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). — Fire Ologist
Where do you sit on euthanasia? — Tom Storm
Notice I’m more interested in what people think a person is and what people think a new life is in the abortion discussion, but not so interested in talking about the moral implications. — Fire Ologist
But someone says a zygote isn’t an early moment in the one life of a human being, a person, and I’m interested in their reasoning. — Fire Ologist
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. — Fire Ologist
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. — Fire Ologist
But that's the thing. Categories are mental objects that can represent the world as it is only to a degree. Our categories tend to fall apart when we attempt to distinguish one thing from another with finer detail. Astronomers have the same problem in defining what it is to be a planet. This is why I am saying that there is a grey area. Your boundaries might not line up with others, and since there is no clear boundary, it is up to you, and you alone, to decide what you want to do with your boundaries. If you can't even clearly distinguish what it is to be a human in these grey areas, then your foundation for limiting what others can do in these grey areas is not as solid as you think.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. — NOS4A2
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)? — Bob Ross
Confusing because you said that you’re pro-choice because abortion policy is a practical issue. — praxis
A religious person might say that they’re pro-life because abortion policy is a spiritual issue. — praxis
As far as I can tell everything is in a constant state of change and motion at the molecular, cellular, terrestrial, and celestial levels. I think we mark beginning and ending basically in order to take action and achieve goals. — praxis
I'd be happy to say it is a 'potential person', a partial journey towards personhood, if you like and therefore (for me) not as valuable as a full person. — Tom Storm
But that's the thing. Categories are mental objects that can represent the world as it is only to a degree. Our categories tend to fall apart when we attempt to distinguish one thing from another with finer detail. Astronomers have the same problem in defining what it is to be a planet. This is why I am saying that there is a grey area. Your boundaries might not line up with others, and since there is no clear boundary, it is up to you, and you alone, to decide what you want to do with your boundaries. If you can't even clearly distinguish what it is to be a human in these grey areas, then your foundation for limiting what others can do in these grey areas is not as solid as you think.
Ought she or ought she not abort her offspring? — NOS4A2
Of course she can do whatever she wants. But she has to choose to do something or not do something. What should she choose? — NOS4A2
Your can’t say, can you? — NOS4A2
Your ethics leave the building on this one question, whether it is right or wrong for a mother to abort her offspring. — NOS4A2
If we say “abortion” we have to draw some lines and fix some boundaries. One of them is “human”. If, when it becomes difficult to fix that boundary I just say “everything changes anyway” I can’t say “human” anymore. — Fire Ologist
I’m religious. — Fire Ologist
I've already explained to you in past posts why it isn't wrong to kill a zygote or embryo or early stage foetus. I only interjected now to explain that you were misrepresenting @Banno. He is only saying that having an abortion is morally acceptable; he is not saying that women should have an abortion.
They all contain reasons why you accept her choice, not whether the act itself is right or wrong. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.