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.

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. — Fire Ologist

Sure you can. The point is only that we may identify things based on our goals. For instance, if our goals are pragmatic in nature we may identify something one way and if our goals are spiritual in nature we may identify them a different way.

A cup can be an instrument for drinking or a sacred object and we would treat it differently based on our vision of it. The secular cup is useless for attaining spiritual goals and the sacred cup is useless for attaining practical goals (if sacrilegious to use it that way).

I’m religious. — Fire Ologist

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

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. — Fire Ologist

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.

Many see beginning and endings as conventionally true but ultimately like illusions. I tend to see it that way though I recognize how very limited my perspective is.

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. — Fire Ologist

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

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

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. — Fire Ologist

Why not before that? A zygote does not just come into existence on its own.

I am pro choice because abortion policy is a practical issue — Fire Ologist

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Some may view it as an ideological issue.

It's not at all clear what their position is. — Banno

Supporting choice up to six months doesn’t exactly scream “anti-abortion-without-exception,” but maybe they are being sincere.

How do you explain preferring choice up to six months to keep the state out of it but actually being anti-abortion-without-exception?

Yes. To keep the state out of it.

…

I’m actually anti-abortion-without-exception — Fire Ologist

FYI: people who post like this seem to get banned quickly.

Your position is clear: pro-choice (up to six months).

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. — Fire Ologist

It feels wrong, if that’s what you’re getting at. Do you want everyone to agree with you that it feels wrong?

What is the organism in the fetal stage that lives inside a pregnant adult human being? — Fire Ologist

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. — Fire Ologist

I'd rather abortion up to around six or so months remain legal. — Fire Ologist

You agree with Banno for zygotes. Why?

…being a eudaimon…

That’s an interesting choice of words. Eudaimon translates to "having a good attendant or indwelling spirit".

I could not have been clearer and you seem to largely ignore what I wrote so I have nowhere to go from here.

It’s been an interesting and fruitful discussion for me. :sparkle:

We give people liberties because it is pragmatically the best thing to do; and not because it is ideally the best. See what I mean? — Bob Ross

Yes, exactly.

It seems your version of Neo-Aristotelianism is somehow grounded in idealism rather than practical living and achieving eudaimonia (human flourishing).

What you are describing is a secular view, which removes ethics from politics, as a pragmatic means of allowing people to flourish the best; and I agree with it other than that it doesn't actually completely remove ethics (even though it purports to). — Bob Ross

The bottom line is that if a Neo-Aristotelian truly values human flourishing they will value choice because:

• The ultimate goal is human flourishing and not some heavenly reward or escape from samsara.
  
• Democracy is the best form of government for the people (and not just the elite) to flourishing.
  
• Democratic societies tend to choose choice.

Secondly, the state is in charge of providing, pragmatically, an adequate basis for human flourishing; but there are limitations, and I would say that the individual should be endowed with a certain level of responsibility to figure out how to flourish themselves. I don't think societies that try to give the government full control to legislate morality end up doing to hot: that's why, pragmatically, in terms of applied ethics, I would lean towards giving the individually as much power to make decisions about themselves; instead of entrusting that to the government. However, the laws which are put in place by the state are there to help with incentivizing the human good and barring immoral acts that are severe enough (e.g., marriage, rights, murder, rape, etc.). — Bob Ross

In a representative democracy, legislators are elected to act on behalf of their constituents. Although this system isn’t perfect and representation can feel indirect, the will of the people generally prevails. From my perspective, democracy remains the best framework for enabling the people to flourish. I recognize that you may view this differently, but as we’ve discussed, in the U.S., the prevailing sentiment is a love of freedom and choice. The minority who dissent often base their views on faith: faith in the immortal soul, in God, and, ultimately, in what other mortals convey to them.

Your Neo-Aristotelian schema doesn’t seem to align with any part of this system.

"Generally speaking, people seek abortion because they’re not prepared to be caregivers. They reason that they, and a child, are not in a position to flourish."
-– praxis

By “flourishing”, what we really mean is eudaimonia (viz., to be a eudaimon) and this is just to say that one is living well by fulfilling their Telos. To allow people to live well (in this sense), we have to respect them as persons: we cannot kill them simply because we don’t believe we can take care of them. Not only is it simply not true in the western, developed world (as there are plenty of pro-life institutions which will provide for the child) but also, even if it were true, you cannot violate someone’s rights: rights are inherently deontological. — Bob Ross

So you believe that the state knows better than individuals whether or not they're in a position to flourish (achieve eudaimonia if you prefer) with a child?

The right to life of the zygote is in direct conflict with the right to bodily autonomy of the mother; and my point is that the ends do not justify the means, so the mother cannot abort the child as a means towards the good end of upholding their bodily autonomy. — Bob Ross

It’s not just bodily autonomy that’s at stake. If I’m not mistaken, the ultimate goal of Neo-Aristotelianism is human flourishing. There doesn’t seem to be a good argument that making abortion illegal will somehow ameliorate human flourishing in general or for the individuals involved in particular cases. Generally speaking, people seek abortion because they’re not prepared to be caregivers. They reason that they, and a child, are not in a position to flourish.

You have not provided why it would be, e.g., wrong to never sacrifice an ant to save a person other than an intuition you have; which is not sufficient to disprove it. — Bob Ross

If I understand your position at all, basically because a person has a “rational will” and an ant does not.

If abortion contravenes the telos of a zygote, making abortion illegal also contravenes the telos, rational will, or flourishing of the mother and others involved.

Because I must, in order to be a morally good agent, respect a thing relative to its nature; and in order to respect a fellow will, like mine, I must treat them as an end in themselves and never a mere means. — Bob Ross

I don’t know what you mean by a means to an end. Does anyone deliberately get pregnant and have an abortion as a means to some end?

Anyway, sure, we value what is like ourselves. That makes sense.

Making abortion illegal dramatically infringes on the will of mother and others involved. Wouldn’t a good moral agent respect the will of a pregnant woman?

Ethics doesn’t care what you feel: it cares about what moral reasons you have. — Bob Ross

Feelings have a nasty habit of influencing our moral reasoning.

Abortion is always immoral… — Bob Ross

Neo-Aristoelianism doesn’t appear to take a firm position on the issue, not being based on moral universalism or divine command. It seems within the sphere of virtue ethics that arguments could be made for legal abortion supporting human flourishing better than making it illegal. It's not like there are no negative consequences of making abortion illegal.

By the way, what is the reasoning for placing high moral value on "rational will."

Technically, neo-aristotelian. The part I was discussing was Aristotelian in nature; but you pointed out some other point that Aristotle made, assuming you are right, about souls. I am not sure he actually believed that, and don't want to re-comb through all his literature to find out. — Bob Ross

So your view follows Neo-Aristoelianism in believing that abortion is wrong because it interrupts the natural potential of the fetus to become a virtuous, rational human being, which contravenes its telos and human flourishing.

I feel that it's wrong also, though I'm not anti-abortion. Are you anti-abortion or would you support making it legal up to, say, thirteen weeks (when over 90% are performed)?

Yeah, I don't buy that (sorry Aristotle). — Bob Ross

Though your objection to abortion is based in Aristotelianism?

The result is that the foam at their mouths get frothier while no one else really cares until they do something stupid, like assassinate a candidate. — NOS4A2

By they I assume you mean Soros funded radical left transgender cannibals.

I think that evolution and biology are the groundings for Teleology: I don't think that there needs to be an agent that designed it for there to be design. — Bob Ross

Or for there to be a soul. Aristotle believed a fetus in early gestation has the soul of a vegetable, then of an animal, and only later became "animated" with a human soul by "ensoulment". For him, ensoulment occurred 40 days after conception for male fetuses and 90 days after conception for female.

their Telos dictates that they will develop rational capacities — Bob Ross

Would you say that ‘DNA’ could replace “Telos” in this sentence?

What??? — Bob Ross

In writing about personhood you contrasted us with other species, saying that we possess a "rational Telos" that other species lack, and this rational telos is what grounds human zygotic right to life. Are you suggesting that rational telos is somehow virtuous, or maybe suggesting that human zygotes should have the right to life simply because they’re like you (instinctually valuing what is like you)?

Traditionally, a rational will; i.e., a sufficiently free will. That is a serious and impactful difference between humans and other species: most, if not all, other species lack the capacity to go against their own nature and inclinations such that they are motivated by pure reason.

Traditionally, a being which has a Telos such that it will have, if not already has, a rational will are called persons (because their nature marks them out to be such); and their will must be respected.

More technically, a being which has a such a "rational Telos" is not necessarily a person but, rather, will be; and their nature marks them out as such; and this is what grounds their rights (and not whether or not they currently are a person). — Bob Ross

Strangely, you seem to be saying that the nature (capacity for reason and abstract goals) which allows abortion is what grounds the right to not be aborted.

You are making it sound like both republicans and democrats see eye-to-eye on abortion.... — Bob Ross

No, I’m simply pointing out the fact that abortion has been on the ballot in seven states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and in each instance, in red states and blue states, anti-abortion advocates have lost. And again, many more states will vote on the issue next month.

I don't think that is true at all. Red states are predominantly conservative; and conservatives are not pro-choice. — Bob Ross

It’s true, and it’s something that you can easily verify for yourself.

When the right to abortion is on the ballot, it wins. It wins in red states that voted for President Donald Trump. It wins in counties President Joe Biden lost by more than 20 points. It wins when popular Republican officials campaign for it and when they ignore it. And it wins even when the outcome has no immediate effect on abortion access.
— Politico

Many more states will vote on it next month. Some Republican lead legislatures in red states prevent it from being on the ballot. Why? See above.

There have been votes; and red states vote no; and blue states vote yes. There is no consensus. — Bob Ross

Without checking, from what I recall this is not true. Since the Dobbs decision, when there’s a vote on the ballot in red states it goes pro-choice. Legislatures in red states don’t always allow the issue to be voted on, however.

The point is not whether or not one can tell if it is a human being — Bob Ross

I think we should be able to tell if something is a human being if we’re calling it a human being.

It is really weird, to me, to say that it is not a new member of the human species. — Bob Ross

This is an image of in vitro fertilization. It may be before or after fertilization. You can't tell if it's a new member of the human species, can you?

A few chapters into Moby Dick by Herman Melville.

Such beautifully rich writing. Surprising to learn that his work wasn't well received while he was alive.

We actually do see stress responses in fetuses around 18 months — frank

Shouldn't you guys check a bit sooner?

Per CBC theory, cells are conscious in that they have awareness of their environments. How would you show that this view is wrong? — frank

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

Beautiful work.

If it bleeds it leads. — ucarr

I asked Chatgpt for another list of fun and interesting historical events:

Preservation of Knowledge by Monastic Orders (Medieval Europe)

• Time Period: 6th–13th centuries
• Religion: Christianity
• Benefit: During the Dark Ages, Christian monasteries in Europe played a crucial role in preserving knowledge. Monks copied and safeguarded classical texts, including works of philosophy, literature, and science, ensuring their survival through the collapse of the Roman Empire and into the Renaissance.

Islamic Golden Age (8th–14th centuries)

• Time Period: 8th–14th centuries
• Religion: Islam
• Benefit: The Islamic Golden Age was a period of flourishing arts, science, medicine, and philosophy. Scholars like Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd) made groundbreaking contributions to medicine, mathematics, and philosophy, preserving and expanding upon ancient Greek and Roman knowledge.

The Abolition of Slavery in the British Empire (1833)

• Time Period: 19th century
• Religion: Christianity (Evangelicalism)
• Benefit: Christian abolitionists, including figures like William Wilberforce, were instrumental in the campaign to abolish slavery. Their efforts culminated in the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, driven by moral convictions grounded in religious beliefs about human dignity and equality.

The Role of Buddhism in the Spread of Non-Violence (3rd century BCE onward)

• Time Period: 3rd century BCE onward
• Religion: Buddhism
• Benefit: Emperor Ashoka of India converted to Buddhism after witnessing the horrors of war, leading him to adopt non-violence (ahimsa) and promote tolerance, peace, and respect for all life. His reign was marked by ethical governance and the spread of compassionate values across Asia.

Quakers' Contribution to Social Reforms (17th–19th centuries)

• Time Period: 17th–19th centuries
• Religion: Christianity (Quakerism)
• Benefit: Quakers, or the Religious Society of Friends, were instrumental in many social reform movements. They advocated for prison reform, the abolition of slavery, and women's rights, motivated by their belief in equality and peace.

Gandhi’s Use of Religion in India’s Independence Movement (20th century)

• Time Period: Early 20th century
• Religion: Hinduism (with influences from Christianity and Jainism)
• Benefit: Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent resistance (Satyagraha) was deeply rooted in Hindu, Christian, and Jain principles of non-violence. His leadership played a key role in mobilizing millions for India's peaceful struggle for independence from British rule.

The Civil Rights Movement in the United States (1950s–1960s)

• Time Period: 1950s–1960s
• Religion: Christianity
• Benefit: Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. drew heavily from Christian teachings of justice, equality, and love for one’s neighbor. King’s non-violent approach to combating racial segregation and inequality was inspired by his Christian beliefs, helping to galvanize the movement and pass civil rights legislation.

The Role of the Catholic Church in Mediating Conflicts (Late 20th century)

• Time Period: 20th century
• Religion: Catholicism
• Benefit: The Catholic Church, particularly through Pope John Paul II, played a key role in mediating peaceful transitions, such as in the Cold War era. The Church’s involvement in Poland’s Solidarity movement helped inspire non-violent resistance, contributing to the eventual fall of communism in Eastern Europe.

Buddhist Compassion and Healthcare in Asia (Traditional and Modern Times)

• Time Period: Ongoing
• Religion: Buddhism
• Benefit: Buddhist principles of compassion have fostered healthcare systems across Asia. Institutions like Tibetan Buddhist monasteries have historically provided medical care to the needy, blending spiritual healing with practical medicine. This tradition continues in modern times with Buddhist-inspired hospitals and humanitarian work.

Peacebuilding Efforts by Religious Leaders in Modern Conflicts (21st century)

• Time Period: 21st century
• Religion: Various (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.)
• Benefit: In places like Northern Ireland, South Africa, and the Middle East, religious leaders and interfaith groups have been instrumental in promoting dialogue, reconciliation, and peacebuilding. The role of these leaders has often been pivotal in mitigating conflict and fostering coexistence.

If it’s not another, what is it? An organ? A parasite? — NOS4A2

Do you have an aversion to the term zygote?

Buddhists think that desire is the root of evil for an individual. — Shawn

The usual way of saying that is: Buddhists believe that ignorance is the cause of suffering.

Well, ethics is about what we do. And I'm off to an art exhibit and lunch with friends.

Not something that can be done with a zygote.
— Banno

Every single one of you were zygotes. Luckily no one treated you with such disregard. — NOS4A2

I’m an art lover and don’t recall ever being invited to an exhibit/lunch.

Thanks for backing me up here; but, my intent was to point at the secondary effect — Shawn

What is the first effect? And you’re welcome, even though my intent wasn’t as honorable as a white knight’s.