It isn’t. It does not have any means of reproducing, is not predisposed to functioning on its own, has no metabolism, etc. etc. etc. Given the diversity of life, "organism" is a tricky word to pin down, but an organ doesn't have a single quality of an organism. — NOS4A2

A placenta is no less alive than a zygote.

If twin A was the same individual as the zygote and if twin B was the same individual as the zygote then twin A was the same individual as twin B.

Twin A was the same individual as twin B.

Therefore twin A was the same individual as the zygote and/or twin B was the same individual as the zygote. — NOS4A2

"Was" and "is" do not mean the same thing. Each twin was a zygote. But your conclusion that the zygote "will be the same particular entity, a human being, from fertilization onward" is both invalid and false. It cannot be the same particular entity as both twins that develop from it.

On the other side there are chimeras, where two zygotes fuse into one. To say that the eventual baby is the same individual/entity as both the zygotes that precede it is as nonsense as saying that a zygote is the same individual/entity as the sperm and the ovum.

The human body contains 78 organs, but with only 5 considered "vital": brain, heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys.

So let's take organs away, keeping the rest of the body alive through artificial means. First the skeleton, then the skin, and then everything else until just the vital organs are left. Still human? Still the same individual?

Now let's remove the heart, lungs, liver, and/or kidneys (and again, keeping whatever is left alive through artificial means). Still human? Still the same individual? And to Count Timothy: would a living brain on its own count as an organism, or just an organ?

But what if rather than removing the heart, lungs, liver, and/or kidneys we remove the brain. Still human? Still the same individual?

I think there's certainly something special about the brain. Whereas removing other organs and keeping the remaining organs alive artificially doesn't count as killing the human/individual, removing the brain would. This is why I don't think it matters much if the foetus is killed before the brain has sufficiently developed.

One of these is not like the others; a placenta is an organ not an organism. A liver is likewise not an organism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So your definition of an organism is something like "two or more organs keeping each other alive" (although this doesn't account for single-celled organisms)?

A placenta is an organ of a living thing. — NOS4A2

And it is a living thing.

They were the same thing at an earlier stage in their development. It is no contradiction if C splits into A and B.

...

A used to be A, is my reasoning. It’s a continuum. A doesn’t switch identities at some arbitrary point. You’re the one positing B. — NOS4A2

If twin A is the same individual as the zygote and if twin B is the same individual as the zygote then twin A is the same individual as twin B.

Twin A is not the same individual as twin B.

Therefore twin A is not the same individual as the zygote and/or twin B is not the same individual as the zygote.

It just means that something is a proper whole with proper parts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why does a placenta not count as a "proper whole with proper parts"?

No lifeform is capable of sustaining itself in isolation, but obviously plants and animals are self-organizing and self-sustaining in ways that rocks, storm systems, stars, etc. are not. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, but let's take different forms of living organism; bacteria, grass, zygote, placenta, foetus. Which of these count as a "unity" and why only them?

Basically any living thing. — NOS4A2

A placenta is a living thing.

Sure it does. The facts indicate that they were both the same zygote. — NOS4A2

The zygote grew into them, but they are not the same thing, as proven by the fact that each twin is not the same thing as the other.

As it stands you're saying that A is the same individual as C, that B is the same individual as C, but that A is not the same individual as B. That's a contradiction.

And no human being was every a eukaryotic cell containing 24 distinct chromosomes? — NOS4A2

This is such an ambiguous question. Glass used to be sand, but sand isn't glass. Butterflies used to be caterpillars, but caterpillars aren't butterflies. My house used to be a pile of bricks, but that pile of bricks wasn't my house.

Your reasoning that "A used to be B, therefore A and B are the same individual" is fallacious. Identity doesn't work that way.

A placenta isn't a living organism. It's an organ. — NOS4A2

What do you think a living organism is?

But yes, an individual zygote can split into two individuals. It's why identical twins are identical, or mirror images of each other. In any case, both can trace their history and existence to the one zygote. — NOS4A2

Yes, but importantly each twin is not the same individual as the other and so they cannot both be the same individual as the zygote. Therefore either just one of them is the same individual as the zygote (which is special pleading) or neither is.

The fact that they can "trace their history and existence" to the zygote does not entail that they and the zygote are the same individual.

If not, then what is it? — NOS4A2

A eukaryotic cell containing (usually) 24 distinct chromosomes.

A member of a species has to be an organism, taken as a whole, of that species — Bob Ross

This is circular.

This is basic biology. It is a member of the human species if it that certain kind of animal: homo sapien. — Bob Ross

Well, I wouldn't say that homo sapiens are single-celled animals.

A placenta is an organ. A featus is not an organ. It has a substantial unity. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What is "substantial unity"? Why does it have moral relevance such that it's wrong to kill something with "substantial unity" (or at least some things; is it wrong to kill flies?) but not wrong to kill something without it?

and are capable of sustaining their own form — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that it can survive on its own? Because a (young) foetus certainly can't. If it were that simple we'd just remove them without killing them and put them in an incubator.

A human zygote can grow into multiple different living organisms; an embryo, a placenta, and even a second embryo and a second placenta in the case of twins. You treating the zygote as being the same individual as (one of) these later organisms is simply a choice with no physical basis, much like the ship of Theseus.

And it still hasn’t been explained why it is wrong to kill (some of?) these organisms. If you just want to argue that it’s wrong to kill any living organism then there’s less of a problem, but as you specify that it’s wrong to kill humans you need to explain what distinguishes a human from a non-human (and a human from a human organ) and what it is that humans have and that non-humans (and human organs) don’t have that entails that it is wrong to kill humans but not wrong to kill non-humans (or human organs).

As it stands it seems to be that your argument rests on equivocation, ambiguity, and non sequiturs; something like “it’s wrong to kill human children, human children are human, therefore it’s wrong to kill humans, zygotes are human, therefore it’s wrong to kill zygotes.”

Well, I suppose that’s what my first post above does. The (valid) formal logic is an improper translation of the English language sentence.

The argument in Banno’s post is a link to a logic tree diagram that shows you why it’s valid.

I’d say that the embryo and the placenta are each their own thing, albeit connected by the umbilical cord. I wouldn’t consider any of these three things to individually be “the human”, and nor would I consider all three of them to collectively be “the human”.

But we can even drop consideration of “the human” for the moment and just consider the embryo. A zygote develops into a blastocyst, and then some of its cells develop into a placenta and some into an embryo.

To say that the placenta is part of the embryo rather than that the embryo is part of the placenta is special pleading.

Those are independent claims, not a premise and a conclusion. I am simply explaining that "X was A, therefore A is X" is a non sequitur, offering an example to make it clearer.

I'll try to break it down even further for you:

(1) X was A, therefore A is X
(2) X was a zygote, therefore a zygote is X
(3) A human was a zygote, therefore a zygote is a human
(4) A placenta was a zygote, therefore a zygote is a placenta

In none of these does the conclusion follow from the premise. You have been asserting (3). It's an invalid argument, just as (1), (2), and (4) are invalid.

If you want to argue that a zygote is a human then you need something more than just "a human was a zygote" as a solitary premise.

These are two different arguments:

1. A placenta was a zygote, therefore a zygote isn't a human
2. That a human was a zygote does not entail that a zygote is a human

You accused me of arguing for (1), when in fact I am arguing for (2).

Your reasoning is "Parts of X were A, therefor A isn't X." — NOS4A2

Except that wasn't my reasoning. Read carefully what I wrote.

Placentas and hearts were zygotes? I don't follow. The fact zygotes develop human organs seems to me to suggest that they are human, not something else. — NOS4A2

Your reasoning is "X was A, therefore A is X". I am explaining that this reasoning is flawed.

That a placenta was a zygote does not entail that a zygote is a placenta.
That glass was sand does not entail that sand is glass.
That a human was a zygote does not entail that a zygote is a human.

All human being were zygotes. That is irrefutable. — NOS4A2

All placentas and hearts and lungs were zygotes. That does not entail that zygotes are placentas, hearts, and lungs. And so that all humans were zygotes does not entail that zygotes are humans.

I’m sure you can figure that out. But if you go watch one, or look in the mirror, you’ll notice they’re not placentas and hearts. — NOS4A2

Nor are they zygotes.

And what does it mean to be that kind of animal?

What on earth does that mean? And how is that creating opportunity for Black men? And if anything it sounds racist against Black men. Why is protecting cryptocurrency investments protecting Black men more unless you're saying they're more likely to fall for scams or whatnot? — Baden

It's just another soundbite. The slightly more in-depth account is:

More than 20% of Black Americans own or have owned cryptocurrency assets. Vice President Harris appreciates the ways in which new technologies can broaden access to banking and financial services. She will make sure owners of and investors in digital assets benefit from a regulatory framework so that Black men and others who participate in this market are protected.

So it's more like "I'll make cryptocurrency safer, black men use cryptocurrency, therefore I'll be helping black men."

forgivable loans so long as you have a certain skin-color — NOS4A2

Although if you read beyond the soundbite, it's "... to Black entrepreneurs and others who have historically faced barriers..."

Kamala introduces racist policies, forgivable loans so long as you have a certain skin-color. Media silent. — NOS4A2

Sexist too. What about black women?

I'm finding this hard to follow - is your claim that the argument is invalid? It isn't. — Banno

I think it's more addressing that these mean different things:

1. ¬(P→A)
2. P→¬A

And so these mean different things:
3. (¬G→¬(P→A)∧¬P)→G
4. (¬G→(P→¬A)∧¬P)→G

(3) is valid but (4) isn't.

Translating (1) and (2) into ordinary language introduces a problem, because we would translate (1) as "it is not the case that if I pray then it will be answered" and (2) as "if I pray then it will not be answered" which seem to mean the same thing, but (1) and (2) don't mean the same thing.

Trump sways and bops to music for 39 minutes in bizarre town hall episode

The town hall, moderated by South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem (R), began with questions from preselected attendees for the former president. Donald Trump offered meandering answers on how he would address housing affordability and help small businesses. But it took a sudden turn after two attendees required medical attention.

And so Trump, after jokingly asking the crowd whether “anybody else would like to faint,” took a different approach.

“Let’s not do any more questions. Let’s just listen to music. Let’s make it into a music. Who the hell wants to hear questions, right?” he said.

For 39 minutes, Trump swayed, bopped — sometimes stopping to speak — as he turned the event into almost a living-room listening session of his favorite songs from his self-curated rally playlist.

He played nine tracks. He danced. He shook hands with people onstage. He pointed to the crowd. Noem stood beside him, nodding with her hands clasped. Trump stayed in place onstage, slowly moving back and forth. He was done answering questions for the night.

Weird.

and is a member of the human species. — Bob Ross

What does it mean to be a member of the human species? Is the placenta a human being? It has human DNA, is a living organism, and develops from the blastocyst. Is the heart a human being?

If a blastocyst separates into twins, is that one human being becoming two? Was it already two human beings before the split? Are twins a single human being with two bodies?

Why would it even matter if it was a human being?

You seem to be talking about Hempel's dilemma? If the physical is defined just as whatever is explained by our current scientific theories then physicalism is false because our current scientific theories do not explain everything. If the physical is defined just as whatever is explained by some future scientific theory that does explain everything then physicalism is circular.

But then the same can be said of methodological naturalism. What does it mean to be natural or supernatural?

Think about how that focus on what the future holds bears on the disposition of a fetus. The human potential includes Einstein and Mozart. :grimace: — frank

And Hitler.

I don't think future potential is all that relevant. What matter is what the organism is now and what the parents want. Forcing a mother to carry to term and birth a child because the 1 day old zygote in her womb is a living organism with human DNA just ain't right.

I'm mostly addressing NOS4A2's reasoning. He argues that because a zygote/embryo/foetus is a living organism with a human genetic makeup then it is human and it is wrong to kill it, even if it is not conscious. The same reasoning would then entail that it is wrong to kill a baby born with anencephaly (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is viable).

I think that the conclusion is false, therefore the reasoning is false. The capacity to be conscious is morally relevant.

Viability is about the connection between the vascular system and the alveoli in the lungs. It's called the AC membrane (alveolar capillary). It starts approaching functionality around 22 weeks. — frank

It requires more than that. Those born with anencephaly, if still alive when born, don't last very long. As far as I can tell from reading that, they don't have issues with their vascular system or lungs; they're just missing a significant part of their brain, and because of that the wider body cannot function properly.

But let's assume that a human could be born and be viable even with anencephaly. Well, it's okay to kill it. It has no cognition, no consciousness, no capacity for pain or sense of the world. It's just a beating heart and pumping lungs wrapped in a skeleton, muscles, and skin.

If consciousness and viability happened to occur at the same time, that was coincdental. — Hanover

Also I'm not sure if it's coincidental. I suspect that a sufficient degree of consciousness is required for a human life to be viable, and as the brain is the most complex organ it stands to reason that everything else is likely to have already developed enough.

Well I'm not talking about the law? I'm only saying that something being a living organism with human DNA is insufficient grounds to conclude that it would be wrong to kill it. I think that consciousness is a morally relevant faculty, and so to determine whether or not it is acceptable to kill a foetus we must determine whether or not it has developed such a faculty to a sufficient degree. The literature seems to suggest that this is determined by the presence of thalamocortical connections, which occurs towards the end of the second trimester, and so I tentatively place the limit there.

I was getting my information from the emergence of consciousness: Science and ethics:

Consciousness cannot emerge before 24 gestational weeks when the thalamocortical connections from the sense organs are established. Thus the limit of legal abortion at 22-24 weeks in many countries makes sense.

The fetus is minimally conscious before that. I think you're looking for a higher level of consciousness. — frank

I'm just reading what the neuroscientists have written, e.g. here:

Functional MRI and electrophysiology studies suggest consciousness depends on large-scale thalamocortical and corticocortical interactions.

So no thalamocortical interactions, no consciousness.

The fetus has a brain-like structure at 3 weeks. I'll put you down for supporting abortion up to 2 weeks after conception. — frank

No, because it needs to be a sufficiently complex brain functioning in the appropriate manner, hence why the brain dead and those with anencephaly aren’t conscious.

As mentioned in an earlier comment to you, the evidence suggests that thalamocortical connectivity is required, which occurs ~24 weeks after conception, and so I support abortion up to around that point.

There’s around five pounds of single-celled organisms in the human body that few care enough about to even feed properly. — praxis

The human body contains 37.2 trillion cells. I guess that means that I am in fact 37.2 trillion conscious individuals.

So your view isn't scientific. You just hold to that folk wisdom. — frank

The scientific evidence supports the claim that consciousness requires a brain-like structure; it does not support the claim that grass is conscious.

I am no more going to use CBC as a reason to condemn abortion than I am going to use it as a reason to condemn mowing the lawn.

How would you show that this view is wrong? — frank

I wouldn’t. I’d dismiss it as nonsense, much like the theory that consciousness is some immaterial magic that arbitrarily attaches itself to random clumps of matter.

There's science that says that? — frank

Yes. Consciousness requires a sufficiently complex and functioning brain (and plausibly some other brain-like structure). A zygote is just a small collection of cells. It lacks the necessary physical stuff that allows for an organism to be conscious.

I don't think there's really a scientific dividing line when it comes to consciousness, owing in part to our lack of understanding of what it is and what's required for it. — frank

We know that adults are conscious and zygotes aren’t. We know that (in humans) a functioning brain is required. We have reason to believe that certain areas of the brain are more relevant than others.

We don’t need certainty or a single, unambiguous neurological process to make (accurate) moral judgements.

I think the reason it would feel wrong to kill a fetus over 24 weeks is that it could possibly survive outside the womb. — frank

Why is it wrong to kill something that could survive outside the womb?