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

I agree abortion ought to be permitted. What a pregnant woman does or does not do with her pregnancy and her body is none of anyone else’s business, particularly not the state.

But as a philosopher, I’m still curious about what an abortion actually is.

I can’t conclude a human zygote lump of cells is anything other than a stage in the one life of on individual human being. Adults can be called lumps of cells too, so that doesn’t help.

No one wants to define “human” in the context of one biological life.”

I’m not squeamish about it. I’m not going to make laws or argue morality or ethics that take away a woman’s autonomy just because she is pregnant.

I don’t need to balance the value of a woman versus a fetal human.

But I’m not going to hide from the evidence about what an abortion is just because some other people might use it to make bad law and treat people badly.

@Tom Storm, @praxis, looks to be some form of essentialism - the idea that things have specifiable characteristics that make them what they are, and that all we need to do is identify those characteristics in order to settle our disputes. Hence the scientism.

I’m sorry you felt attacked.

the world does not always divide up as neatly as you seem to supose. — Banno

I don’t think I’m making divisions any more neatly than anyone else. Definitions and essences are a fickle bitch. But you draw a clear line, in other words, an essential difference, between an adult human and a “cyst”.

I’m working with those distinctions and drawing my own to see what you think (if you would play).

We can’t avoid definitions and hints at essences if we want to form a sentence, let alone have a conversation. We who would speak are slaves to distinctions and distinctions carry essence or definition.

A “human” is one bundle of vague wisps of smoke. But since we know a human is not a grapefruit, theee are some essential distinctions we can speak of.

But I’m not going to hide from the evidence about what an abortion is just because some other people might use it to make bad law and treat people badly. — Fire Ologist

It feels wrong, if that’s what you’re getting at. Do you want everyone to agree with you that it feels wrong?

You didn't answer my question Banno. Let me try again: DO YOU THINK that the zygote has a right to life? Any right to life at all? If so, then what does that right to life entail in your view?

I’m sorry you felt attacked. — Fire Ologist

Don't be.

Hi praxis,

I don’t want everyone to agree with me. That’s why I’m bothering to talk about this with Banno.

I want to find the most reasonable position. Dialogue with those who disagree helps me test and develop what I hope is the most reasonable position.

So you have nothing else you want to address?

Your position is clear: pro-choice (up to six months).

You didn't answer my question Banno. Let me try again: DO YOU THINK that the zygote has a right to life? Any right to life at all? If so, then what does that right to life entail in your view? — Bob Ross

You have an understanding of the nature of a loaded question. You are asking a loaded question. The aim is rhetorical, to "derailing rational debates... - the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot" (source)

Rights are assigned, commissioned, not discovered. Becasue of that they are communal, and not an individual preference. Hence I will make a comparison rather than accepting your demand for an absolute judgement. Whatever rights we might choose to assign to the zygote, the adult human carrying it may veto. Her rights have priority.

That's all the answer I have for you.

Yes. To keep the state out of it.

But pro-choice and pro-life are political hatchet terms.

I’m actually anti-abortion-without-exception, and if for some reason a pregnant woman asked me what I think her fetus is, I’d say it’s a person. And if for some reason I was pregnant, I would think I can’t have an abortion unless there is some exceptional reason for it.

Yes. To keep the state out of it.

…

I’m actually anti-abortion-without-exception — Fire Ologist

FYI: people who post like this seem to get banned quickly.

Post like what?

How do you explain preferring choice up to six months to keep the state out of it but actually being anti-abortion-without-exception?

You didn't answer my question Banno. Let me try again: DO YOU THINK that the zygote has a right to life? Any right to life at all? If so, then what does that right to life entail in your view? — Bob Ross

It has some value in that it has a decent chance of becoming a person. If I saw a zygote dying on the sidewalk, would I take it in the house and keep it nourished and warm and safe for nine months? Probably not. But I might call the zygote-equivalent of the SPCA to come get it.

What about you? How far would you go to save a dying zygote? Would you hook your body up to it for 9 months? What if it meant you would be bedridden during that time?

Even if a mother has greater value than her offspring, and all the “qualities” observers prefer, it doesn’t follow that she should kill them, as if both of their lives are at stake. In most cases only one life is on the chopping block.

As yet the question of whether she should or should not end the life is unresolved. But only evil would weigh the value of an innocent life to justify his killing. This is the game being played here.

Even if a mother has greater value than her offspring, and all the “qualities” observers prefer, it doesn’t follow that she should kill them — NOS4A2

No one here is, I think, arguing that abortion be made compulsory.

It seems you have shown that I had understood awry. It's not at all clear what their position is.

I agree abortion ought to be permitted. What a pregnant woman does or does not do with her pregnancy and her body is none of anyone else’s business, particularly not the state. — Fire Ologist

Cool. We could even leave it at that. :wink:

I can’t conclude a human zygote lump of cells is anything other than a stage in the one life of on individual human being. Adults can be called lumps of cells too, so that doesn’t help. — Fire Ologist

This is probably a quesion of values. I don't particularly value such cells. An adult human being (Mrs Smith of the previous discussion) is in the world, interacting, making choices, exchanging views, is loved and has a history and her loss is likely to be palpable. The loss of some cells may have a psychological impact on the putative mother, but for me cannot be compared to the 'value' or status of Mrs Smith. If you disagree with this, I suspect it's because we see things differently and I suspect such a quesion of competing values cannot be reconciled.

It's not at all clear what their position is. — Banno

Supporting choice up to six months doesn’t exactly scream “anti-abortion-without-exception,” but maybe they are being sincere.

Sincere, perhaps, but consistent?

But you are implying a zygote has some rights, but are not clarifying what they are; because you don't know....

How do you explain preferring choice up to six months to keep the state out of it but actually being anti-abortion-without-exception? — praxis

I get that not everyone is going to agree with me that the long chain of events that is a person’s life includes the moments they were conceived. I get that I may be wrong. I also get that pregnancy and new life and abortion and laws and morals are dense, cloudy things in the world, and now we just have many more ways to continue disagreements.

So to be done with all the disagreement in the law, the law should be a compromise and allow for abortion. Up to six months (or finalize some criteria and pick a day), to draw the line and be done with it. After six months, the law should allow for abortion in certain cases. And upon birth, too late, we all get stuck with a new state citizen.

I am pro choice because abortion policy is a practical issue, and in the interest of trying to move to other practical issues, the “pro-life” side has to accept there will still be abortions, and the pro-choice side has to accept that some abortions will be limited.

But I like the more theoretical aspects, as they pertain to all life and the whole human experience. Regardless of whatever the law is, if someone asked me “would you have an abortion in X circumstances?” I want to first consider “what is an abortion?”in every way I can. And I find it impossible to answer that question without saying the word “human” and pointing to “lives” and coloring in a picture where I ultimately find it impossible to distinguish “human” from the newly conceived zygote in a pregnant adult human woman. So long story short, because some abortions are good (necessary) and some are bad (killing a person with no justifying reason), and because the question is what would I do, you end up with me being against abortion except in (likely few in my case) circumstances when killing the fetal human is necessary.

So I’m all over the place. I’m both pro life personally, but pro choice politically. And I would go 15 rounds on the metaphysics, the science, the fact of the matter, the conversation built into the abortion issue. But politically, I am useless to both sides as I win personally if for some reason abortion stops, and I win practically if for some reason legal abortion continues.

What about you? How far would you go to save a dying zygote? Would you hook your body up to it for 9 months? What if it meant you would be bedridden during that time?

Good question: no, I would not volunteer to save a random zygote nor a random adult by having them use my bodily resources to save their life; and I don't think that is immoral nor would it be morally permissible for society force hook me up to them.

It depends on how difficult or easy it would be to save that life. E.g., we expect someone to call CPS when a baby randomly shows up on our front porch and we expect them to make reasonable accommodations to keep that baby alive until they show up; or we even expect, if there were no CPS, for them to take care of the baby. But if they had to use their own bodily resources to do it, or had to choose between themselves surviving or the baby, then I don't think we would blame them if they chose themselves (assuming it isn't their baby).

If, for some reason, I am forceably hooked up to someone and am sustaining their life; then that would be immoral but also it would be immoral for me to unhook myself.

Honestly, this is a good, separate question about justice which equally applies to helping anyone in society. Should you splurge on a boat, with your hard earned cash, when you could have easily helped change a homeless person's life? These are all good questions, but I don't think it is as relevant to abortion as you probably think it is. Me not helping a homeless person right now is not a violation of their rights---or is that what you are suggesting (essentially)?

But you are implying a zygote has some rights, but are not clarifying what they are... — Bob Ross

Yes. The question is loaded.

No one here is, I think, arguing that abortion be made compulsory.

Assuming that it is optional, the mother has every right, and no one would intervene, should she kill her offspring? Is it right or wrong to do so? Is it just? The answers to these questions ought to inform one’s position.

And the answer is "yes" while the "offspring" is a cyst.

Cool. We could even leave it at that. — Tom Storm

Legally speaking I agree.

This is probably a quesion of values. I don't particularly value such cells. An adult human being (Mrs Smith of the previous discussion) is in the world, interacting, making choices — Tom Storm

I prefer to discuss what things are and what they do before I discuss their value.

Basically in order to say “I value Mrs Smith to X degree” before you even value or compare her to anything, you have to say “Mrs Smith” and this requires some definition or we are not saying anything useful or able to make the best value judgment.

Newborns are barely different than a small fetus when it comes to making choices, awareness like a human adult, etc. I don’t see it to be consistent to say you value the fetus more after its birth. The fetus once born is as feckless as a lump of cells.

The values folks seem to already know the adult is the most valued and by the time you get to the zygote stage, you obviously have nothing at all that would be valued like the adult. But the phrase “zygote is obviously nothing like the adult” seems to be based only cursory, surface observation, and when this quick treatment is left as good enough for value judgments, it leads to what I see as inconsistent logic (who are all the humans) and inconsistent value judgments (why do we value infants like they are persons like Mrs Smith).

I get that not everyone is going to agree with me that the long chain of events that is a person’s life includes the moments they were conceived. — Fire Ologist

Why not before that? A zygote does not just come into existence on its own.

I am pro choice because abortion policy is a practical issue — Fire Ologist

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Some may view it as an ideological issue.

Why not before that? — praxis

There is no organism before conception. A sperm or an egg are specialized human cells, like a liver cell or any other special cell, but they are not organisms. They start something new. But that moment is the rub of the metaphysical question. Conception marks a change. Change reflects difference and becoming and motion. Doesn’t seem like an arbitrary line is drawn at conception to me but I’d love an argument. Conception is a new motion.

Some may view it as an ideological issue. — praxis

It’s an ethical issue, a biological issue, a metaphysical issue, a legal/public policy issue (and all the politicking and ideological virtue signaling that goes with that). By practical, I meant the legal public policy bit.