Human beings have a past and sometimes a future. OK.

I'd have to ask you once you wake up. I'd probably believe whichever you said, with the caveat that you might be confused.

The thought experiment doesn't address the primary notion I highlighted which is the history of a person -- people have a history. The ship of Theseus is the ship of Theseus because of its history, not because of the specific boards that make up the ship -- though without any such boards the ship of Theseus would be no more.

never used the term human beings

P7 One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it as in P1.



One is in possession of one’s biological future whether or not one is aware of it or not. One is possession of ones one’s future of value even if one ( in most cases) does not desire it. As an example there can be a seriously depressed person, who do to the nature of their illness wishes to kill themselves and have no desire for their future. I would argue that it is not morally permissible to allow them to kill themselves because their judgement that their future is without value is handicapped by their illness. The concept of “ideal desire” would apply, and our judgement on the moral permissibly of them killing themselves should be based on what their ideal desire would be if their handicap was not there, and we would assume absent their depression they, like us would desire their future. In the second instance assume there was a person is a catatonic state, but with the real prospect of regaining conciseness, we could not say, that since this person is unaware of their future at that time, they are not in possession of it, the concept of ideal judgement would apply, and we should assume that if they were conscience they would be aware of their future and we should not let the handicap of the catatonic state deny them of their right to it. I argue that the same concept of “ideal desire” applies in the case of the fetus, and their handicap of the state of their development is not philosophically different then the prior 2 examples and we should assume that absent this handicap they would be aware, and desire their future of value as we do.

Oddly enough, we know the herbs once used by Native American women for abortion. Wonder if they sat around having these types of discussions. Probably not.

it was just for the embodied mind.

On your other point, you are just taking a characteristic, and modifying it so it it can't apply where you don't want it to. Which is fine as an opinion as you expressed it. But it is not an argument

I think that's how this works. :D Give a criteria, respond with a counter-example, give a criteria -- and so forth.

It's not an argument for personhood, but it doesn't fall to your criticism either.

Funnily enough it actually seems to resemble your argument, @Rank Amateur, only it looks at time in the reverse rather than forward.

Gotta think on that.

never used the term human beings — Rank Amateur

Yeah. You used "human organisms". What is that, if not a human being? Why this forth term?

I was being, no pun intended, purposely precise, using organism. Avoids all the "what is a human being, and what is not a human being" stuff.

P7 One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it as in P1. — Rank Amateur

And you've slipped from an organism to a person in P7.

"Awareness" is not necessary for a human organism, but is for a person. Same for "desire".

A philosophical zombie would be a human organism, but have neither awareness nor desire.

And... interesting that you begin here to introduce capacities: the capacity for awareness and the capacity for desire.

SO here is were our differences begin.

P5. All things that are part of a unique past time line as defined in P4, where at one time a future on the same time line. — Rank Amateur

If by this you mean that the future person is the grown older version of the younger person, and the younger is what the older was; that they are the same person (as that's commonly understood), no objection. If you mean anything else, now is the time to say so.

I never gave, nor am required to give awareness or desire to the organism.

The argument goes, the lack of awareness and/or desire due to the stage of development does not impact its ideal desire. The concept of ideal desire would say, without this handicap of its stage of development, what would it desire. As the examples in the premise.

P6. If P5, all human organisms as defined in P2 are on a unique time line that encompasses their unique human future much like ours — Rank Amateur

Yes. But I suspect you're not keeping track of what you're claiming - but we'll see

think that works

One is in possession of one’s biological future — Rank Amateur

Not possession. Perhaps subject to. That is, you don't possess it; rather if anything it possesses you.

The argument goes, the lack of awareness and/or desire due to the stage of development does not impact its ideal desire. The concept of ideal desire would say, without this handicap of its stage of development, what would it desire. As the examples in the premise. — Rank Amateur

Yeah, nuh. If something is not aware, how can it have a desire? And that would stand regardless of stage of development.

Again, a human being does not per se have moral standing. A person does.

You are trying to get an ought from an is. Now I think that it is possible to do so, but I think you have not shown your case yet.

not sure what the difference is. The point is, left alone, it would have a unique future that it would experience. I am not hung on word possess more to concept

The point is, left alone, it would have a unique future that it would experience — Rank Amateur

But it wouldn't. It would be dead.

Yeah, nuh. If something is not aware, how can it have a desire? And that would stand regardless of stage of development. — Banno

The concept of ideal desire goes, as in the premise, You banno, are in an accident, you are completely unconscious, and are in need of life support. I ask you, do you desire life support, but you don't answer. Should I assume you have no desire because you are not aware? The concept of ideal desire would say we should assume you would desire life support if not handicapped by the injury. I am extending the same concept to the organism.

One is possession of ones one’s future of value — Rank Amateur

Stop right there. I am in possession of my wallet. I have it right here next to the keyboard. Clearly "one's future of value" cannot be possessed in that sense. I keep asking you what that is. I point out that it cannot be "future" anything. It's up to you to make this clear, or dismiss for lack of the ability to clarify it.

one argument at a time please, other wise we just go round and round. We can discuss the right of the organism to the use of the mother's body, but first we have to see if it is such a thing that can have a claim. Think back on the summation you liked a few pages ago. We aren't there yet.

The point is, left alone, it would have a unique future that it would experience. I am not hung on word possess more to concept — Rank Amateur

But that future is in speculation only; that is, it could be: it could be this or it could be that, or it could be nothing at all.

ok, give me another word, for the concept then, that if left alone it would experience a future. Just as when you and I were left alone we experienced our futures.

OK, but...

There are pretty obvious differences between a blastocyst and an unconscious person. I think this has been pointed out by various others. Your metaphor stretches too far.

One does not cease to be a person when one sleeps. We agree to that. But it does not follow that everything that is unconscious is a person. Some persons are unconscious. All you can conclude is that being unconscious does not rule out a foetus being a person.

But lots of other things do.

— Rank Amateur
But that future is in speculation only; that is, it could be: it could be this or it could be that, or it could be nothing at all. — tim wood

It could be anything, long short but if left alone it would have its unique future.

neither the argument or I am making any claim of personhood for the organism. The only claim is, if left alone it has a unique future.

ok, give me another word, for the concept then, that if left alone it would experience a future. Just as when you and I were left alone we experienced our futures. — Rank Amateur

"it would experience a future, or even, time would pass. The point is less the words although they matter, than where you're going with them. I suspect you're going to try to back-door imply that the zygote is, as Banno accurately puts it, a moral person. And that won't hold, not least because if you could get there that way then you should be able to make the argument much more directly.

if left alone it has a unique future. — Rank Amateur

Being dead is not that unique.

No, we are having difficulty with agreeing on P7.

It could be anything, long short but if left alone it would have its unique future. — Rank Amateur

Without objection.

ping pong with two balls