Humans are single-celled for a few days at best. But no need to reiterate the position. — NOS4A2

I think the focus on the single cell is for the insult value. "Let me talk at you instead of with you. Zygotes aren't human and neither are you as far as I'm concerned.". It's not a strategy, it's just venting.

Dehumanization is the method. I’m curious what it does psychologically, as the behavior that commonly follows it is rarely moral.

Dehumanization is the method. I’m curious what it does psychologically, as the behavior that commonly follows it is rarely moral. — NOS4A2

Hitler liked the word "vermin."

Dehumanization is the method. I’m curious what it does psychologically — NOS4A2

Being dehumanized can cause significant psychological harm. Zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses often feel alienated, isolated, and humiliated, which can lead to anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. Chronic dehumanization, like in cases of systemic discrimination, can contribute to long-term mental health issues.

I think the focus on the single cell is for the insult value. — frank

It's addressing his position. In his own words, "we know that an individual human lifecycle begins at conception, since it cannot begin anywhere else, and any scalpel through the spine or intentional deprivation of essential nutrients after this point is to kill an individual human being."

If it isn't wrong to kill a single-celled zygote then either an individual human lifecycle begins after conception or it can sometimes be acceptable to kill (innocent) humans (e.g. when they are still single-celled zygotes).

It's addressing his position. — Michael

Fair enough. Others who used that terminology appeared to be reducing all abortion to zygote termination.

Being dehumanized can cause significant psychological harm. Zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses often feel alienated, isolated, and humiliated, which can lead to anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. Chronic dehumanization, like in cases of systemic discrimination, can contribute to long-term mental health issues.

I think it works to negate the conscience.

Oh, sorry, I assumed you cared about the victims of dehumanization. My mistake.

Btw, if pro-choice advocates don’t believe that human zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses are human what species do they think they are?

“Those who dehumanize others often experience moral disengagement, which allows them to justify harmful behaviors. This disengagement, while protective in some cases (e.g., soldiers in wartime), can desensitize people to violence and diminish empathy, affecting their relationships and broader social behaviors.”

If your theory is that legal abortion diminishes empathy and whatnot in society then maybe try to show how that could be the case.

What would you say to someone who basically agreed with you, but said they did not find newborns and infants as valuable as full persons? — Fire Ologist

I'd ask for and listen to their reasons.

Btw, if pro-choice advocates don’t believe that human zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses are human what species do they think they are? — praxis

I don't think anyone worth speaking to could deny this. Yet, Banno's flimsy point beats it.

No reasonable person could read all three beings as morally hte same, without doing some loop-de-loops which rest on embarrassment, basically.

If, when it becomes difficult to fix that boundary I just say “everything changes anyway” I can’t say “human” anymore.
— Fire Ologist

Sure you can. — praxis

I don't agree. In order to have one conversation, like we are doing, something has to be fixed between us that is not subject to only my goals or your goals, or else we could never speak. Maybe we never actually communicate. I disagree with that. I see communication as a product of the fixed and the changing, not just the changing. So if either one of us says "abortion" and wants to communicate about this with the other, we must come to some agreement regarding something objective, something fixed, that we each separately agree on. For example, if we each agree "abortion is terminating a pregnancy", neither is free to identify "abortion" as anything less than that. When saying "abortion" we must say "pregnancy" and "termination" or there is no conversation possible. There may be more to an abortion, or maybe not. Or we could both be wrong. But while we seek to communicate with each other about abortion, and while we agree 'abortion terminates a pregnancy' we take that to be an objective fact, fixed in the world we are discussing. Your goals and values, and my goals and values, are no longer up for debate or even relevant on the now agreed fact "abortion terminates a pregnancy" - our values may tell us why we concluded "abortion terminates a pregnancy" but once concluded and posited in a conversation, we move nowhere unless we both hold that fact out as a fact, a fixed objective ground for the next statement (the next motion in the conversation). Now let's say I say "a fetal human being is an early stage adult human being, so a terminated pregnancy means a fetal human being has died" and you say "a terminated pregnancy does not terminate a human being, because a fetus isn't a human being", so we disagree. While we may now discuss what a human is, neither of us can base this further discussion on any other definition of abortion besides "abortion terminates a pregnancy" because that must remain fixed or we get nowhere, and we cannot communicate, and we've said nothing with any meaning or use or purpose. (This doesn't mean definitions like "abortion terminates a pregnancy" aren't revisable, just that we don't get to revise definitions all by ourselves and think we are having a conversation.)

While I understand that my values and my perception abilities and my biases and the structure of consciousness all mediate between me and anything else, and I understand that everything is in motion, there is nothing left to say about anything unless it is also the case that when we speak at all, we can only do our best at fixing permanent unchanging objects buried in all of this change. That's what speaking is, what it does. That's what reason is, what it does. We construct our lines to see if they can withstand all the changing motions. If the lines I construct can only exist for me, (such as what I value might), then there can be no communication or point to a having a conversation.

Basically, if valuation is the base act of human cognition, and every object I consider is only made of my values and nothing at all outside of those values, there is no point to speaking because there is either nothing outside of my values to speak of, and/or we would never be able to actually agree on anything ever (as I would have nothing to point to when I said 'I see what you mean').

Essentialism is only half the story. It's the story part; it's the identity of an individuated thing part. Motion is what the story is about. Existence and essence feed into each other, cause each other so to speak.
We don't get to avoid defining when a new human being comes into being if we want to say "human", and think we are advancing any communication or conversation about "abortion."

I’m religious.
— Fire Ologist

Don’t you think this influences how you identify things? — praxis

Not when I'm trying to identify where the car keys are. Religious views need not cloud everything. I'm not trying to determine whether an abortion is a sin or not. In fact I think some abortions might be sins, and some definitely are not. But someone else's sin, like some other woman's pregnancy, is none of my business. I'm not relying on the term "soul" or "God" in anything I'm saying. I'm trying to avoid even "right" or "wrong" as the moral/ethical/social aspects of this are to me, just a total mess of a conversation. I'm just trying say what an abortion is, like what a car is, or what keys are. So, no, not in this conversation.

But how far would you go to saving a zygote?

Just like the question “how far would you go to save an adult?”, it is so nuanced I am not sure where to begin on that one. Let me address the other things you said and we can see if you want to dive in deeper.

I can envision myself maybe running into a burning building to save a person trapped there, but a petri dish or a test tube?

1. No one, per se, is obligated to save a person trapped in a burning building.
2. Some people are obligated, because of their duties (e.g., a firefighter, a father, a mother, etc.).
3. A person who is not obligated to save the person that is trapped, may legitimately decide to save an adult but not a baby; a baby but not an adult; a zygote but not a baby; a baby but not a zygote; an adult but not super old adults; etc. They are not obligated to do it, so there’s nothing immoral happening if they choose not to or choose based off of morally relevant, but not obligatory, reasons.
4. You are right to note that it is morally relevant that a zygote in a petri dish is significantly different than an adult in a burning building but this is only relevant in the case that saving them is not obligatory; and does not deny that they are persons (in the pre-modern sense) or non-persons which will develop into persons (in the modern sense).

Would you put yourself at risk to save a zygote?

If you are asking about me personally, I would not run in an incredibly on-fire house to save a stranger—no matter if they are a zygote or a child. I have no obligation to do so, because they are not related to me (as family nor as a close friend or acquaintance) and I have not assumed the role of a member of society that would (like a firefighter), and I find it not worth it.

Now, if you are wondering if I see the obvious morally relevant differences between the zygote in the petri dish and, e.g., a baby in the case that I have to save one of them (and only one) (without using one as a means towards saving the other), then, yes, I would save the baby.

All of these scenarios I give are to show we value actual persons infinitely more than one-celled organisms

You are sort of correct: we do find morally relevant differences between people in moral dilemmas (e.g., being super old vs. young, having rich vs. poor conscious experience, etc.) but, what you are missing is, that doesn’t apply to rights. This is why @Banno keeps avoiding my questions on rights, because they know that the zygote has a right to life and that the morally relevant differences between them and, e.g., an adult for purposes of certain dilemmas do not apply here because one can never violate a person’s rights for a good end or to produce a good effect.

E.g., I may, and certainly will, admit that there is a morally relevant difference between a really old vs. young person such that if I have to save a 90-year old vs. a teenager where each is in a separate, burning building; then I am going to save the teenager. However, this does not admit that the 90-year old doesn’t have a right to life; nor that I could, e.g., murder them to harvest their organs to save a teenager from an illness. Do you see the difference between these two examples? This is why this is false:

and I think obvious conclusions can be drawn from that regarding the abortion debate.

All that is relevant for your view, if I dare say, is that what you call “non-actual persons” are not persons and so they do not have rights.

The funny thing is that NOS's and Frank's point underscores that human zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses are not fully human in that there's no concern of them being psychologically harmed by being considered mere human zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses.

No reasonable person could read all three beings as morally hte same, without doing some loop-de-loops which rest on embarrassment, basically. — AmadeusD

Doesn't this perhaps go to the point made by @Banno earlier that religion or essentialism are influencing such views?

What's your view on the OP? I've lost your position in all of these 35 pages.

I'm trying to avoid even "right" or "wrong" as the moral/ethical/social aspects of this are to me, just a total mess of a conversation. I'm just trying say what an abortion is, like what a car is, or what keys are. — Fire Ologist

Are you a progressive Christian? Is that the right term?

My question would be this: an acorn is a potential oak tree. We wouldn't identity the acorn as an oak tree, though. Destroying an acorn is not equivalent to destroying an oak tree. Do you see humans as differing from this?

For my part the focus on blastocysts shows the absurdity of claiming equality between two things that are so different.

I'm not trying to determine whether an abortion is a sin or not. In fact I think some abortions might be sins, and some definitely are not. — Fire Ologist

:snicker:

For my part the focus on blastocysts shows the absurdity of claiming equality between two things that are so different. — Banno

Ok. I think you might not realize that there are 8 US states that have no restrictions on abortion at any stage. It's legal to abort a fetus that could easily live outside the womb in those areas. That's part of the story of abortion in the US. I think it would probably make you ill to witness that kind of abortion. It would me. So here, it's really not limited to a story about blastocysts.

So there could be reasons to value the life of an adult more than the life of a baby?

Are values so subjective, that you could see someone make a policy that you can kill babies? China had that policy for years.

I’ll put it this way. Others on this thread have said that if I think a fetal human has as much value as an adult human, my values must be off. Would someone who says you can kill babies but you can’t kill adults because adults are more valuable have a problem with their values? Or do you think values are totally up to each individual (so no one’s values can actually be off as there is no objective measuring stick anyway).

So there could be reasons to value the life of an adult more than the life of a baby? — Fire Ologist

Could be. I don't know all the potential ideas/scenarios which might exist. I have certainly heard that amongst Aboriginal peoples in my country, infanticide was sometimes practiced because food was't plentiful enough to sustain babies and the adults of the tribe. But one can imagine some funky scenarios - war, crisis, famine, etc, where a baby might be assessed as being of less value than an adult. Overall situations are more significant to me than categorical imperatives.

You don’t want to trust me. You don’t believe me or think I don’t have my own mind. I’m just a religious zealot (even though I don’t sound like one or ever raised the issue and I as just honestly responding to you).

Come on bro, let’s get back to the topic.

Isn’t whatever your agenda is a reason for me to doubt everything you say as well? Should I focus the conversation on what you REALLY think instead of what you are saying?

Should I focus the conversation on what you REALLY think instead of what you are saying? — Fire Ologist

You already are...

You don’t want to trust me. You don’t believe me or think I don’t have my own mind. I’m just a religious zealot (even though I don’t sound like one or ever raised the issue and I as just honestly responding to you). — Fire Ologist

Some of the things you say are glaringly contradictory.

Doesn't this perhaps go to the point made by Banno earlier that religion or essentialism are influencing such views? — Tom Storm

The preceding line attests to my assent :P This is me using Banno's point in a way I think is slightly less pedantic, and more effective (to me, personally, anyhow).

I am pro-choice on the grounds that I care about women, I don't care about fetuses other than in respect of the woman carrying it (..any given..). Fetuses, on my view, cannot suffer in a way remotely morally relevant.

My question would be this: an acorn is a potential oak tree. We wouldn't identity the acorn as an oak tree, though. Destroying an acorn is not equivalent to destroying an oak tree. Do you see humans as differing from this? — frank

I’ve been dying to raise the oak tree, so thank you for doing that! This, to me, is the real conversation. What is a life, and what is a human life? Without having this conversation you aren’t really talking about abortion. We must discuss new life and coming to be to discuss whether killing a fetal human is like killing an adult human in any way.

So here is how I lay it out in the context of an oak tree.

First we need to understand “tree”. There are Maples and Ashes as well as Oaks. So to clarify tree, a tree is an organism with a trunk, branches and leaves.

Next we clarify “oak”. This has to do with an organism’s DNA. An oak is different than a maple as distinguished by their DNA.

Now, to discuss the “acorn” I need another word. “Plant”.

An acorn is planted in the ground and begins to grow. It breaks the surface of the ground and grows into a sapling, later into a tree. At all stages, this was a plant, a unique, individuated organism. What type of organism or plant is this - it’s an Oak. Acorn planted in the ground and growing, sapling and tree are all what an Oak is.

Same for human beings. A human zygote isn’t a different thing than a human adult - it’s what a human being is when it is first conceived like the adult is what a human being is when it is grown.

Got ya. Thanks for clarifying.

I would appreciate you giving me the biggest contradiction, particularly with regard to the essentialist/change part of the discussion. I am happy to challenge my own ideas. What’s a good glaring one that might matter to discuss?

Overall situations are more significant to me than categorical imperatives. — Tom Storm

I think you nailed the competing interests here. Some are focused on more specific scenarios and situations, and me, I am focused on anything universal that might be gleaned from it.

A human zygote isn’t a different thing than a human adult - it’s what a human being is when it is first conceived like the adult is what a human being is when it is grown. — Fire Ologist

I would posit this as the most important, clear, contradiction in your thinking.

If they are not 'different thing's then they cannot be alternate states of 'one another', let's say. They would be the same thing. There is a difference, which you acknowledge here.

think you nailed the competing interests here. Some are focused on more specific scenarios and situations, and me, I am focused on anything universal that might be gleaned from it. — Fire Ologist

Yes, this is interesting. Our values and interests are direct reflections of our dispositions. I'm not drawn towards totalizing principles or universal notions or even consistency in many cases.

I think the fact the reason of many represents abortions to be morally permissible is itself evidence that the fetus is not a person while it is inside the woman. For it would obviously be immoral to have an abortion otherwise. The rights of the woman do not trump those of the innocent person inside of her. That's as confused as thinking that if you invite someone into your home, then you can subsequently treat the invited guest as if they're an intruder and shoot them. No you can't - you invited them in! You have responsibilities to them now.

Yet even those who are anti-abortion don't seem to think that a person who has an abortion should be treated in the same way as we would someone who invited an innocent person into their home and then shot them. So, what our reason tells us about the morality of abortions does not tally with them being the killing of a person.

Why isn't that evidence that fetuses are not persons? I think it may be.