It occupies its own unique and distinct position in space and time. A zygote is alive. At no point does a zygote die and get replaced by another living being. If left to live a zygote can continue his life, without interruption, for upwards to one hundred years.

Twins are individuated at the zygote level until it reproduces asexually, then there are two individuals. — NOS4A2

This is a tangent. I have no problem with identifying an individual identity as a series of causally-connected spatiotemporal stages. The objection I have is in defining the "natural kind" (for lack of a better term) of "individual human being". This would have to be based on a well-defined set of necessary and sufficient properties, that unambiguously identify an object as either being one of these, or not. An object that can produce multiple human beings cannot possible be said to be an individual human being, even though it is commonly in the developmental history of human beings. The same is true of blasotocysts- clusters of cells, that may produce multiple human beings at several stages.

So my position is that an individual human being (i.e. an object of that type) is something that emerges. gradually during fetal development. I regard a properly functioning individual human being as a self-sustaining organism with certain physical and intellectual capabilities, including a sense of self. You can disagree, because there is no unequivocally correct answer. But you have no rational basis for denying me (or women) the privilege of deciding for ourselves.

This is a tangent. I have no problem with identifying an individual identity as a series of causally-connected spatiotemporal stages. The objection I have is in defining the "natural kind" (for lack of a better term) of "individual human being". This would have to be based on a well-defined set of necessary and sufficient properties, that unambiguously identify an object as either being one of these, or not. An object that can produce multiple human beings cannot possible be said to be an individual human being, even though it is commonly in the developmental history of human beings. The same is true of blasotocysts- clusters of cells, that may produce multiple human beings at several stages.

So my position is that an individual human being (i.e. an object of that type) is something that emerges. gradually during fetal development. I regard a properly functioning individual human being as a self-sustaining organism with certain physical and intellectual capabilities, including a sense of self. You can disagree, because there is no unequivocally correct answer. But you have no rational basis for denying me (or women) the privilege of deciding for themselves.

All objects that can produce multiple human beings are individual human beings. A mother, for instance, can do that. But this is also true of asexual reproduction. An individual amoeba, for instance, can produce another amoeba. Unfortunately (and oddly), we may have to think of one zygotic twin as the parent of the other.

I would never deny you or other women your privileges, but your distinctions are completely arbitrary. Worse, they are inapplicable to those with developmental disabilities, those who cannot care for themselves, and those without your favored set of physical and intellectual capabilities. At any rate, the reduction of humanity and dignity to that of “material” is the name of the game for anyone who wants to end such a life.

I regard a properly functioning individual human being as a self-sustaining organism with certain physical and intellectual capabilities, including a sense of self. — Relativist

I absolutely agree with that. I don’t think that is enough, but “sense of self” is a good one when talking about “person”.

The phrases “I regard” or “I recognize” have no explanatory powers here, because I recognize and I regard a human zygote as and individual human being and you seem to think I must be blind or need my powers of recognition and regard checked. The question is WHY would either of us recognize distinctions or similarities?

A newborn baby isn’t self-sustaining. It won’t eat unless other things feed it.
A newborn baby has no intellectual capabilities.
A newborn baby has no sense of self.

So is a newborn baby a person or not?

We can see many personal things about the baby in the picture. It looks caucasian, has light hair, etc. — praxis

We can’t use “Caucasian” to identify a person, because what about other non-Caucasian organisms? Making “caucasian” have anything to do with being a “person” sounds racist. I know you didn’t mean that, but I don’t know how referencing the race of a person tells you anything at all about why a newborn is a person but a zygote is not.

“Light hair” - what about bald babies? What about bald adults? What about dark haired babies? Again, this provides no insight into why an adult and a baby are both persons, but a zygote is not.

Again, this provides no insight into why an adult and a baby are both persons, but a zygote is not. — Fire Ologist

Babies and adults have qualities that match my concept of ‘person’.



I assume by not answering that you do not recognize the image on the left as a person just as I don’t recognize it as a person.

I assume by not not answering that you do not recognize the image on the left as a person just as I don’t recognize it as a person. — praxis

Come on, let’s stay with you for a bit more. I don’t want us to have to talk about my crappy reasoning yet, I’d rather we get back to your crappy reasoning.

I assume by not answering my questions you have no idea why you regard the image on the right as a person. You just do. It’s cute and cuddly. A zygote is slimey, so it can’t be a “person”. Is something like that the best we got?

Babies and adults have qualities that match my concept of ‘person’. — praxis

What are those qualities, besides Caucasian, and hair? If Caucasian and hair matter at all towards a definition of person, all people from India, Asia, Africa, along with zygotes, are off your list of persons.

All objects that can produce multiple human beings are individual human beings. A mother, for instance, can do that. But this is also true of asexual reproduction. An individual amoeba, for instance, can produce another amoeba. Unfortunately (and oddly), we may have to think of one zygotic twin as the parent of the other. — NOS4A2

You're proposing a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one. I reject this as a sufficient condition: we could theoretically produce multiple humans from each stem cell in your body. Each stem cell fits your stated condition.

would never deny you or other women your privileges, but your distinctions are completely arbitrary. Worse, they are inapplicable to those with developmental disabilities

I referred to a "properly functioning human being". This doesn't imply one must be proper functioning to be a human. I wasn't even trying to suggest a necessary condition; I was defining a typical human being, not excluding the atypical.

At any rate, the reduction of humanity and dignity to that of “material” is the name of the game for anyone who wants to end such a life.

You're reading that into what I said. I do happen to think that humans are material; the only alternative is immaterial; it's a well defined dichotomy. Nevertheless, I never said humans are nothing more than material. Being a human is absolutely something in addition to being material.

What are those qualities, besides Caucasian, and hair? — Fire Ologist

We don’t need to go through every aspect of personhood do we?
— praxis

Absolutely not. Probably a bottomless pit. — Fire Ologist

:roll:

I don’t want us to have to talk about my crappy reasoning yet, — Fire Ologist

I doubt waiting will improve it. I’ll just assume that, like myself, you don’t recognize the image on the left as a person.

Let’s be careful and precise. We are philosophers here. — Fire Ologist

:rofl:

I recognize the image on the right as a person. I don't recognize the image on the left as a person.

If you recognize the image on the left as a person, can you explain how you recognize it as a person?
—praxis

The one on the left is what the one on the right looked like about 9 months earlier. In those 9 months, what changed for you? — NOS4A2

I recognize the image on the right as a person and I don't recognize the image on the left as a person.

The one on the left is what the one on the right looked like about 9 months earlier. In those 9 months, what changed for you? — NOS4A2

The one on the right has a functioning brain. That’s an important difference because it’s an especially important organ. If my heart gives out and I’m on life support then I’m still a person but if the brain gives out and I’m on life support then there’s no person anymore, just a body.

If the brain gives out it just means the brain gives out. Just a body before and just a body after.

I already explained because I recognize it as such. — praxis

Im assuming that you value the newborn but not the zygote because of their difference in personhood. This simply pushes the moral question back, does it not? You recognise a newborn baby as a person, but why should we value persons?

If the brain gives out it just means the brain gives out. Just a body before and just a body after. — NOS4A2

There is a moral difference between a living body with a functioning brain and a living body without a functioning brain.

Brain death is death of the person.

And if the brain could be removed but kept alive then even though it's a single organ it's also a person.

Your point being that if I value persons I should also value zygotes? I do value zygotes.

Wasnt trying to make a point but asking a question to understand your moral system better. However, I thought you were saying that you value newborns but dont value zygotes. From what you just said, I'm assuming I was wrong and that you value life from conception?

From what you just said, I'm assuming I was wrong and that you value life from conception? — Ourora Aureis

I never kid about zygotes.

Saw what you did there. :wink:

lol, I see. Well, why do you value zygotes?

It seems like there’s a point to these questions so please, let’s skip to the point.

Im confused by this response. I am asking you why you value zygotes because I dont understand why you see them as valuable, and so I wish to evaluate your reasoning and see if I can provide a counter to it. Not sure why you require a meta-analysis here, its generally an assumed state of affairs on a forum like this.

Alright, have it your way. Why do I value human life? I think it’s deeply ingrained, shaped by a mix of biological, psychological, social, and cultural factors. I think the reason valuing human life is ingrained in me is basically because it promotes gene propagation and the survival of our species.

Looking forward to your counter argument.

You didnt provide an argument for why you have a value, but a vague and blanket scientific explanation for why values exist at all. If your entire position is without any rational thought and is simply driven directly by your genes, then Im not sure how you would defend it or even justify it to yourself. It also is a false scientific explanation, since zygotes are a part of modern knowledge that couldnt have evolved into our psyches, which you can see by the vast majority of humanity having no emotional issue with zygote termination. Typically its instead driven by a philosophical grounding in "humanness" which you commonly find in religious thought that tries to map the concept of souls and divinity onto this scientific understanding of human development.

If your entire position is without any rational thought and is simply driven directly by your genes, then Im not sure how you would defend it or even justify it to yourself. It also is a false scientific explanation, since zygotes are a part of modern knowledge that couldnt have evolved into our psyches, which you can see by the vast majority of humanity having no emotional issue with zygote termination. — Ourora Aureis

If it were necessary for zygotes to have ‘evolved into our psyches’ then there couldn’t be a minority that values them.

There's a bit of all-or-nothing slight of hand going on in the idea that you either value the zygote or you don't, and the implied conclusion that if you value it then it ought not be aborted. Hence the strategic move of putting the argument in terms of a contrast between the cyst and Mrs Smith. Its not about which to value but what to do with those values.

And a repeat of the mistake of suggesting that values must be justified.

But I don't see any progress in the argument in the last week or so; just a different group of folk making much the same errors.

Zygotes spontaneously abort constantly. For this reason, it would be pure stupidity to care about them in a way that informs ones morals. Weep, fools!