Is your position that a Zygote and an Adult Human are the same thing? — AmadeusD

This is a difficult question to answer in the context of a living organism.

So let me ask, is me today the same thing as me yesterday?

In some senses no. Too many atoms and cells and other things changed to use the word “same” naively. Heraclitus figured that out long ago and I don’t refute it.

But if we leave it at that, there is nothing left to talk about. How can we even compare me today with me yesterday, when even me today is in motion and not the same thing as me two minutes ago?

I don’t refute any of this. And if you look at a zygote and an adult it is much easier to see they are not the same thing.

But there is another sense to this question. If by “me today” I mean a living, growing, changing body having self-awareness and intelligence, then yes, despite all of the bodily motions, me today endured through all of the changes occurring to me yesterday.

So we need to define a “me” or an adult or a zygote and choose a sense in which the term “same thing” is being used.

Does that track?

If you can’t see a difference between these two photos then you should get your eyes checked. — Michael

Why not just answer the question then? My eyes and your eyes are now the context, you are saying we both, if our eyes are working, must see a difference between a zygote and an adult.

Correct?

So the answer is yes, there are biological facts we both have agree on; if our eyes are working, we will both see the same thing, namely, that a zygote and an adult are clearly different.

zygotes and adults — Michael

Do I have to see a difference between zygotes and adults in order to understand the significance of what you are saying? I think the answer has to be yes.

Essentialism is false. Whether we call zygotes, corpses, the brain dead. or babies born with anencephaly “human” is a choice, with no moral significance. — Michael

Damn. So ends the conversation.

There are organisms — Michael

Is that a choice?

Is there any physical/biological fact in this context we both have to accept?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!! — frank

Ha!

You implied — praxis

True. As I continue to be completely open I'll admit that I implied you may have been interested to know who you were talking to when the words "religion" and "spiritual" came to your mind and you bothered to put them in your post.

Do you think we are having a conversation? I think we are having some sort of job interview. I don't think you trust my answers for some reason. And I'm curious why but really would rather hear some sort of argument relating to abortion from you.

There are organisms, like me, that are self-aware, can feel pain, can want things, and so on. It is wrong to kill organisms like this.

Zygotes aren't self-aware, they can't feel pain, they can't want things. Nothing about them warrants moral consideration; they are just a tiny mixture of chemicals. It is acceptable to abort them if that is what the woman wishes. — Michael

Perfectly coherent position based on facts we can both observe for ourselves.

Good. I agree with all of this verbatim:

There are organisms, like me, that are self-aware, can feel pain, can want things, and so on.
Zygotes aren't self-aware, they can't feel pain, they can't want things. — Michael

You said it. I would say it. Exact same page.

So before I go back the positive route of positing what a human being is (because that would be essentialist of me), can I just ask, to go as broadly as possible, are you saying a human being is an organism with enough structure to feel pain, or to just feel or perceive anything, or do you need to be able to want things and be self-aware too?

A religious person might say that they’re pro-life because abortion policy is a spiritual issue. — praxis

That was the first time the word “religion” was used between us.

Contradiction contradicted. Again.

What’s your next really important issue in this debate discussion?

The reason it's wrong to kill me is because I'm intelligent, not because I'm human; it would be wrong to kill intelligent non-humans too. — Michael

I see what you are saying. You are focused on the “because” part of these statements. You don’t want to bother with some underlying subject/substance like “human being” and then attach conditions to that substance like “intelligence”. That would allow people like me to equate “it is wrong to kill human beings” with “it is wrong to intelligent beings” and these aren’t equivalent. And once essentialists make this equivocation we can subsume the “intelligence” as part of the essence and just talk about “human beings” as if the nuance “with intelligence” wasn’t the more material thing.

So can I assume there is some thing called “intelligent being” that we are talking about?

You are saying a human being is something that has/is a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence. Correct?
— Fire Ologist

No, I'm saying that humans do have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence, and that it is wrong to kill things with a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence. — Michael

That doesn't track for me. "has/is" has become "do have". And because of this you make a distinction between the phrases:
"a human being is something that has/is a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence"
and
"humans do have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence,"

What is the distinction between these two phrases?

Non-humans might also have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence, and so it would be wrong to kill them even though they're not human. — Michael

I agree with that but that obviously would be outside the general topic of abortion, which is a human practice.

Also, you mentioned that you’re religious. Why mention it if this has nothing to do with religion for you? Another contradiction. — praxis

You brought it up first, not me. I was just being open and honest and responding fully to you.

Where are you trying to go with the conversation? Still digging for subtext? Where is Praxis?

an innocent human has/is Y — Michael

Thank you for saying what you think and explaining it to add some content for us to talk about.

I am focused on the question: “what does any human being have/is?” (These are your terms, invoked by you to make your argument.)

7. It is wrong to kill an innocent human because an innocent human has/is Y
8. It is wrong to kill an innocent frog because an innocent frog has/is Y
9. It is not wrong to kill an innocent frog because an innocent frog doesn't have/isn't Y

Y is what matters. — Michael

Y is what matters most to me too. What a nominal "human" has/is is my question.

I don't think the first question [namely, what is a new human being] matters. I'm not an essentialist. There is no such thing as some necessary and sufficient set of conditions that must be satisfied for an organism to "count" as human. — Michael

I still think it does matter. I think you need to speak to it as well.

For me, that Y concerns a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence, etc. — Michael

You are saying a human being is something that has/is a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence. Correct? I'm sure there is more you would and could say, but you are saying at least this, correct? So for you, "it is wrong to kill an innocent human, because an innocent human has/is a degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence." Correct? Or do we need more premises, maybe about valuing consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence in the first place?

if you admitted to goofing around — praxis

Are you reading my whole posts? The time I’m putting in to try to answer your questions.

I admitted the phrase you took to GPT was confusing AND I cleared up my thoughts again. If you think there was any goofing around, are you still not understanding me?

what about all of the other things I said to you about what a zygote must be biologically and metaphysically speaking?
— Fire Ologist

You’ll have to describe your religious views — praxis

That came out of nowhere. You’ll have to describe how religious views have any bearing or relevance in conversation about when an animal first comes to exist.

This all has nothing to do with religion to me.

I’d rather you just lay out and explain your own view or we can keep circling around some point about me and what I must really think.

I’d trust you more if — praxis

Odd thing is, I couldn’t be more clear about exactly what my conclusions are. There is nothing left to hide.

Wish you would take your turn.

So what do you mean by saying that a human zygote is the same thing as an adult? And why is this sense of being the same thing morally relevant? — Michael

So first, I am treating these two questions completely separately. The first question is: when does a new thing that comes into being, have to be called a “human being”? When does something like you and me first begin to exist?

I have no interest yet in assigning value or moral relevance to whatever may be the answer. I’m treating a human being like a frog, as just any old organism, and asking when does an individual organism first come to be? At this point, there is nothing of moral value anywhere in the discussion, for me.

I think much, but not all, of the controversy on the moral (second) question is because of bad or no answer on this metaphysical/biological (first) question.

When we get to the moral question, I don’t intend to give equal moral relevance to anything other than a person. But for now, I just intend to lay out some definition of a person, and point to where on the timeline such a creature pops into existence.

Is that a conversation you want to have? The metaphysical/biological question of when any new type of life is new?

I get it that it looks contradictory The term “anti abortion-without-exception” is confusing, depending on where the hyphens go.

It’s a stupid term. There’s “anti-abortion, without exception” which is what chat GPT defined, and then there’s someone who is against (anti) unrestricted abortion for any reason (abortion without exception), which what I am.

Although I think I was very clear, in the interest of exchanging more discussion with you on my supporting arguments, I’ll try to clear up what my conclusions are as you’ve asked.

Public policy: Abortion should be legal to be conducted for any reason up to six months, and then after should be restricted to cases of necessity.

Personal reasoning on the issue: Since even a zygote is a human being, I would not ever recommend an abortion except in cases of necessity (ie, life of the mother).

So, given my public policy stance and private personal stance I say I’d basically leave the law so others can have room for different personal stances, but I am personally against abortion unless it is for a necessary reason. I called this anti abortion-without-exception (versus pro abortion-without-exception) and created the contradiction controversy. The better catch phrase might be anti-private right of abortion-without-exception. And because this phrase is open to some limited abortion rights, I, without contradiction, leave space for a public stance that is pro- public right of abortion with some limitation.

I hope that helps. Sorry about the confusion. There’s no contradiction there. It’s a fairly common bunch of conclusions.

Personally none of the above is really interesting, except to catch me in a contradiction, which is relevant because why should you continue speaking with someone who contradicts themselves.

But now that we’ve cleared that up, what about all of the other things I said to you about what a zygote must be biologically and metaphysically speaking?

some abortions are definitely not a sin — praxis

Oh you were wondering how I think that, because all abortion is the killing of a person, only some abortions might be sins. An easy example is an abortion to save the life of the mother. It’s not a sin in a crappy situation to do the best you can to save lives, and if the way to save any lives involves killing the fetal human, it’s not a sin or immoral to do so.

Ok, I mistook you to be skeptical of my motives. You were skeptical of my ability to make a coherent point. Fair enough.

Abortion without exception - means abortion any time for any reason.

I personally am against someone having an abortion for any reason they want. So personally, I am anti abortion without exception. This opinion only comes up when someone asks. It’s not a tee-shirt I hand out at rallies. I don’t go to rallies.

But I am fine letting people use their own reason to figure out their own choices about a lot of things. I don’t think we need nearly as many laws as we have. So practically, I’m pro private right of abortion with certain limitations (up to six months or something, then for life of the mother, etc).

Anything more metaphysical seem contradictory?

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. — AmadeusD

This is because it is hard to describe a living thing with a static word “thing”. We have to be precise and language, which fixes things, is trying to fix a living, changing organism. So it’s messy.

An adult organism is constantly changing too. So if we want to say an adult human Is a “thing”, and then say it constantly changes, tomorrow morning we have a new “thing” too according to you. Really, moment to moment everything changes.

So “thing” becomes a meaningless term. There are no things anywhere ever anymore.

But if we want to believe that, in the changing motion, there is some sort of temporary but for a time lasting component to reality, as in, a pregnant woman that can last nine or so months, we can integrate constant change with its permanent subject of that change.

Now when a sperm fertilizes an egg, we can say the constantly changing sperm is a thing that, once joined with the egg, ceases to be a thing, and the egg and sperm together start the motions and changes of a new thing.

I’m saying that the motions and changes of that new thing, the zygote, if left to play out, move on to fetal forms, infant form, adolescent and adult, and I’m saying this is the life of that one thing.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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).

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.

What about the possibility of consciousness acting in the role of a transitive agent impacting and changing the objects under its influence? — ucarr

But are we talking about the conscious experience qua representation, or are we talking about some kind of construct - presumably a material-symbolic artefact - that instantiates or incorporates this conscious experience? — Pantagruel

Interesting conversation.

I was thinking Kant right out of the gate so I appreciated when his name came up.

Is there a possibility that where this is headed is going to end up restating in QM terms what Kant clarified in the subject (consciousness) that is isolated from the thing in itself (wave, QM theories), due to the phenomenal veil (consciousness’s constructions)?

I think I’m wrong and not getting the nuances here yet.

How does this fit into your thoughts: there are two parts to consciousness. One is as the seat of perception, like a dog is conscious, a function of the brain, out there in the world, like any other thing in itself. The second part, for human beings, is consciousness of this consciousness. This is why we are so cut off from things in themselves. We see representational constructs of things in themselves in our consciousness - consciousness of the things we are conscious of, none of which are simply the thing.

This may just restate the problem really, but does your theory have any application on these terms, namely consciousness and self-consciousness (which is what I mean by consciousness of my consciousness)? Where does the transitive bridge fit in?

If I’m making any sense to you.

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

Appreciate your point of view.

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? Maybe they don’t want to kill babies or anything, they just think that to be consistent with their own valuation, infants are not as valuable as adults.

Confusing because you said that you’re pro-choice because abortion policy is a practical issue. — praxis

Pro-choice is a public moniker for what I would call Pro-abortion rights. Because we need to make public policy, and no one will ever agree on this, I choose the “pro-choice” public policy route with certain limitations.

A religious person might say that they’re pro-life because abortion policy is a spiritual issue. — praxis

And I’m religious. I’d say to them “ok, what does that mean with regards to when a new human being comes into being, and what is your argument for why abortion should be legal or not?” Soul talk is as arbitrary as the whole consciousness or mind or will talk. Arbitrary to me when it comes to what we can measure in a newborn, a toddler, a zygote.

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 agree. Everything is in a constant state of change. That either means that nothing comes to be as each is changed before it takes hold. Or things take hold and come to be for a short time before they are changed beyond recognition, or I’m wrong and there are some permanent, unchanging things.

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. The issue is perfect in this debate because the fetus has its own clear fixed boundaries, or else a doctor couldn’t identify it and remove it. What is that doctor doing besides motion and change like everything else? What is unlike anything else?

Where do you sit on euthanasia? — Tom Storm

Haven’t really thought about it much. It doesn’t really present any metaphysical questions, and ethics discussions are not worth the effort to me.

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.

Someone has an abortion, I’m fine with that being none of my business, and leaving the laws to capture that is fine with me too. 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.

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.

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).

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.

Post like what?

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.

So you have nothing else you want to address?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.