You don't seem to understand what essentialism is if that it your response to that particular use of the term "essential".

There must be an essence to essentialism in order to put a box around it and file it under the "false" category of judgment, or in order to just say "essentialism is". OR, non-essentially speaking, there must be a comparable difference between essentialism and something else (anything else, everything else) in order to point away from whatever essentialism is to some thing else. Otherwise, there is no significance to saying "essentialism" at all, and nothing has been said.

We need the differences in order to make any moves, both when crossing the room, or laying out a sentence.

Don't call the significance of these differences anything "essential" if you want. Instead, take the effort to have a conversation otherwise, but you haven't refuted the fact that there are persons in the world, independent of us all, who are distinct from grapefruit and soda, and that only by recognizing black and white clear differences can you say this, or make sentences that attempt to refute it.

There is a lot more to say before the above could really be recognized as an important part of the abortion playing board, but the prosecution will adjourn for lunch. — Fire Ologist

See language games and family resemblances, e.g. Wittgensetin's question "what is a game?"

Which one do you choose to carry to term, nurse, and care for into early adulthood? — NOS4A2

None, I don't want children.

What is the purpose of these bizarre questions? They do not appear to have anything to do with whether or not membership of a particular species grants a single-celled organism greater moral worth than membership of other species.

You’d allow her to attempt to carry a fly to term? — NOS4A2

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

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? — NOS4A2

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

ah so you are an essentialist, — Johnnie

No, I'm explicitly not an essentialist.

Humans are of the same moral worth as flies, ie. worthless. I mean, what can I say to that? — NOS4A2

Single-celled humans are of the same moral worth as single-celled flies, i.e. worthless. Don't fabricate strawmen.

Are you trying to get around to saying all single-cells organisms are of the same moral worth? — NOS4A2

I have explicitly said several times that all single-celled organisms are of the same moral worth (specifically, worthless).

Whereas you have continually avoided explaining why the single-celled organisms of one species has a greater moral worth than the single-celled organisms of another species.

It all depends on the species. — NOS4A2

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

It’s not the same species as us. — NOS4A2

So are you saying that it is only wrong kill an innocent 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?

Why do you think humans are as morally relevant as flies? — NOS4A2

I'm not saying they are. I'm asking you what it is about humans that makes us special.

In your view matter has identity? Like electrons have dispositions proper to them by which we can recognize they are electrons? — Johnnie

I did specify that it was "almost never the case" because I was specifically considering the fundamental particles of the Standard Model.

But reductionism wrt humans is far more controversial. — Johnnie

That's precisely the issue. One cannot reduce being human to a particular configuration of matter (e.g. the presence of 46 chromosomes containing specific DNA), and so asking for some "point" at which some material object "becomes" human is a foolish question.

It’s the only single-celled organism that develops into children and adult human beings. — NOS4A2

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?

Are human beings morally irrelevant? — NOS4A2

They are when they're single-celled zygotes. They're not when they're babies or children or adults.

I assume all those reading this popped into existence sometime. — Fire Ologist

You assume wrong. The world is a mess of ever-changing matter doing ever-changing things. This matter gradually coalesces into various forms and behaviours, and we pragmatically label easily distinguishable forms and behaviours, but it is almost never the case where something has some inherent identity that unambiguously starts at one instant and ends at another.

See for example the ship of Theseus, the Sorites paradox, twins, chimeras, and two Homo heidelbergensis (not) giving birth to a Homo sapiens.

You are persistently committing to essentialism which is a mistaken philosophy.

It's like asking for the difference between a human and a language user. On Earth it happens to be the case that humans are the only language users, but being human and being a language user do not mean the same thing. Something could be a language user but not be human (e.g. alien life, artificial life, or some future species that chimpanzees could evolve into), and something could be human but not be a language user (e.g. suffer from severe aphasia).

First you were talking about being human, now you're talking about being a person. These are not the same thing (e.g. intelligent aliens would be non-human persons). It would help if you were consistent with your terminology.

My issue is with the notion of being human. Humanity evolved from non-human life, but there was never some generation where two non-human parents birthed a human child. It's a gradual process from Homo heidelbergensis to Homo sapiens, with a large grey area in between where there is no non-arbitrary justification to call it a member of the one species or the other.

My other issue is that this is utterly irrelevant to the abortion debate. Membership of a species simply doesn't matter. The claim that it's acceptable to abort one baby because it's Homo heidelbergensis but not another because it's Homo sapiens is absurd.

As I keep saying, it can be unacceptable to kill something even if it's not human, and it can be acceptable to kill something even if it's human.

Whether or not it is wrong to kill something is determined by something other than its biological taxonomy. Consciousness, to me, is a morally relevant characteristic. At the very least I can say that it's morally acceptable to kill any organism that clearly has no consciousness, e.g. plants, bacteria, and so on (and assuming that doing so does not entail consequences that impact conscious organisms, such as the destruction of all plant life causing us to starve).

The degree to which an organism must be conscious for it to then be morally unacceptable to kill it is certainly a problem worth consideration, but at the very least we have accepted that the presence of some degree of consciousness is a necessary requirement, and zygotes lack this entirely.

“There is an independent material world” is itself an essentialist — Fire Ologist

That’s not essentialism. Essentialism is “the idea that things have an ‘essence’ or ‘form’ that defines their identity.”

For some things this makes sense, e.g. being a triangle, but for other things it doesn’t, e.g. being a game.

Whether or not some entity is a member of some biological taxonomy is of the latter kind, not the former.

So I still see you asserting facts, visual differences in an objective world no longer subject to debate or choices, that working eyes will see, must see, are clear… — Fire Ologist

Well, yes. I’m not a solipsist or an idealist. There is an independent material world, and two facts about that material world are that adults have heads and that zygotes are a single cell. Given the way objects reflect light, the way light stimulates the eyes, and the way the brain responds to the eyes, looking at an adult is going to cause a significantly different visual experience than looking at a zygote.

I honestly have no idea what it is you’re trying to argue here.

I don’t know what you mean by asking if we “must” see a difference. If we have working eyes then we will see a difference. If you cannot visually determine that a human has a head and that a zygote is a single cell then you are either blind or hallucinating.

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. — Fire Ologist

I don’t understand this either. If you can’t see a difference between these two photos then you should get your eyes checked.

Is that a choice? — Fire Ologist

Yes. Some say that one lone organ isn’t an organism, but that 5 of them (brain, heart, lungs, kidneys, and liver) working to keep each other alive are. That’s an arbitrary decision (even within science), not something that is a discoverable fact capable of verification or falsification by empirical investigation.

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

I don’t quite understand the question. We (or at least biologists) pretty much fully understand the genetics and morphology and physiology of both zygotes and adults (except for the relationship between the brain and consciousness).

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? — Fire Ologist

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

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

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.

What is the distinction between these two phrases? — Fire Ologist

"X is intelligent therefore X is human" is a non sequitur; something can be intelligent but not be human (e.g. an alien).

It is not the case that I am human because I am intelligent; it is only the case that I am human and I am intelligent.

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.

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 (most) humans have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence, and that it is wrong to kill things with a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence.

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

Zygotes don't have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence and so it is acceptable to kill them even if they're human.

Whether or not something is human is irrelevant. With respect to killing an organism, it is that organism's degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence that is morally relevant, not it's taxonomy.

That's not true of every single-celled organism because do not abort other single-celled organisms. — NOS4A2

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?

That's who you're killing. That's the victim. How is it morally irrelevant? — NOS4A2

That's true of every single-celled organism. I want you to explain what makes single-celled humans special.

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. — NOS4A2

And why is that morally relevant?

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. — Fire Ologist

That's where I disagree. I don't think the first question 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. We simply use the word "human" to refer to a group of similar organisms, but disagree on whether or not zygotes and embryos and foetuses are similar enough to us to warrant the use of the term "human" to refer to them. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer; it is a linguistic convention either way.

To better explain this, consider these three sentences:

1. It is wrong to kill X because X is an innocent human
2. It is wrong to kill X because X is an innocent frog
3. It is not wrong to kill X because X is an innocent frog

These are all non sequiturs. One cannot go from "X is a member of species Y" to "therefore it is wrong/not wrong to kill X". At the very least each of these needs some additional supporting premise, such as:

4. It is wrong to kill an innocent human
5. It is wrong to kill an innocent frog
6. It is not wrong to kill an innocent frog

But then each of these must be justified. We need some other additional supporting premise, such as:

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. When we determine what Y is we can then ask whether or not zygotes (or frogs, or some extra-terrestrial species) have/are Y.

For me, that Y concerns a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence, etc., and I can use this to judge the moral worth of other organisms, whether they be zygotes, frogs, Kryptonians, or whatever.

Is it not human? because you are forever trying to dismiss that term. — NOS4A2

I don't believe in essentialism. If you want to use the term "human" to refer to any organism – even single-celled organisms – with such-and-such DNA then you're welcome to, but this linguistic practice carries no moral relevance.

If this is all you mean by "human" then the claim "it is wrong to kill innocent humans" is the claim "it is wrong to kill innocent organisms with such-and-such DNA", and this second claim hasn't been justified. What is so special about this DNA?

If you were to argue that it is wrong to kill any innocent organism regardless of its DNA (and so regardless of its assigned taxonomy) then that would be one thing, but the fact that you keep talking about it being human and dehumanization shows that you think there's something special about our DNA, but you refuse to ever explain what or why this is.

You strip away mentally as many human qualities as possible — NOS4A2

What human qualities does a zygote have? It is 46 molecules of DNA wrapped in proteins contained within cytoplasm and a cell wall.

It strikes me that you keep equivocating on the term "human", where you want it to be both a term that just refers to any organism with certain genetic information and also a term that carries moral significance. The former does not entail the latter.

A human zygote isn’t a different thing than a human adult — Fire Ologist

It's not clear what you mean by this. A human zygote is a single-celled organism – 46 chromosomes surrounded by cytoplasm surrounded by a cell wall. A human adult is a multi-cellular organism with a brain and other organs, limbs, and capable of thinking and feeling. In terms of morphology and physiology, there are very real and very significant physical differences between a zygote and an adult. The only "similarity" is that the 46 chromosomes contained within the nucleus of a zygote contain roughly the same DNA as that contained within the cells of some human adult.

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?

If it's just about the DNA, then the second question is what matters most. DNA is just a bunch of chemicals. Why is a particular combination of chemicals morally significant?

Say there are two zygotes; one containing chromosomes with human DNA (and so is counted as a human zygote) and one containing chromosomes with frog DNA (and so is counted as a frog zygote). What is it about the former set of molecules that morally distinguishes it from the latter set of molecules?

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).

They all contain reasons why you accept her choice, not whether the act itself is right or wrong. — NOS4A2

Abortion isn't wrong because it's not wrong to kill single-celled organisms, regardless of what species biologists categorise these single-celled organisms to belong to, and regardless of what these single-celled organisms could grow into.

But I do want to hear the reasoning behind why think it is right to kill a human zygote. — NOS4A2

See my past posts. I ain't going to repeat them.

If it isn’t wrong then is it right to kill human in his early stages? — NOS4A2

If by "right" you mean "morally acceptable", then yes. Having an abortion is morally acceptable.

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.

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

Should she run over the apple or the orange? There is no right or wrong decision.

Your can’t say, can you? — NOS4A2

I have said, many times. It is acceptable to have an abortion and it is acceptable to not have an abortion. It is acceptable to have toast for breakfast and it is acceptable to not have toast for breakfast.

Your ethics leave the building on this one question, whether it is right or wrong for a mother to abort her offspring. — NOS4A2

You're not asking if it's right or wrong; you're asking if she should or if she shouldn't. This is a false dichotomy as I have explained very clearly.

You're presenting it as if only one of the choices is morally acceptable, when in fact both are.

The more appropriate comparison is:

There’s a trolly coming down the track, about to split in different directions. A woman stands at the lever and can choose where the trolly can go. Down one track lies an apple. On the other an orange. Which way should she send the trolly?

She may do whatever she wants. There is nothing she should do. Either choice is morally acceptable.

Ought she or ought she not abort her offspring? — NOS4A2

Neither. It's a false dichotomy. Is English not your first language? I'll try to teach you something:

1. She should have toast for breakfast tomorrow
2. She should not have toast for breakfast tomorrow

Both of these are false. Whether or not she will have toast for breakfast tomorrow is her free choice and either decision is morally acceptable.

So:

1. She should have an abortion
2. She should not have an abortion

Both of these are false. Whether or not she will have an abortion is her free choice and either decision is morally acceptable.

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? — NOS4A2

She neither should nor she shouldn't. She just may if she wants. What is so difficult to understand?