Just a history note: in Jamaica, during the time the English used slave labor there, all the slave women who became pregnant aborted their pregnancies so that their children wouldn't grow up in the world they were living in. The same would have been true in Brazil, but there were very harsh punishments for abortion there

It's not true that all women who have sought abortions denied the humanity of what they were killing, and this is still true today.

A member of a species has to be an organism, taken as a whole, of that species — Bob Ross


This is circular.

No it is not. In order for X to be a member of the set of all existent square blocks, it must be a square block.

This is basic biology. It is a member of the human species if it that certain kind of animal: homo sapien. — Bob Ross


Well, I wouldn't say that homo sapiens are single-celled animals.

This is basic biology: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-sapiens . When, for you, does an organism become a member of its species? Anything you say is going to be utterly arbitrary, if it is not conception.

There are ways to tell: I was saying to the naked eye. We can examine it in the lab and determine if it is a human being (or, if you prefer, human fertilized egg).

In order for X to be a member of the set of all existent square blocks, it must be a square block. — Bob Ross

And to explain what it means to be a square block you describe the relevant geometry.

How do you explain what it means to be a Homo sapiens?

When, for you, does an organism become a member of its species? — Bob Ross

There is no point. It’s like asking when does a species branch into two? There’s just a bunch or organic matter arranged together and behaving in certain ways, and then for practical reasons we group collections of similar organic matter together under a single name.

There was never a point where a non-Homo sapiens simply gave birth to a Homo sapiens. The evolution into Homo sapiens was a gradual process where we can say at the one extreme that it wasn’t human and at the other extreme it is but then in between there’s a grey, ambiguous area and any attempt at a definitive classification is arbitrary.

How do you explain what it means to be a Homo sapiens?

a homo sapiens is a contradiction in terms: it is a species.

The typical definition of a species, which holds generally for its members and absolutely for its healthy members, is "A group of organisms that share similar physical and genetic characteristics and are capable of interbreeding to produce viable offspring".

"A group of organisms that share similar physical and genetic characteristics and are capable of interbreeding to produce viable offspring". — Bob Ross

A zygote is not physically similar to me.

This is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

@Bob Ross has dragged the discussion back to essentialism again. "It's human, so you mustn't kill it", ignoring capital punishment and war and euthanasia.

It's a bunch of cells. It does nto have the moral standing of the person carrying it.

Could you flesh out exactly what you're saying about fully developed humans like yourself? I'm assuming it's not that you think you have some sort of divine grace. Why should you have legal protection? Is it a matter of sentiment?

Bob Ross has dragged the discussion back to essentialism again. "It's human, so you mustn't kill it", ignoring capital punishment and war and euthanasia. — Banno

The pro-life argument is not "thou shall not kill." It's not to kill unjustly, which would exclude killing the innocent.

We all agree, for example, that holding someone against one's will ought be prohibited, yet we distinguish between false arrest and legal arrest and between kidnapping and incarceration. We allow certain actions in response to other actions, so it's not hypocritical to permit capital punishment yet prohibit abortion. One person has been found guilty and deserving, and the other not.

What constitutes the just taking of a human life (or deprivation of any human right) might be complicated and nuanced, but that doesn't mean the allowance of some deprivation of human rights in some cases means it must be allowed in all cases.

This is consistent with the biblical commandment at Exodus 20:13 that says לֹא תִּרְצָח (do not murder) which is obviously different from לא להרוג (do not kill). That is, killing is sometimes ok, but never murder because murder has a specific definition that excludes war, capital punishment, but I doubt euthanasia. I point out the biblical passage because I am not confused into thinking the pro-life position isn't aligned with it, but I don't think the position is internally hypocritical.

All this is insubstantial in the argument I presented to you. We have on the one hand a woman, perhaps a nurse, perhaps a CEO, perhaps a sister, mother, daughter, perhaps a care giver or volunteer. Someone who can express their needs, who makes plans and seeks to fulfil them and who has a place in our world.

We have on the other hand, a group of cells.

That you value those cells over the person who must carry them is heinous.

What exactly is the argument? Adult humans are also a "group of cells."

An unborn child can be a sister or daughter, unless we want to say that passage through the birth canal turns us into sisters and sons.

They cannot be a caregiver, CEO, etc., true. Is being these things relevant to a right not to be euthanized? Or the ability to express one's needs or "have a place in the world?"

Infants are also largely incapable of these things (temporarily at least). So are those with serve developmental disabilities, dementia, etc. The severely injured also become temporarily unable to do many of those things. In the case of those with dementia, etc., it is pretty much impossible that they will ever be/be able to do any of these things, whereas the unborn child or infant can at least eventually become/do these things.

The need to rely heavily on others is also there in all cases (fetuses, infants, the severely disabled, etc.) In general, taking care of infants is more difficult and time consuming than having them in the womb, and taking care of adults with dementia, severe brain damage, etc. is significantly more difficult (and expensive) than taking care of infants.

Now, people will often claim that pregnancy is different because there isn't a way to transfer the responsibility until birth. I do think this is relevant, but we have to be careful here lest we lapse into assuming that, in the real world, it is in any way easy (or even in many cases possible) to pass off relatives with dementia or brain injuries to others' care. This is often far from easy, and whereas pregnancy and infancy end relatively quickly, care for someone with a brain injury can last decades, precluding any involvement in the workforce or public life. This is why I think arguments about "burden" are generally going to "allow too much." It's far easier to find people willing to adopt children than 30-year-old men with severe brain damage, and the former also tax society much more.

I don't really know if, given our society, those with brain injuries or dementia "have a place in the world." Certainly not much of one. And they might be quite unable to voice their desires as well.

What exactly is the argument? — Count Timothy von Icarus

That "exactly" is again a pointer to essentialism. What gives someone moral worth need not be a single characteristic or even a given group of characteristics. The rope is a rope despite no one thread running through it's whole length. There need be no essential common feature but instead a series of overlapping similarities. But when we stand back and consider what is before us, it is one rope.

Stand back and consider the differences. We ought not give the blastocyst the same moral standing as the person who carries it. If you cannot see the difference then there isn't a lot more to be said.

It ought be the person carrying the blastocyst who has the main say in what to do with it.

Sure, all that. There is a version of the naturalistic fallacy sitting in this thread. Roughly, folk argue as if, if we could only set out explicitly what it is to be a person or a human or whatever, then we would know for sure if we are allowed to do abortions - we need the "is" to decide the "ought". I think that fundamentally flawed. We decide what is to count as human, and what isn't; we don't discover it.

I don't think having some level of clarity implies essentialism. Considering this is one of the more fraught moral dilemmas of our time, I am not sure if "it just is, and if you don't agree there is nothing to say," is a particularly good argument.

Also, a blastocyst becomes an embryo at around 10 days, which is before women generally have any idea they are pregnant and thus before most abortions (aside from abortions that are accidental side effects). Most abortions do occur early though. And most people have problems with very late abortions. That's why some level of clarity is important, since "it just is," does not seem to close the door on infanctide or distinguish between early and very late abortions.

Considering this is one of the more fraught moral dilemmas of our time, I am not sure if "it just is, and if you don't agree there is nothing to say," is a particularly good argument. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed, it's not much better than "Here is a hand. If you hold my hand up before us both, and say "here is a hand", and I disagree, that would put an end to one way the conversation might go. At some stage it is reasonable for you to say that I am wrong to say this is not a hand.

It ought be the person carrying the blastocyst who has the main say in what to do with it.

BTW, it seems possible to affirm this and that abortion should be legal without having to claim that it is morally unproblematic. People have a right to divorce for instance, but it isn't always unproblematic. An Uber driver I was talking to the other week had a stroke in his mid-40s and his wife divorced him shortly after when he could no longer earn as much and required care for instance.

Issues like mass abortions of girls because of a preference for boys, etc. It's not like eugenicists designs vis-á-vis selective abortion lack moral valence, like it's the equivalent of getting a hair cut. Nor is it without social import, in some societies, e.g. Eastern Europe in the 90s, 50% or even 70+% of human conceptions in some states ended in abortion.

When, for you, does an organism become a member of its species? Anything you say is going to be utterly arbitrary, if it is not conception. — Bob Ross

This is still circular logic. What makes one collection of cells and protoplasm a member of the human species? It is not merely the presence of a particular set of genes/chromosomes - there must be something else.

Sure. So long as the vast gap between the moral worth of an adult human and that of a cyst is recognised.

This is still circular logic. What makes one collection of cells and protoplasm a member of the human species? It is not merely the presence of a particular set of genes/chromosomes - there must be something else. — EricH

@Bob Ross

I want to "yes, and" Eric's comment. Even if you grant that a being is a member of the human species, that does not mean they count as a person or as a moral agent.

Everyday intuitions about moral agency are also limited by the status of a person. Children (especially) and young adults are treated with more lenience for behaving in a socially unacceptable manner and for committing moral wrongs, children's legal status is also different. People's status as an agent may change if they go into a permanent coma, we have next of kin rules, waivers, and even (arguably) the ability to extend our capacity for consent after our death with organ donation and wills. Moreover, unfertilised gametes and severed limbs are recognisably of the species homo sapiens and are not treated as moral persons - unless one is willing to admit that shagging, the normal functioning of fertilised ovums, menstruation and masturbation are each a peculiar brand of industrial slaughter.



To summarise, each of those entities counts as a member of the species homo sapiens, but they are not a moral agent. Some of them count as persons and have restricted or removed moral agency, some of them don't count as persons but nevertheless are treated as moral agents.

This is still circular logic. What makes one collection of cells and protoplasm a member of the human species? It is not merely the presence of a particular set of genes/chromosomes - there must be something else.

It is an animal. Severed limbs are not animals. Gametes are not animals. Those are parts of animals. Being a human animal is all that is required to be a member of the human species. The theory of identity at work is “animalism”.

Being a human animal is all that is required to be a member of the human species. — NOS4A2

You're still going around in circles. How do we identify whether a collection of cells and protoplasm is an animal - let alone a human animal. Why is a severed limb not an animal (I agree that it isn't, but you have not provided a coherent explanation)?

A severed limb is not an animal by virtue of it being a part of an animal, which for some reason you never quoted nor addressed before accusing me of being circular, but I can also add that animals typically metabolize, have the capacity to reproduce at some point in their lives, breathe oxygen, and so on. A severed limb cannot.

Everyday intuitions about moral agency are also limited by the status of a person. Children (especially) and young adults are treated with more lenience for behaving in a socially unacceptable manner and for committing moral wrongs, children's legal status is also different. People's status as an agent may change if they go into a permanent coma, we have next of kin rules, waivers, and even (arguably) the ability to extend our capacity for consent after our death with organ donation and wills. Moreover, unfertilised gametes and severed limbs are recognisably of the species homo sapiens and are not treated as moral persons - unless one is willing to admit that shagging, the normal functioning of fertilised ovums, menstruation and masturbation are each a peculiar brand of industrial slaughter.

:up:

Yes. And I'd add that from the standpoint of apologetics a a pro-choice argument that has to rely on the claim that "fetuses are not human," seems to have set it self up for descending down all sorts of metaphysical rabbit holes regarding nominalism, essence, substantial change, etc.

I think it's probably not relevant. We also conscript adults and at times command then to engage in suicidal behavior on the battlefield. Hence, it simply isn't the case that we never force innocent adults towards (almost certain) death either (e.g. I recall one US company—about 150 members—in the Korean War in which just three members were left alive by the end of the night after being ordered not to retreat because it would collapse the entire front).

Still circling. You have not yet defined the characteristics that define a human person.

Still circling. You have not yet defined the characteristics that define a human person.

Now it’s a human person. First it was a human being, then it was a human animal, next it’s a human person.

Ok, then: A blastocyst is not a human being. The blastocyst is alive. It can be considered as a seperate entity - it might be moved to another host, for example. It has human DNA and so on, but it is no more a "member of the human species" than is your finger.

My finger is not a beginning stage of human development: that’s the difference.

We have on the one hand a woman, perhaps a nurse, perhaps a CEO, perhaps a sister, mother, daughter, perhaps a care giver or volunteer.

All red herrings, my friend.

Someone who can express their needs, who makes plans and seeks to fulfil them and who has a place in our world.

You don’t think a baby has a place in the world? You don’t think that a baby would express, if they could, that they don’t want to be murdered? Irregardless, this is all irrelevant to my position: I don’t think it is morally relevant to this moral dilemma whether or not the mother or baby can express their needs, is capable of planning, nor “has a place in the world”.

What exactly morally are you suggesting? I think I’ve made my argument clear: in a standard abortion case, we have a woman that wants to uphold their right to bodily autonomy and can only do so by means of murdering another human—and to do so is always morally impermissible because murder (viz., killing an innocent human being) is a bad object for actions (and so all actions of that species are wrong). What’s your position? Are you make a consequentialist-style argument that we should justify the good end (of upholding the woman’s bodily autonomy) via a bad means because the end consequentially outweighs (perhaps significantly) the bad means? Is that the idea???

It's not true that all women who have sought abortions denied the humanity of what they were killing, and this is still true today.

Interesting story, and very heartfelt. I don’t think that even women in the West necessarily abort while denying the humanity of their children: I think there are people who just don’t understand ethics (or disagree with my ethics [;) and they sincerely believe they are doing the right thing.

Also, I will say that, to your point, your example exemplifies a rare occurrence in abortion-situations in the West (if we were to map it over) because in your example the women are doing it solely for the benefit of the child—so it is a complete sense of respect for them (even though I think what they are doing is immoral).

"It's human, so you mustn't kill it",

I never argued that: this is a blatant straw man.

ignoring capital punishment and war and euthanasia.

What?!? :sad: You are making me sad, Banno, with all these blatant straw mans.

It does nto have the moral standing of the person carrying it.

So your view is based off of degrees of moral standing for persons? Is that the idea? So a elderly person has less rights than a person in their prime?

This is still circular logic. What makes one collection of cells and protoplasm a member of the human species? It is not merely the presence of a particular set of genes/chromosomes - there must be something else.

A genetically unique individual which has the genes of a human is, standardly, considered a member of the human species. I don’t see anything circular here.