So if the intention of the argument is to prove that humans are animals, then that premise begs the question, as it already assumes that the human is an animal.

That’s not the intention. The intention is to prove that you are a human animal.

It calls that which is sitting in the chair a 'human animal', which is begging the fact that a human is an animal. That it is you or somebody else seems irrelevant. It isn't talking about the cat also sitting in that chair.

Souls aren’t human animals, brains aren’t human animals, consciousness isn’t a human animal, minds aren’t human animals, are they? It’s not a question whether humans are animals, but whether you are a human animal.

And I said, the argument begs the question.

I know what you wrote but I’m afraid it doesn’t beg the question. Nowhere in the first premise does it say you’re the human animal sitting in your chair.

I said, if the aim of the argument is to prove that humans are animals, then P1 already says it, so it begs the question. Begging the question is 'assuming what an argument sets out to prove'.

The aim is to prove that you are an animal, not that there is an animal sitting in your chair. I’m just curious if you disagree with any of those premises.

I don't know what that means. Give an example of something nonhuman that is numerically identical to an animal, and then something nonhuman that isn't.

A cat is numerically identical to an animal. A bottle isn’t.

I agree that the argument posted makes no sense to me and seems to beg exactly as you describe. I don't see an argument at all outside of this.

Which premise do you disagree with?

Which premise do you disagree with?

Some love being lied to, for whatever reason. Those who tasked themselves with informing Americans are pretending Trump said Cheney should be in front of a firing squad.

Trump says ‘war hawk’ Liz Cheney should be fired upon in escalation of violent rhetoric against his opponents

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/11/01/politics/donald-trump-liz-cheney-war-hawk-battle

Did he say she should be fired upon? Of course not. But Headline-readers have fallen for it, of course.

Swimming with neocons in anti-Trumpistan. You’re in good company!

It looks like the Whitehouse may have violated the law in order to save face.

White House altered record of Biden’s ‘garbage’ remarks despite stenographer concerns

WASHINGTON (AP) — White House press officials altered the official transcript of a call in which President Joe Biden appeared to take a swipe at supporters of Donald Trump, drawing objections from the federal workers who document such remarks for posterity, according to two U.S. government officials and an internal email obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

Trying to rewrite history and dupe posterity is the end result of their brand of political correctness, so it is no surprise.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-garbage-transcript-puerto-rico-trump-326e2f516a94a470a423011a946b6252

Allow her? I don't know why you're suggesting that I'm allowed to tell women what to do.

Ok, in the future men can get pregnant. You have the choice between two single-celled organisms, a human and a fly? Which one do you choose to carry to term, nurse, and care for into early adulthood?

I wouldn't choose, it's got nothing to do with me.

You’d allow her to attempt to carry a fly to term?

If a woman you knew wanted implant one of those single-celled organisms into her womb so as to incubate it, which one would you choose?

Humans are of the same moral worth as flies, ie. worthless. I mean, what can I say to that?

So what about a species determines whether or not it is wrong to kill its innocent members?

Are you trying to get around to saying all single-cells organisms are of the same moral worth?

So you are saying that it is only wrong kill an organism if that organism is the same species as us? Are you saying that it wouldn't be wrong to kill an innocent intelligent alien? Are you saying that it wouldn't be wrong for an intelligent alien to kill an innocent human?

It all depends on the species. Is the alien one that inserts eggs into the human abdomen, so that they rip out the chest as soon as they are old enough? Flies too can lay eggs in humans. So I kill them.

Why does it matter what the single-celled organism develops into? Why is it acceptable to kill a single-celled organism that develops into an adult fly but not acceptable to kill a single-celled organism that develops into an adult human?

It’s not the same species as us. Why do you think humans are as morally relevant as flies?

Trump capitalizes on Biden calling his supporters garbage.

Yes, indeed. Watching them debase themselves beneath his mere presence is a persistent joy, but their behavior indicates the beginnings of a reactionary movement the likes of which we have never seen. Hurt and wounded, but always confident, Anti-Trumpism will not give up power so easily.

We can, and do, kill non-human organisms, including single-celled organisms. You admit to killing flies. Is any of this wrong? If not, why are single-celled humans special? Physically they only differ from non-humans in their DNA and the manner in which they are created. So why is their DNA and manner of creation morally relevant?

It’s the only single-celled organism that develops into children and adult human beings. You were one, for instance. Are human beings morally irrelevant?

Note: a joke about Puerto Rico’s massive garbage problem is racist because now every anti-Trumpist can’t help but associate its people with trash.

That's not true of every single-celled organism because do not abort other single-celled organisms.

And why is that morally relevant?

That's who you're killing. That's the victim. How is it morally irrelevant?

You don’t believe in essentialism, yet insist that it is essentially just a single-celled organism, no different than any other single-celled organisms.

But this single-celled organism came about different than other single-cells organisms. The act and the beings who created it also make it human. Its creation, its development, its biology, its surroundings, and yes its DNA, make it a certain kind of single-celled organism.

All humans go through that phase in their development and are born of human parents. Is it not human? because you are forever trying to dismiss that term.

One can act on his principles and experiences. I don’t kill flies because they are flies but because I am at eternal war with them.

The abortion itself isn’t dehumanizing. Dehumanizing someone isn’t the act of killing, but of considering someone inhuman so as to make killing them easier. It’s a psychological and linguistic process. You strip away mentally as many human qualities as possible, question his humanity, so the homicide leaves a softer mark on the conscience. It’s why you cannot say what other species of life you are killing, despite questioning that he is human.

I’m completely against prohibition or forced births, and always was. But fairly recent advances in embryology and genetics makes it clear we’re ending an innocent human life. “Personhood” isn’t a coherent ground to stand on either, and the notion comes off as more superstitious than the transmigration of souls. So personally I cannot be dismissive of the victim and pretend abortion is some moral good to be celebrated.

My argument is that it is wrong to kill one’s offspring. My question about the psychology of humanization is about what it does to the one who behaves that way, how it hinders the conscience. because it has a clear psychological purpose. A fetus need not be aware of it.

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.

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

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

You’d just be repeating evasions anyways. They all contain reasons why you accept her choice, not whether the act itself is right or wrong.

I get that you accept her choice. You don’t need to restate your opinion on that matter. But I do want to hear the reasoning behind why think it is right to kill a human zygote.

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.

If it isn’t wrong then is it right to kill human in his early stages?

Except there is a human being on one track and no one on the next.

Right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or bad, correct or incorrect…these are the reasons informing why someone should or shouldn’t perform some behavior on another. The behavior in this instance is killing a living human, and the choice whether to do so or not lies with the moral agent.

You lack any insight on whether she should or shouldn’t pull the lever, or you think it doesn’t matter. I’ll reframe the question. Why is it morally acceptable for a mother to kill her offspring?

Of course she can do whatever she wants. But she has to choose to do something or not do something. What should she choose?

You can’t say, can you? Your ethics leave the building on this one question, whether it is right or wrong for a mother to abort her offspring.

It’s a normative question. Of course it isn’t true or false.

I’ll put it in a language you might understand. There’s a trolly coming down the track, about to split in different directions. A mother stands at the lever can can choose where the trolly can go. Down one track lies her offspring. On the other is nothing. Which way should she send the trolly?

I do understand, I’m just asking why you can’t answer the question when we all here have the capacity to discern whether or not someone else should perform some behavior or not perform some behavior. Ought she or ought she not abort her offspring?

It’s a simple question: should she kill her offspring? Should she abort or not? Why or why not? Why can’t you guys answer this?

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 concern isn’t so much the taxonomy but the flesh-and-blood entity that you are justifying killing. I don’t require categories to tell me when it is or isn’t appropriate to take a life, and I don’t need to dehumanize someone. Simple justice and dignity suffices to inform how it is appropriate to treat another living being.

So if it isn’t human life what kind of life would you suggest it is?

And there we have it. Mother’s should kill their offspring when they are cysts. At least we’re out with it.

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.