It looks as if you have not followed the argument. I guess you can't, not without losing too much. Yes, it is about degrees of moral standing. Your essentialism aims for an absolute moral law. But morals are decided, not found, oughts, not is's. That your proposal gives at least the same rights to a cyst as to a person is damning.

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.

I never suggested it did. I don’t know why everyone is coming at me with straw mans after I gave a very specific argument that addressed this very point. I will say it again. Not all human beings are persons, and not all persons are necessarily human beings. The obvious rejoinder to my position, prima facie, is the personhood-style arguments; but I think they fail for many reasons (which I will skip over for now) and that the best way to ground rights is in the Telos (ps: I know that’s a dirty word now) of a being such that it marks them out as a person (as opposed to being currently a person). In short, I take a hybrid view between animalism and these personhood-style positions.

children's legal status is also different

When talking about abortion, this point would imply that, it is possible that, an unborn child’s legal status is that it can be killed. At that point, it doesn’t a legal status; which is what a personhood-style position is going to want to argue.

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.

These are all good points. I would say that that:

1. The morally relevant differences between these examples and abortion is NOT that people’s status’ change but, rather, that, when properly understood, they are toto genere different moral dilemmas.

2. Euthanasia does not involve, when properly understood, the killing of an innocent person in the sense which happens in abortion: the person who wants to die is giving consent from a rational state of mind, whereas the unborn child is not. I think it is implied in “innocence” that the person is not partaking in whatever is in question; but, if you want, we can just tack-on “it is wrong to kill an innocent person who isn’t properly consenting to being killed” (and, yes, “properly” is doing a lot of work here).

3. Killing a person who is in a permanent coma, who had not properly consented to being killed prior to comatose, is being murdered; and, no, a family member should not have the power to command their execution.

4. Consent for organ donation and wills are examples of consent which are properly crafted during a rational mind-set; and so this is perfectly fine. However, to use a person’s dead corpse to experiment on or donate in ways which were not consented would be immoral; even if it could save someone else’s life.

Moreover, unfertilised gametes and severed limbs are recognisably of the species homo sapiens and are not treated as moral persons

Unfertilized gametes and severed limbs are not members of the human species: they are parts of humans.

The unfertilised gametes, severed limbs and dead bodies aren't even conscious, the former two have no moral agency and the latter are treated as moral agents (as if they were alive) in a limited fashion.

According to personhood-style arguments, I think you bring up a good point here (although I know this is not what you are intending to convey) that dead bodies would not have any rights whatsoever; because rights are associated with actual personhood—current persons. So it should be, under their view, morally permissible to do anything to the dead corpses (such as having sex or using it as a punching bag).

It only makes sense to give it EVEN PARTIAL respectful treatment, other than as a mere subjective taste, if one is thinking about it like an Aristotelian: that being was a member of a species which marks it out as a person, and this means I still have to respect this being even after death.

To summarise, each of those entities counts as a member of the species homo sapiens, but they are not a moral agent

What is a moral agent is different than what is a person; and the former has nothing to do with grounding rights. Moral agency is about which agents are held responsible for their free acts and to what degree; and personhood is about features of the mind which ground certain innate rights.

Then, Michael, you are literally arguing that there is no point at which a human being acquires rights.

I want to here, Banno, your moral theory. Explain it, so I can see what I am working with here. How does the graduations of rights work?

No point. If you can't see that a cyst has less standing than Mrs Smith, you are not even in the same game.

I think what's trying (imo, quite badly) to do is point out that your argument (i.e how you would assess the question yourself) is inapt for much of a pregnancy.

I realise it's likely you will side with the mother regardless, But i think that's what he wants you to admit.

If the idea that is that, stepping back, in the round, the mother takes moral priority, does this include up to the anticipated date of birth? Timothy nearly got there, point out a human is also a clump of cells.

But there is obviously also a difference between a blastocyst and a fetus. But also, a fetus and a baby. Which means what to your version of the argument? The reason most want an 'essentialist' account of personhood is to demarcate at which point a 'clump of cells' gets moral priority (you may bite the bullet of late-term abortion. I don't, so this isn't obvious to me). This is because we don't make decisions 'in the round' or 'stepping back'. We make them on the actual facts (i.e how far along is this fetus at hte time the abortion has been proposed).

The whole point of having a discussion about abortion is to test and discuss our ethical theories. You are copping out with blanket assertions. If you want to engage in a productive ethical discussion, then hit me up.

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. — Bob Ross

Do you consider a brain dead individual on life support to be a member of the human species?

Yes; and that is uncontroversially true. Where it gets controversial, is what rights (if any) a brain dead human being has (and, likewise, a completely dead human being has).

Where it gets controversial, is what rights (if any) a brain dead human being has (and, likewise, a completely dead human being has). — Bob Ross

Probably none

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. — NOS4A2

Your replies are becoming even more incoherent. Here's what you said a few days ago:

Does your reasoning rely on some distinction between “person” & “human being”?
I don’t distinguish the two, personally. — NOS4A2

I'll try one more time. What are the characteristics that describe a human person / human being?

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). — Bob Ross

Yep.

So you believe someone can have sex with a dead corpse? So you believe that a person's organs can be harvested even if they did not previously consent?

Yes; and that is uncontroversially true. — Bob Ross

Firstly this is not "uncontroversially true" - it is an opinion. Many people disagree with you.

And on that note we will have to agree to disagree. I understand and respect your principled opinion. But I (along with many other people) consider a brain dead body to be a hunk of meat, not a person.

So you believe someone can have sex with a dead corpse? — Bob Ross

Uh ...

So you believe that a person's organs can be harvested even if they did not previously consent? — Bob Ross

I think that's a matter of respecting the wishes of the person who is now gone.

Do you consider a brain dead individual on life support to be a member of the human species?

Is he some other species? I’d love to hear that argument.

I'll try one more time. What are the characteristics that describe a human person / human being?

Humans have the capacity to speak a language at some point in their lives.

You said that dead people have no rights; therefore, your position necessitates that it is not impermissible, in principle, to do those horrific things. That was my point.

Eric, with all due respect, you are not understanding what I am saying. I can tell, because:

And on that note we will have to agree to disagree. I understand and respect your principled opinion. But I (along with many other people) consider a brain dead body to be a hunk of meat, not a person.

You asked:

Do you consider a brain dead individual on life support to be a member of the human species?

I never once claimed that a dead human being is a person. I said it is uncontroversially true that a dead human being is still a member of the human species. This is not a matter of opinion: biologists do not think that you magically are no longer a member of Homo Sapiens when you die, just as much as a dead dog is not thereby no longer a dog.

To be fair, in colloquial speech, we use "person" and "human being" interchangeably and loosely sometimes; but we have to separate these conceptions to have a proper discussion of rights.

You said that dead people have no rights; therefore, your position necessitates that it is not impermissible, in principle, to do those horrific things. That was my point. — Bob Ross

You wouldn't be violating the corpse's rights if you did horrific things to it. We would check you in to the nearest psych ward for other reasons.

What reasons? This is the problem with your position: you have no moral reasons to punish or rehabilitate them because you deny that anything wrong is happening to that corpse. Having sex with it is morally on par with having sex with a sex doll (for you).

To admit someone as mentally ill, you must have a proper moral reason or reasons for doing so. What are they doing that is wrong?

Bob. We burn corpses. We bury them. Are you saying this is immoral?

NOS conflates person & human being so I was working within that framework. There have been so many posts flying back and forth that it is hard to follow, but I'll try to work within your framework. Anyway, with that in mind we still disagree. I do not consider a dead dog to be a dog. This is not "uncontroversially true" - it is opinion. I consider a dead dog to be a hunk of meat that used to be a dog. Same thing applies to Homo Sapiens.

The whole point of having a discussion about abortion is to test and discuss our ethical theories. — Bob Ross

Well, no - the whole point is to decide whether we ought allow abortions or not.

We are to judge ethical theories by what they say we ought do. If someone presents an ethical theory that implies an unethical act, we ought reject that ethical theory.

Now treating a cyst as of equal moral standing to Mrs Smith is unethical.

Hence we ought reject any theory that implies this.

I'm amused by this little side discussion about necrophilia. Let me offer a quick personal observation. My father bequeathed his corpse to medical science. This was a noble gesture. I haven't decided yet what to do with my corpse - I vacillate between my dad's decision, or donating body parts, or doing one of these environmentally sound burials. But either way it is my choice.

So if a person decides that they wanted to charge any necrophiliacs out there to, umm, do their thing on their corpse - say $100,000 a pop - and then donate that money to a worthy charity? Apart from being really bizarre (in my opinion) I'm guessing that would be morally/ethically OK.

So what happens if a person does not specify what to do with their corpse? That's up to the estate. Should the estate be allowed to rent the corpse out to necrophiliacs? I can't give a definitive answer but my sense of things is that unless the person expressed some desire in that regard then I would disapprove. Of course there is always the laws of the land to take into account as well.

Do you consider a brain dead individual on life support to be a member of the human species?
Is he some other species? I’d love to hear that argument. — NOS4A2

Does your reasoning rely on some distinction between “person” & “human being”?
I don’t distinguish the two, personally. — NOS4A2

It's really hard to follow what you're saying since you keep changing your terminology.
You have repeatedly stated that you do not see any difference between being a person and being a human being - so I was using your terminology. I'm assuming here that when you say "human being" then this entails being a member of the human species.

No measurable property called “personhood” appears or disappears in any given human being. Therefor no one can pick and choose with any certainty when one is or isn’t a person. — NOS4A2

Humans have the capacity to speak a language at some point in their lives. — NOS4A2

You're all over the map here contradicting yourself. Is there a distinction between personhood (being a person) and being a human being (i.e. being a member of the human species?) Yes or no?

And to answer your question, I consider a brain dead body on life support to be a hunk of meat.

Bob. We burn corpses. We bury them. Are you saying this is immoral?

1. This is a red herring: you are purposefully avoiding my line of questioning.

2. No, burying them is not immoral per se. This doesn’t violate any of their rights which are applicable to dead people.

If I take your position seriously, then we cannot say that a dog fossil is a dog fossil.

You are just sidestepping the conversation and begging the question. I have tried many times to inquire on what moral grounds you believe this and you keep sidestepping.

You didn't address anything we were really discussing about: I am asking @frank if it is morally permissible (and subsequently legally permissible) to have sex with a corpse, and there answer was ~"no". My point is that this is wrong, as it is wrong to have sex with a corpse; and any view that grounds rights completely in the quality of being alive will have to admit that, in that theory, it is never impermissible to do heinous things. So far, @frank has dodged this problem instead of biting the bullet.

What you are asking, is whether or not, separately from my discussion with frank, it is morally permissible to have sex with a corpse if that now dead person signed a contract giving proper consent to it being done. This presupposes that the dead person prima facie has a right not to be used as a sex doll, which is incompatible with @franks position. For me, I am going to say it is impermissible; because I believe that it is possible to commit immoral acts upon oneself, which are beyond the purview of justice (because it does not relate to how one should treat other people), and one such act is allowing people to degrade your corpse with sexual acts. However, I would say that not everything that is immoral should be illegal; as laws are about justice, which is a sub-branch of morality. The law should not regulate that what specifically you should do with your own body, as we have seen how much of a disaster that becomes. So, in short, it would be immoral but not illegal (according to me).

The modern take would be to say that it should not be illegal and whether or not it is immoral is irrelevant; because each person should be able to pursue their own conception of the good.