How can we examine to see if a being with DNA is human? Uh. Why not ask with the Nazis for criteria proving Jews are human. It's all pretty ovbious. Pro-choice people discriminate against fetuses. Just like the Nazis. Are we to say human clones aren't true people when that happens? Nazis are everywhere of course

Did you read my post? If you did, you apparently didn't understand it - or you just prefer crazy-making.

You said you can put to death growing human DNA potentially-a-person. Ive already refuted this copiously. There is no talking to Nazis

Black people don't have Neanderthal genes generally. So white racists can say that is reason they are different and can be enslaved. Identical to the pro-choice position

You said you can put to death growing human DNA potentially-a-person. I've already refuted this copiously. — Gregory

Be good enough to translate this into coherent English?

Black people don't have Neanderthal genes generally. So white racists can say that is reason they are different and can be enslaved. Identical to the pro-choice position — Gregory

Stupid - not merely ignorant - claptrap. And recent research has shown that Native Africans do possess Neanderthal genes. You need to up your game to coherence and sense, Gregory.

Can we all agree that its a grave crime to take a fetuses life if its possible to give it a great life?

Can we all agree that its a grave crime to take a fetuses life if its possible to give it a great life? — Gregory

No. Possibility is irrelevant.

You just don't have a big heart Tim plain and simple. You'll never change my mind about pro choice people being that way. You think abortion is a game.

There is no place on earth that should be as safe as in one's mother's womb, growing-into-life. Pregnant women know implicitly that they are already mothers. Those who deny it are denying their nature

You just don't have a big heart Tim plain and simple. You'll never change my mind about pro choice people being that way. You think abortion is a game. — Gregory

That's because it's not your mind that is engaged. You've never addressed my question. What makes a woman's pregnancy anyone else's business but hers and her doctor's? You're long on rant, but absent any reasoning.

Well, no. Unless you want to say the God is committing great crimes by putting fetuses in women who don't want to give birth.

there's a bunch of assertions, including mind reading.

If there are any full grown adults inside a woman's womb without her choice, it's just an intruder, and with home as castle lethal force laws, I think she should be able to kill that intruder. Anyone suddenly hooked up to my body, using it for nutrition and they are adult is a parasite and I would be allowed to terminate the relationship. Even if it involved their death. But look, they could manage on their own. Animals often rebabsorb fetuses in times of danger. It's not a person, yet. If it was, it wouldn't be a part of her body.

Preference utilitarianism can also be used to argue against abortion. Any living organism has at least one clear preference: to stay alive. Not much consciousness is needed to have a preference. An insect clearly prefers to eat, that’s why it does it, and a fetus would have at least as much will as an insect.

Utilitarianism argues for the maximation of happiness, and happiness is the same as fulfillment of preferences, so not much has been changed by adding the word “preference”.

Any moral act aims at increasing happiness in the future, that is, the act comes first and the consequence, happiness, follows later. The fact that the happiness of the fetus will not be realized until later, after birth, does not make it a special case compared to a being that’s already born. The state of well-being that one hopes to create by acting morally is always just a potential, and the fetus as a potential moral object makes it no different from any other moral object. If it’s bad to steal an object that would later have made a person happy, it’s also bad to take away a life that would later have made the fetus happy. (I don’t care if you call the fetus a person or not. The point is that the fetus and the born infant is one continuous being.)

I don't believe a fetus can indeed desire to be alive. But correct me if I'm wrong. And it seems wise to me to demarcate human life and personhood. Not doing this is speciesist as Cows are more like cognitively developed humans than fetuses yet we torture and slaughter them without a thought. .

I assume at the end of your post you refer the paradox of the heap. I wrote this somewhere else:

The need to define fetal personhood does not indeed lead to a paradox of the heap, as some might suggest; changes in predicates of potential personhood occur at specific points in fetal development, regardless of the fact that it remains genetically identical throughout its development. These predicates are not vague; they are quite specific. This applies if you grant that being human doesn't constitute being a person per say, but rather self-awareness, consciousness, viability, etc. Thus one can retain the belief that a fetus is not a person with a right to life.

And no, fulfilling preferences is not the same as being happy. Perhaps I work hard writing good poetry when really what would maximize my pleasure would be eating a chocolate bar. Both fulfill preferences, but one results in greater happiness.

As for the meat of your argument: according to you it must me wrong to use contraception because one is preventing a being with a valuable future from being born. The same goes for celibacy.

I don't believe a fetus can indeed desire to be alive — Aleph Numbers

It desires to be alive in the same way as an insect desires to be alive. An insect struggles for its life. I don’t mean desire as in being conscious of the desire.

The need to define fetal personhood — Aleph Numbers

I don’t care about defining personhood, so the paradox of the heap is irrelevant. The fetus is a being (however you define it) that has the definite potential of becoming a rational self-conscious being (it will for sure if only it is allowed to live). If there is a decisive moment in its development, it is when it becomes self-conscious which happens long after the baby is born, so if “personhood” was decisive, it might be morally acceptable to kill three-month old infants.

fulfilling preferences is not the same as being happy — Aleph Numbers

Fulfilled preference, not fulfilling, is happiness. When you get what you really want, you are happy. Note that it’s not about what you just think you want, because you may be wrong about that. You may think you want money more than anything, but you don’t really want it since even if you get it, you won’t be happy.

it must me wrong to use contraception because one is preventing a being with a valuable future from being born. — Aleph Numbers

You can’t do anything to something that doesn’t exist, including preventing its future, because there is no it. The it that is a fetus already exists and it’s the same being that later will become for example a three-year old kid.

But its a vegetable. It cannot feel; it is not sentient or conscious. If you think its wrong to kill fetuses that are non-persons then you must have a problem with killing vegetables, or all life. You must also abstain from eating meat. I don't see any tragedy in eating a head of broccoli. — ToothyMaw

I certainly agree.

I also think, that David Benatar is right about on abortion, at least at the most part. I´m against killing sentient human being. Demarcation is usually hard, Benatar´s point of view is that aborting the fetus since to about 28 weeks from conception is morally obligatory act. After that time line, according to Benatar, it´s no longer abortion, but killing sentient human being.

I´m not sure is the (about) 28 weeks the right demarcation line. Anyway, my point of view is that at least at first couple months after the conception the abortion isn't just a righteous act, but a moral obligation.

Some people of course disagree. One of them is already deceased utilitarian philosopher R.M. Hare.


My thoughts on abortion and R.M. Hare´s Golden Rule


Now, let us take a moment and touch upon one of the most interesting value ethical debates of the past few decades: the discussion on abortion. In the last few decades, the justification of abortion has been one of the most central questions in value ethical discussions. Among the most noted abortion debate openers has been philosopher R.M. Hare. Hare’s basic premise is the principle of life preservation which cannot be breached with abortion. The concept of 'a potential person' lies at the core of Hare’s argumentation. He states that a foetus, or even a newly conceived egg cell, is a potential person, and therefore an abortion would be a crime against this potential human being. At the same time, arguments have been made against euthanasia (and for it) by stating that life preservation is also a value overriding the will of an existing person – even in the event that this person personally wants euthanasia.What is common to all these instances of debate is the underlying assumption of life as something desirable as such, and most of all, as a self-evident value. According to Hare, our duty – assuming that we are happy that our lives have not been terminated at the foetus stage – is not to terminate the life of a "potential person" living to see its foetal stage.(Hare, Abortion and the Golden Rule. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4, 1975, 201-222) Not taking a stand on whether or not Hare abuses the concept of "duty", one must take into account three important aspects.


1. The assumption that we are happy to be alive at the moment does certainly not cover all living individuals, even if most living individuals consider their life to be a positive thing.

2. Even if happiness about life were to be a universal viewpoint, it cannot be used as an argument in concluding whether or not abortion would have been a better choice with regard to happiness. Hence, one cannot know whether it is betterto be than not to be.

3. A noteworthy aspect is also the fact that bringing about life – which in this case, if successful, means creating a self-conscious human being, a person  – does not mean merely bringing about life. It is somewhat rational to assume that a forthcoming conscious person will come to die one day. Furthermore, whether or not this is a shift back to the state or non-state which prevailed before the person, there is no clear knowledge of the nature of this shift beyond the fact that the human being ceases to exist as a biological organism. Bringing about life is also a necessary condition for its ending – or termination. 

Hare’s argument therefore is that life is likely to be a better state of affairs than the lack thereof. What a bold and peculiar argument! And one that should be used to justify obligation towards a potentially forthcoming individual. Having said that, it is somewhat evident that our naturalistic attitude drives us to investigate the questions of existence in a highly biocentric manner, with an emphasis on the(presumed) value of life and by perhaps regarding it as a “given value.” And yet: why has this reasoning not been taken to its natural conclusion by comparing the relation of life and non-life and the arguments and circumstances in which it is justified to value one over the other, if either?

In the viewpoint represented by Hare, sperm is not yet a potential person – even though it can be seen as one if potentiality is defined in a broad sense. Therefore, it does not possess the rights of a potential person. Following Hare’s model, one does not have the duty of “giving” life to the sperm. But what about the right to do so? If a human being does not have the duty of giving life to sperm in the form of human life, does one have the right to do so? Hare does not approach this question.

As stated, a sperm is not a potential person in the sense discussed by Hare, and therefore our related actions are not directed at a person or a potential person. In other words, our actions towards the sperm are relatively insignificant to it. Having a child is an action in which decisions are made concerning an individual’s life. The act of having a child has an object, a potentially forthcoming human being. This individual should not be perceived as a person, however. My purpose is not to imply that the object as a person exists at the moment of conception, but having a child affects an individual’s life: the object of this action is a child to be born, and that child usually fulfils the criteria of a person. Therefore, it can be concluded that the act of having a child has an object, but this object is not a person at the moment of conception. Hare’s hypothesis is that life itself is a value, the creation of which holds no ethical problems, whereas the prevention and especially termination thereof holds several. Biocentrism is of course our naturalistic and natural attitude which has developed during evolution, but it does not imply anything about values as such.

The problem is that in this concept there is no worthy argumentation, but it is all based on moral judgments that cannot be verified in any way. another point is that a person does not become a person at some particular moment, such as after birth, the concept of "person" is a humanistic concept that can be considered from different points of view, but one thing you can know for sure is the zygote is the stage of human development and if we assume that a person you cannot kill, for example, in old age or at a young age, which means we admit that it is impossible to kill a person, and if we admit that it is possible to kill a zygote, then we admit that it is possible to kill sleeping people, people with down syndrome, etc. but it is important to note that this proposition works there we believe that people really cannot be killed, that is, we admit, again, a moral fact.

I always like to take things to the extreme and stipulate to the other side's argument as far as I can. Thus, I can say life begins at conception, or even before (I don't care; every sperm is sacred, every egg Devine, Monty Python). But there is a world of difference between life and the right thereto. Just as you can forfeit your "right" to life on the back end, so to your "right" to life can be deemed to have not yet vested on the front end. Both occur when "we" say so. That is "law".

So, as usual, I substitute my understanding of what should be (Natural Law), for that which "we" deem to be the case (law). I think a woman should have the unfettered right to do whatever the hell she wants with her "baby" up until parturition. At that point, I think she has a duty of care, even if that is only turning the spawn over to someone else who will care.

In that sense, a baby becomes a person in my philosophical sense when it ceases to be inside the mother's body.

As to the person in a coma, again, that revolves around a duty assumed, when it starts and when it ends. That duty can be legal, contractual, ethical, whatever; it relates to the people involved. Pick your poison.

I think a woman should have the unfettered right to do whatever the hell she wants with her "baby" up until parturition. — James Riley

"Parturition" seems a word - as I find it variously defined online - that no law could countenance without itself more rigorously defining it. What definition would you give it, supposing it were to ground a law? And do have have any complaints of note against Blackmun's reasoning in Roe v. Wade?

My own view runs along yours in that a woman "should have [an] unfettered right." But to what, when, how, and under what circumstances? Are there other rights she or others might have, fettered or unfettered? And while I suppose Blackmun's could be refined, it is imo both good law and a good law.

↪Antinatalist The problem is that in this concept there is no worthy argumentation, but it is all based on moral judgments that cannot be verified in any way. another point is that a person does not become a person at some particular moment, such as after birth, the concept of "person" is a humanistic concept that can be considered from different points of view, but one thing you can know for sure is the zygote is the stage of human development and if we assume that a person you cannot kill, for example, in old age or at a young age, which means we admit that it is impossible to kill a person, and if we admit that it is possible to kill a zygote, then we admit that it is possible to kill sleeping people, people with down syndrome, etc. but it is important to note that this proposition works there we believe that people really cannot be killed, that is, we admit, again, a moral fact. — evtifron

Like I said - or at least mean - usually demarcation line is hard to set at some particular point, and only at that point.
But i think you make harsh, unjustified leap from zygote being something, which have intrinsically value (my words, my definition) like sleeping person or people with Down syndrome should have.

About moral facts, I´m not sure if there are any (in the word´s purest meaning). No, I´m not moral relativist. If there are moral facts, I don´t see there are any logical/empirical etc. way to absolutely proof them. And then again, moral facts or moral values are far more important than some trivial facts you can easily proof.

Saying that, I think killing people is wrong and extreme violation against person´s sovereignty and autonomy. That is a moral value I truly stand for. But I don´t believe that my that point of view, or any, can proof the way mathematical theorems can. But for me, my moral values are more meaningful than some mathematical theorems. (And while I earlier said about your unjustified leap about from zygote to killing sleeping person or someone with Down syndrome, I know that my point of view is just my point of view, like your is yours. Either one is not a scientific fact). But that´s another topic, anyway.

What definition would you give it, supposing it were to ground a law? — tim wood

On the range, we'd say when she drops. Once the kid is out of the women's body.

And do have have any complaints of note against Blackmun's reasoning in Roe v. Wade? — tim wood

I don't recall ever reading Roe v. Wade or Blackmun's reasoning. I've just heard it's well shy of birth so it's too conservative for me.

unfettered right." But to what, when, how, and under what circumstances? — tim wood

To kill her baby, anytime while it's in her body, any way she chooses, under any circumstances.

Are there other rights she or others might have, fettered or unfettered? — tim wood

She has the right to keep it if she wants. Others should not have a say until it's out of her body. At that time, I think she has a duty to either care for it, or turn it over to the state.

Saying that, I think killing people is wrong and extreme violation against person´s sovereignty and autonomy. That is a moral value I truly stand for. But I don´t believe that my that point of view, or any, can proof the way mathematical theorems can. But for me, my moral values are more meaningful than some mathematical theorems. (And while I earlier said about your unjustified leap about from zygote to killing sleeping person or someone with Down syndrome, I know that my point of view is just my point of view, like your is yours. Either one is not a scientific fact). But that´s another topic, anyway. — Antinatalist

I have to add, that logic is logic. And tautology is a tautology. And some arguments are better - and some worse - in pure logical way.

And I correct my recent statement: The absence of absolute proof of moral facts doesn't necessarily mean that there isn´t them (moral facts).

Clear enough, and from a primitive standpoint defensible (sez I). Shall I infer that at any point pre-drop she cannot be held to have murdered her fetus? And if she cannot, can anyone else be, whether acting at her direction or not?

Blackmun's reasoning is not difficult and is clear and reasonably brief. For those reasons I leave it to you to reference. Why should you settle for a precis from me when the thing itself is so easily accessible?

she cannot be held to have murdered her fetus? — tim wood

She cannot.

And if she cannot, can anyone else be, whether acting at her direction or not? — tim wood

Those acting at her direction cannot. As to those not acting at her direction, that decision would be up to the state. If the state deems life to begin at conception (or before), and if someone other than the mother and/or those acting at her direction, kills the baby in utero, I reckon that could be murder if the state wants it to be. I express no opinion on that. I would, however, be interested in the woman's opinion; Was she assaulted, battered? Are their civil damages she might be entitled to as a result of the loss?

Why should you settle for a precis from me when the thing itself is so easily accessible? — tim wood

I'll not ask you to tell me what Blackmun said. You've proven yourself capable of thinking on your own two feet.

I completely agree with you in everything, on the example of sleeping people or people with down syndrome, I wanted to show some identity with the murder of the zygote in the sense that this murder is even more terrible in my opinion, as far as moral facts are concerned, I believe that they do not exist as something materially provable, but this does not exclude their significance and for me, moral factors are the criterion of truth and the highest virtue.

↪Antinatalist I completely agree with you in everything, on the example of sleeping people or people with down syndrome, I wanted to show some identity with the murder of the zygote in the sense that this murder is even more terrible in my opinion, as far as moral facts are concerned, I believe that they do not exist as something materially provable, but this does not exclude their significance and for me, moral factors are the criterion of truth and the highest virtue. — evtifron

I´m not sure that I can follow your logic.
Do you mean that killing, let´s say five days old tsygote, is a bad thing?
And if so, is it as bad thing that killing someone already born person with Down syndrome?

abortion is often delayed by the fact that they do not kill a full-fledged person if we take this proposition, then it follows that we can not kill full-fledged people with various defects because I gave this example, if we take another proposition that we do not kill a person then we ask the question and who do we kill? one way or another, we kill one of the stages of human development, and if you follow this proposition, there is no difference if you kill an old man, a zygote, or a person with down syndrome, you will still kill a person. what is worse and what is better depends on the question posed, moral facts, etc. in any case, nothing is more important than human life

Antinatalist abortion is often delayed by the fact that they do not kill a full-fledged person if we take this proposition, then it follows that we can not kill full-fledged people with various defects because I gave this example, if we take another proposition that we do not kill a person then we ask the question and who do we kill? one way or another, we kill one of the stages of human development, and if you follow this proposition, there is no difference if you kill an old man, a zygote, or a person with down syndrome, you will still kill a person. what is worse and what is better depends on the question posed, moral facts, etc. in any case, nothing is more important than human life — evtifron

Our point of views strongly disagree.

Five days old human zygote is not sentient human being. One very essential point when we value
something is have that being or object ability to suffer, to feel.
Human zygote may have human DNA, but it doesn´t have emotions, feelings etc.

It´s absurd to be against abortion and then support animal industry for culinaristic reasons. Animals are sentient beings - unlike 5 days old human zygotes - and could suffer and will suffer also at this very moment. I think that´s obscene. Some religious movements even think contraception is wrong, because they consider ovum and spermatozoon as human life also, and terminating them is also killing human being, or at least potential human being. (They eat industrial meat and eggs with smile in their face, what a paradox!)


Our opinions are quite opposite, we both give great value for human life, but we define human life different.