save the life of their premature fetus should be legally prevented from doing so. This is only to determine when it is okay to choose for yourself when it is permissible to have an abortion. If you don't want an abortion you have that choice, or want to continue to keep your infant or elderly family member on life support, you have that choice.

I think we would agree what a human is 99% of the time and it is only in the gray area of embryos, fetuses, and the brain-dead, or those on life support that we might disagree. And it is in those grey areas that we as individuals should have the right to decide what we want to do without government interference because at that point what a human is is subjective.

Why is absolute morality only absolute sometimes and relative some other times — night912

Morality only appears to be absolute when a vast majority of people agree. The morality that we thought was absolute would be shattered when we meet an alien species with a different set of morals.

My issue is the identity of indiscernibles. She’s some other being one minute then a human being the next, while anyone watching this supposed change can see that one organism isn’t replaced by another.

Rather, it is a kind of being or animal or organism whose life begins at this time and ends that time, after which it decomposes. “Viability” is too squishy of a continuity principle for me. I want to be able to point at something and say “that’s a so-and-so” without having to check its vitals. There needs to be a taxonomical term for this being and “human” or “man” suffices.

But I’m still interested to read what other non-human being precedes us.

Show me where I stated it isn't. Also, show me a person who has eaten all types of meat and/or wants to eat all types of meat.

Fine, you don’t consider meat as food. I’m only stating that every dictionary does.

a miscarriage(abortion), is the act of killing the organism, which is wrong.

Why is absolute morality only absolute sometimes and relative some other times?

We’re speaking about the medical procedure some people choose to terminate a viable pregnancy. You’re equating this with the natural and spontaneous death of a fetus.

I insist that an adult pregnant woman, for example, is a person. I think we all agree there.

There was a time when they were not considered persons. It was the same with slaves. It’s the same instinct and language at work in this discussion, where a mere designation is used to justify all sorts of ill behaviors.

Where'd you go? You ok?

the organism — night912

Night - hi. Why did you say "organism"?

Let me see if anyone can follow a simple set of observable, empirical facts and answer a simple question.

We all know what an adult is. We know that an adult is different than an adolescent. And an adolescent is different than a newborn. And a newborn infant is different than an early fetus. Right? We all agree. Banno can show you the pictures if you don't follow :joke: .

But none of these words describe what the individual is. None of these point out any specific thing. That's because all of these are adjectives, describing a stage in a life of something I haven't identified yet. An adult X. An adolescent X. A newborn X. A fetal X.

A "fetus" isn't an individual. An "adult" isn't an actual thing. You need to have some thing in hand to use the terms "fetal, newborn, adolescent, adult" that might describe that thing.

So now let's start over.

Is an adult X an individual organism? Is an adolescent X an individual organism? Is a fetal X an individual organism? Yes. This is simple, animal biology, phrased in simple terms to point out features of individual organisms. It draws distinctions (perhaps arbitrarily and not without difficulty) between apparent stages in an organism's life.

So here is the simple question: What is the fetal stage organism in a pregnant adult human being? What is it? I already packed into this question the fact that it's not an adolescent thing or a newborn thing, and it certainly is not an adult thing. But will you say what it is?

What is the organism in the fetal stage that lives inside a pregnant adult human being?

You can't call it a construct, or a choice, because a doctor may have to isolate it in order to remove it from a woman's uterus. It's a thing, not someone's chosen word for a thing.

More specifically, it's a living individual organism. You can't call it a part of something else, because it's individuated by having its own functioning set of DNA). So what is it?

You can't just call it "a fetus" because that would be making a noun out of an adjective, and simply be avoiding the question "what is the fetus in the pregnant woman?" A fetal what, is the question.

I'll give you my answer just to be fair. It's a person. A human being, at a different stage in the fragile life it shares with the rest of us idiots, like a newborn is, or an old, blind, dying man with Alzheimer's is, or the strongest, smartest man in the world is.

Let the metaphysical and linguistic acrobatics begin, and the likely avoidance of simple facts and a simple question.
___________________________

I've never heard how a new human embryo is anything other than the first moments of a new human being. I would love to see a non-emotional, on point, reasoned argument from observable facts state what a human being is and when such a thing first comes into being.

I've given you my method and my current hypothesis. What do you got?

And before you think I'm pro-life, that to me is a tiresome political movement. I'd rather abortion up to around six or so months remain legal. I'd rather leave pregnant women free on such a sensitive issue and try to convince any who might ask to at least consider what they are doing when they are having an abortion and choose for themselves.

Public policy is less interesting (and even more steeped in bullshit) than the metaphysical question of new life and essence.

I find it so disappointing when people won't just apply their reason and clarify their terms in a conversation surrounding the metaphysical/physical/biological/empirical aspects of this topic. We should be more brave.

If my argument sucks, show me. Or better, make an argument of your own that shows why no one who has an abortion has killed a human being.

CC: @RogueAI:

I have been trying, from the start, to get @Banno to answer similar questions; but, unfortunately, they refuse to engage. The whole argument, as far as I can gather thus far, is that it seems immoral to force a woman to continue going through with pregnancy because of any value placed on the unborn human and, therefore, abortion is permissible. This is just utter garbage: it is entirely circular.

I will say that, with respect to my view, I have been using my terms too loosely sometimes; and this is something I will avoid doing in the future. To be painfully clear to everyone, here’s what I am arguing:

I am evaluating whether not Mrs. Smith has the right to, or should, kill the human being developing in her womb in virtue of what is actually good and how I think that relates to behavior. Viz., what is actually good is what is intrinsically valuable, what is most intrinsically valuable is what is the chief good, the chief good is eudaimonia, being a eudaimon requires one to be just, being just requires one to respect other beings relative to their (teleological) natures, a person has a nature such that they havewill develop into having a rational will, and to respect a rational will is to treat it as an end in itself and never as a mere means.

@Banno refuses to discuss whether or not a zygote, embryo, or/and fetus have basic human rights; and this thwarts the conversation to a stand-still.

I would love to see a non-emotional, on point, reasoned argument from observable facts state what a human being is and when such a thing first comes into being.

If I were iron-man a pro-choice position, then I would say that you are asking an irrelevant question because you are equivocating personhood with “human beingness”; and that you are absolutely right that a new human being is create upon conception, but that a person is not thereby created upon conception and personhood grounds rights. A person, under this view, is a being which currently has a mind which has a rational will, and not a mere natural potential for one, and this is indicated, for an organism, by having a brain which is functioning aptly enough to deploy such a subjective experience (as a mind with rational capacities). Therefore, up until the unborn human being acquires the proper brain it is morally permissible to abort.

This argument sucks for multiple reasons:

1. What grounds rights is the rational nature of a being and not its mere acquisition or possession of a mind—otherwise, all animals would have equal rights—and so it is clear that infanticide would be equally morally permissible in this view (for children, especially at really early ages, clearly do not have a rational will).

2. Many human beings which even a pro-choice person wants to count as a person would not count under this view and thusly would not have any rights. E.g., a person who we know is going to wake up from their coma in 2 days time but currently does not have enough brain function to deploy a mind with rational capacities has no rights for those 2 days.

3. Dead people have no rights, which leads to the logical conclusion that one can do whatever they want to a dead person’s body as long as it serves no injustice to anyone who may have known them. E.g., sex, desecration, etc.

This is why anyone and everyone should be going for a teleological analysis of this, even if they don’t believe that we are designed in that strong, theological sense of having an agent which endowed us with purpose. I am curious what @Leontiskos thinks about this.

I am waiting for @Banno to respond with “but it’s obvious we shouldn’t value the zygote over the woman!!!!”. :roll:

…being a eudaimon…

That’s an interesting choice of words. Eudaimon translates to "having a good attendant or indwelling spirit".

Banno refuses to discuss whether or not a zygote, embryo, or/and fetus have basic human rights; and this thwarts the conversation to a stand-still. — Bob Ross

You say I refuse to talk about rights. Here are the places I talked about rights in this thread.

Whatever rights we might grant to a cysts, the rights of the woman carrying it ought take precedence. Mrs Smith is of greater value than a collection of cells.

I'm sorry you cannot see this.

Let me see if anyone can follow a simple set of observable, empirical facts and answer a simple question. — Fire Ologist

But that is not what you are doing in that post. You are kidding yourself.

More specifically, it's a living individual organism. You can't call it a part of something else, because it's individuated by having its own functioning set of DNA). — Fire Ologist

If that is so, you should have no objection to it being removed so it can stand on it's own.

At best, if I grant what you said here then, you are saying that the blastocyst has no right to life; which is the most basic right a human has :sad: ; or, worse, you are saying that rights have degrees.

It is simple @Banno: do you or do you not believe that a zygote has a right to life? Do they have that right?

It is simple, . Whatever right you grant the cyst is outweighed by the right of the woman carrying it.

the cyst …the woman — Banno

Why do you even speak?

Repeating drivel by avoiding interlocution doesn’t bring new meaning to the drivel.

If you don’t see that then “there’s not much anyone can say” to quote you.

Cheers, Oli. Attack me some more. It shows the weakness of your position.

Whatever rights we might grant to a cysts, the rights of the woman carrying it ought take precedence. Mrs Smith is of greater value than a collection of cells.

I'm sorry you cannot see this. — Banno

I agree with this. The people who don't see this seem to want a justification beyond the obvious. What do you think is at the heart of this difference?

Presumably they do not like the conclusion, that abortion ought be permitted.

Hence they look for arguments to reject what is apparent. They can only do this by positioning the premise as if it were the conclusion.

“Virtually everyone’s reason represents X…”
That, to me, translates to “Virtually everyone thinks X.”
The term “reason represents” though is unclear to me, which is why I have translate it “thinks”. — Fire Ologist

If 'thought' is interpreted broadly enough, then a representation of our reason would be a kind of thought, but it would be a specific kind: one generated by our faculty of reason. That's the kind that constitute evidence.

But mere assumptions - which are also going to be thoughts - are not evidence. If I assume there's milk in the freezer, that isn't evidence there is milk in the freezer.

Presumably they do not like the conclusion, that abortion ought be permitted. — Banno

That certainly seems possible.

But is their reasoning as simple as:

A bunch of cells may become a human being, that's close enough to Mrs Smith for us to be unable to differentiate between the two?

These debates seem like interminable time wasters.

These debates seem like interminable time wasters. — Tom Storm

True enough. There'd be a good argument for having a fixed abortion thread, "All abortion arguments go here".

A bunch of cells may become a human being, that's close enough to Mrs Smith for us to be unable to differentiate between the two? — Tom Storm

I doubt if anyone would find this convincing. I suspect that such folk supose there to be something special about a zygote, the supposition being that there is some "mystical" property that enters the cells at the fusion of two haploid cells. They attempt to articulate this in secular terms such as being a person or a human being or the subject of inalienable rights. Each of these attempts to have the zygote count as the equal of Mrs Smith.

The motivation for this is almost always theological. Occasionally it is inveterate essentialism.

Attack you. You are tougher than that.

your beliefs are heinous. — Banno

The conceit…is disingenuous. — Banno

Your use of the word “attack” shows the weakness of your position.

You never said what kind of embryo you posted a picture of. Weak.

You won’t define what the organism is in a pregnant woman. You just want to convince everyone you think the adult woman is more valuable than the “cyst” (which is an “attacking” name for a blastocyst).

You won’t even define what a woman is. Other than [an organism] displaying needs, desires and does ethics. Weak.

And you won’t say how it is logical to see “desires and ethical agency” in a new born, or why someone would logically value a newborn the same as the adult. Also weak.

Cheers!

I doubt if anyone would find this convincing. — Banno

I wasn't attempting to put the argument convincingly, just trying to understand the thinking.

The motivation for this is almost always theological. Occasionally it is inveterate essentialism. — Banno

Yes, that seems likely.

Repeating drivel by avoiding interlocution doesn’t bring new meaning to the drivel. — Fire Ologist

Hmm. I don't think I've sunk so low as that feeble comment - yet.

The bit to about essentialism. It may be that you are an example of this - I don't know what you do of a Sunday. But the world does not always divide up as neatly as you seem to supose.

What is the organism in the fetal stage that lives inside a pregnant adult human being? — Fire Ologist

It's a person. A human being, at a different stage in the fragile life it shares with the rest of us idiots, like a newborn is, or an old, blind, dying man with Alzheimer's is, or the strongest, smartest man in the world is. — Fire Ologist

I'd rather abortion up to around six or so months remain legal. — Fire Ologist

You agree with Banno for zygotes. Why?