Understanding the "fruits of the flesh" is a good start (see Galatians 5:19-23, and you might consider James 4:1).

You seem to be suggesting that a blastocyst should be regarded as a cyst, and the name "cyst" means it is something that ideally should not exist in the body. I will look to identify why you should regard a blastocyst as distinct from a cyst (Eg: everyone has been a blastocyst, but no cyst has become a living person). — Serving Zion

There's no arguing with that level of rationality.

Why are you talking about cysts? The thing that gets aborted looks just like a tiny human... because it is.

Does this resemble a tiny human? My eyes are not what they used to be, but I think not.

Blastocysts embed in the endometrium after 11 days. Prior to that, she doesn't know she's pregnant, after that, the blastocyst won't come out.

We have to wait until there is a fetus.

There's no arguing with that level of rationality. — Banno

That appears to be a concession.

Why are you talking about cysts? — frank

It wasn't my choice.

The thing that gets aborted looks just like a tiny human... because it is. — frank

That deviation began when I said that they see a fetus as inferior (therefore they do not see it as a tiny human) because they do not see it's facial or vocal expressions. Any opportunity to establish a class of inferiority is sufficient to support immorality (and, in fact, is required for immorality - otherwise one could not bear to do it, because doing it to anything that is not inferior, is in fact doing it to themselves).

FWIW, I consider life to have begun before fertilisation (ie: sperm is alive).

We have to wait until there is a fetus. — frank

The morning-after contraception is sufficient to achieve the same effect - abortion by putting to death the life within (they do not want the life - they choose to kill it instead of loving it).

I see your point. I was trying to answer your question:

Why are you talking about cysts? — frank

Most discussions about abortion (e.g., this discussion) eventually lead to questions regarding the legality of preventing the blastocyst from being embedded in the endometrium. Hence the discussion about "cysts".

FWIW, I consider life to have begun before fertilisation (ie: sperm is alive). — Serving Zion

Every sperm is sacred? I'm a full blown moral nihilist today, so I can only look at that anthropologically.

What more is humanity than a squiggling fungus on a rock hurtling meaninglessly through the void? You know youre a nihilist when that thought makes you laugh.

Most discussions about abortion (e.g., this discussion) eventually lead to questions regarding the legality of preventing the blastocyst from being embedded in the endometrium. Hence the discussion about "cysts". — EricH

I see. You should probably go with the largest version of abortee when pondering what's actually happening, right? It has fingernails. It can and does cry. It's ok, though. It's lungs wont work, so it will die pretty quickly.

What more is humanity than a squiggling fungus — frank

"Moreover", it is a "squiggling fungus" that found a perfect opportunity to adapt and thrive!

Moreover", it is a "squiggling fungus" that found the perfect opportunity to thrive! — Serving Zion

True. Thrive.

That appears to be a concession. — Serving Zion

Not so much.


You confuse human beings and human tissue. They are not the very same.

(ie: sperm is alive). — Serving Zion

Exactly so, as with the egg. Therefore, no new life created. Let us now forever dispense with that leg of the argument.

You confuse human beings and human tissue. — Banno

I haven't done that, the confusion is your doing. I have acknowledged life present in various stages of growth. Are you suggesting that a blastocyst is not alive?

Exactly so, as with the egg. Therefore, no new life created. Let us now forever dispense with that leg of the argument. — tim wood

I don't see that an unfertilised egg is alive. The statement is still true though, there is no new life created in conception. The life is in the seed.

I don't see that an unfertilised egg is alive. — Serving Zion

Dead? is your understanding of sexual reproduction c. 350 BCE?

Ad hominum is pointless (and disgraceful). If you think I need to learn something, give me information to consider.

The unfertilized egg and the sperm have about the same status in terms of life. They each carry 1/2 the chromosomes needed for a whole human. The sperm is more like pollen than a seed.

Ad hominum is pointless (and disgraceful). If you think I need to learn something, give me information to consider. — Serving Zion

Human egg, dead or alive?

The unfertilized egg and the sperm have about the same status in terms of life. They each carry 1/2 the chromosomes needed for a whole human. The sperm is more like pollen than a seed. — frank

I note those points, thank you.

Human egg, dead or alive? — tim wood

The human egg appears to be a living cell (ie: a unit of human tissue in which life operates). Although it is more difficult to see an egg as a living thing than sperm, there are descriptions of scientific research that shows it does behave with characteristics of intelligence, which are a sign of life operating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization#cite_ref-9). Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

is your understanding of sexual reproduction c. 350 BCE? — tim wood

What is significant about that date, that you chose it?

c. 350 BCE?
— tim wood
What is significant about that date, that you chose it? — Serving Zion

c. Aristotle. Without checking, I think Aristotle's idea of reproduction was that the male contribution was everything and the female just a carrier. For you to suppose the egg is not alive puts you back there.

I would love to see how people's position on this topic fits with their philosophical idea of "becoming". How does the topic of abortion and the topic of becoming get integrated into a coherent worldview?

Right now, I imagine the sperm and the egg's individual anxiety: "I must find a mate, else I will perish". It reminds me of an unmarried human's intrinsic anxiety when the age of realisation comes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r56ogtlni8Y

I haven't seen anything on this discussion about the mother's role in this matter. Women get abortions for a whole host of reasons. Carrying the baby to full-term may cause the death of the mother, the fetus may be at a large risk of miscarriage (which is much more common than most of society is aware of), not to mention other reasons like rape.

Your main question is about the stage in which a fetus is to be considered to have rights to life, but this question ignores an essential piece of the discussion that is the "morality of abortion." Once we've determined when a fetus is considered to have rights, then we must determine if those rights take precedence over the rights of the mother. Does a mother lose the right to bodily autonomy just because the fetus remains viable to a certain point? A fetus doesn't just sit in your womb for 9 months. Once you're pregnant, you will be a mother forever and that fetus, in most cases, becomes the entire life of the mother. We can't reasonably assess which of the two will contribute more to society so we can't use that as a metric for deciding which life means more. The pro-choice side says the mother is more important and has a right to decide what to do with her body while the pro-life side argues for the uncertain future of the fetus on the grounds that it is a living human and it deserves a chance.

To answer your question, I want to ask a few more questions. What do you determine as value of life? Does mere existence give life value? Does existence merit the receipt of rights? Considering that the "rights" we're discussing are just a part of our Social Contract, what qualifies as a contribution to society?

I would love to see how people's position on this topic fits with their philosophical idea of "becoming". How does the topic of abortion and the topic of becoming get integrated into a coherent worldview? — Harry Hindu

I haven't seen anything on this discussion about the mother's role in this matter. Women get abortions for a whole host of reasons. — Reagan

That's the trouble with Zombie threads.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/249231

And elsewhere.

I haven't done that, the confusion is your doing. I have acknowledged life present in various stages of growth. Are you suggesting that a blastocyst is not alive? — Serving Zion

Your argument is poorly drawn. Set it out so it can be seen.

A blood cell from your veins would be human, but not a human being. It is alive - at what cost must it be kept alive? Bleeding kills blood cells - is it therefor immoral?

What is it about the blastocyst that makes it worthy of preservation, in a way that blood cels are not?

Can you present your position in a way that is consistent?

Is abortion a logically impossible truth or irrational?

Existence requires time
Human Beings exist
Therefore, Human Beings require time for their existence

In other words, that would seem to negate the personhood in-the-process argument.

Life, like anything else, does not really have value for what it is, but for what it will be. The only reason our lives have value is because we expect to be alive tomorrow. Large banknotes wouldn’t have any value if they were expected to burn the next instant.

A fetus has value because it is expected to become a human being like we are – a self-conscious thinking thing. Whether or not you want to call it a human being already, is irrelevant, since it is not valued for what it is.

A newborn baby is not a self-conscious thinking thing, but it should also be valued for what it will be. Why is it often considered wrong to kill a newborn baby, but not wrong to kill a fetus? They should both have the same moral status since they are both potentially self-conscious thinking things, but potentially only.

Any rules for when abortion should be allowed would be completely arbitrary. At any stage the fetus looks more like a human being than at the previous one, but so what? We may feel that the looks of it makes it more or less valuable, but that feeling has no rational basis.

And eggs and sperm?

Your argument is poorly drawn. — Banno

That, again, is your doing, not mine.

Set it out so it can be seen. — Banno

I have done so, according to my own expectations. If it is insufficient for you, yours is the responsibility to seek clarification, as I note you have proceeded to do:

A blood cell from your veins would be human, but not a human being. — Banno

Good fact.

It is alive - at what cost must it be kept alive? — Banno

A conscious entity's experience of life produces an intrinsic value for it's own life, according to the prospect of the alternative/s. Therefore morality considers the living entity's intrinsic right of life whenever there is a cause for complaint that its rights of life have been transgressed. So wherever the taking of its natural right is immoral, the cost of not supporting its life should be considered too great.

Bleeding kills blood cells - is it therefor immoral? — Banno

Sometimes it is, sometimes isn't.

There is sometimes opportunity for a living entity's "rights to live" to be not supported by morality. As in the example of the case of a blood cell, it's primary function is to serve the needs of the life of its human being. Therefore while its life is sacrificed in order to clot a wound, it is not necessarily immoral to expect its sacrifice because upholding its right to life would be transgressing the human being's right to life where the blood cell's purpose and duty in life is to serve the maintenance of human being's rights of life - but, it can be immoral to cause the death of living blood. Eg, if the wound is inflicted for an immoral reason, then it is causing an unnecessary loss of life, therefore the cost should be rightfully borne to preserve the life of the cell (the cost to be borne, is the refusal to support the immoral action). To refuse to bear that cost is counted as wickedness by judgement where the rights of the blood are brought to consideration, thus the person doing such immorality loses right to belong to the spirit of innocence and truth (iow, they are drawn into possession by the spirit that deceives them, by their refusal to follow the truth into repentance).

What is it about the blastocyst that makes it worthy of preservation, in a way that blood cels are not? — Banno

Nothing, because a blastocyt's intrinsic right of life is entitled to the same considerations by a judge of morality, as a blood cell.

Can you present your position in a way that is consistent? — Banno

I haven't seen that my presentation is inconsistent, so I really am not able to acknowledge that such a question can be answered.