No, I'm not. I've simply cut to the core issue. Perhaps you can see that a cyst is not morally on a par with Mrs Smith, and so are nonplussed. I won't to engage in a clever debate over the meaning of "person" and "human being" and so on, in order to defend your ideology. It's you who must demonstrate that the moral worth of a cyst is the same as that of Mrs Smith, but I doubt it can be done without resorting to mysticism.

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

Thanks for clarifying that. How about cremation? Does burning in a furnace violate the corpse's fundamental human rights?

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

A corpse of a dog is a hunk of meat that used to be a dog until it died - it is no longer a dog. A dog fossil is a fossil of an animal that was a dog when it was alive.

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.

That’s right. Thank you. It’s the easiest assumption to make.

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?

I haven’t contradicted myself, or at least you have not shown it. I already said, no, I don’t think so.

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

Would you eat it?

I am asking you why you believe that a zygote does not have the same fundamental right to not be killed when innocent like a woman does; and you refuse to engage. No, you do not get to blanketly assert that a zygote does not have the right to life and then try to pin it on me to explain (again) why I think it does.

Are you going to actually answer the question and engage in a discussion on ethics?

I don't think so; although I would have to think about it more. I would imagine that, all else being equal, cremating a body is done out of respect for that dead person in order to give it to loved ones to cherish. Since they are dead, there is nothing really being violated about them by doing that (like disrespecting their corpse by having sex with it would).

For me, it is fundamentally about properly respecting life relative to the nature and Telos of each life-form (as best as possible).

am asking you why you believe that a zygote does not have the same fundamental right to not be killed when innocent like a woman does; and you refuse to engage — Bob Ross

You didn't ask @Banno to clarify if the blastocyst he posted was created by fertilization or electronically created parthenogenesis. If the latter, is it not human due to its lack of viability? If so, does that mean viability is a relevant criteria for personhood?

For me, it is fundamentally about properly respecting life relative to the nature and Telos of each life-form (as best as possible). — Bob Ross

Scientists in the study of human origins place a lot of significance to burial of the dead. I've never thought through what that really means.

I am asking you why you believe that a zygote does not have the same fundamental right to not be killed when innocent like a woman does — Bob Ross

If you had to choose between saving a fertility clinic where a million (or a billion or a trillion) zygotes are stored or saving an orphanage where a dozen kids are trapped in the burning building, do you really have to think about which to save?

f you had to choose between saving a fertility clinic where a million (or a billion or a trillion) zygotes are stored or saving an orphanage where a dozen kids are trapped in the burning building, do you really have to think about — RogueAI

A very clarifying question as to the value of each. Wouldnt the one saving the zygotes instead of the children be a moral monster?
Nice one RogueAI. :up:

:up:

I am asking you why you believe that a zygote does not have the same fundamental right to not be killed when innocent like a woman does; and you refuse to engage. — Bob Ross

If you can't see that Mrs Smith has rights not had by a cyst, no theory that I could offer would help you.

Indeed, it's clear that moral theory can be a post hoc attempt to justify doing wrong.

If a theory in physics does not match how things are, we reject it. Again, if a theory of morals does not match how things ought be, then we should reject it.

A cyst ought not bump the rights of Mrs Smith. Thinking otherwise requires ideology.

Scientists in the study of human origins place a lot of significance to burial of the dead. I've never thought through what that really means. — frank

For what it's worth, Jewish law:

"The obligation to bury applies to every corpse, even criminals who have been put to death, the unclaimed slain, suicides, and strangers to the community. To be denied burial was the most humiliating indignity that could be inflicted on the deceased, for it meant “to become food for beasts of prey”.

https://rohatynjewishheritage.org/en/culture/death-burial-mourning/#:~:text=The%20obligation%20to%20bury%20applies,food%20for%20beasts%20of%20prey%E2%80%9D.

Abortion is a super controversial topic, and there absolutely no consensus, like in physics in your analogy, that pro-choice is the right answer. What you are doing, is lazily asserting your position and then saying it is obvious as justification.

E.g., "Why should a woman be allowed to abort a child?"
Banno: "Because it is obviously true"

What kind of intellectually lazy, disingenuous response is that?!?

I respect you Banno, and I want to have a substantive conversation about this topic that challenges both of our positions; but in order to do that you have to actually give an account of why you believe pro-choice is the right answer. Otherwise, there's nothing for me to engage with you about.

As a side note, how do you expect to convince a pro-life person that your position is correct if you just blanketly assert and say it is obviously true as justification?

You are right: I didn't ask that. So why did you comment on my post? I am not following on what your response has to do with my response to Banno. What you brought up was not even remotely relevant to what we were talking about.

Yeah, that's why I would have to think about it more. That's a good point.

See, this is good question to spark the conversation. I wish @Banno would have brought this up, because, if I were doing the arguing for them, this exactly what I would offer in favor of supporting that a woman has a different moral status than a zygote.

I would save the child over the billion zygotes, and prima facie this supports @Bannos point; however, upon deeper reflection, I don't think it helps their case. I am not saying that we cannot have different moral weights for different relevant moral factors when morally analyzing a situation: I am saying that we cannot violate someone's rights.

You may ask: what is the morally difference, then Bob? It's simple: it is always wrong to kill an innocent person, but it is not always wrong to let an innocent person die. Omissions are not morally calculated the same as commissions. In your scenario, if I had to go use the zygotes to put out the fire to save the child, then I would be doing something immoral; but if I am letting the zygotes die because I cannot save them and the child and the child has more moral weight (in this situation) than the zygotes, then nothing immoral is happening. This is no different than having to choose between saving a 90-year old or an infant---one should save, all else being equal, the infant because age can be a morally relevant factor in that kind of dilemma. HOWEVER, age is not a morally relevant factor to whether or not you can violate a 90-year old's rights---e.g., you cannot use the 90-year old's life to save the infant.

Hopefully @Banno decides to engage in the conversation.

Abortion is a super controversial topic, and there absolutely no consensus — Bob Ross

That's not quite right. If there were a vote in 'merca, it would be legal. And elsewhere - in roughly comparable nations - it is a non-issue. Those nations in which it remains problematic are authoritarian, so whatever consensus there is remains hidden behind ideology.

What kind of intellectually lazy, disingenuous response is that?!? — Bob Ross

Not mine. I'm asking instead what folk think about the right of Mrs Smith and the rights of a cyst. If they think the cyst is the equal of Mrs Smith, that is not a fact about cysts and Mrs Smith, but a fact about them. They stand judged by their judgement.

Otherwise, there's nothing for me to engage with you about. — Bob Ross

I don't think there is anything here with which to engage. If I were to hold up a hand and say "here is a hand" and you asked for proof, there would similarly be little more to say.

As a side note, how do you expect to convince a pro-life person that your position is correct if you just blanketly assert and say it is obviously true as justification? — Bob Ross

That's not really my concern. First, I would not expect to change your mind, since your view is doubtless close to what has been called your "form of life" and not really open to discussion. Second, I'm not doing politics here, but ethics. I have shown a method that can be applied to ethical issues in order to cut through the bullshit. We differ as to what we think folk should do.

I have shown a method that can be applied to ethical issues in order to cut through the bullshit. We differ as to what we think folk should do.

You haven't and that's what I am asking you to do: what method?????? You have offered nothing but a blanket assertion that a woman has more rights, or a higher degree of a right, to bodily autonomy than the zygote has to life. Nothing else has been elaborated on.

Second, I'm not doing politics here, but ethics

I am not asking politically: I am asking ethically. You have been refusing to engage in ethics, not politics.

If I were to hold up a hand and say "here is a hand" and you asked for proof, there would similarly be little more to say.

Banno, do you really believe that it is equally as obvious that a woman should have a right to abortion as the fact that your hand exists? C'mon man.

I think it is a complex issue, and is clearly not resolved in the philosophical literature on abortion.

That's not quite right. If there were a vote in 'merca, it would be legal

There have been votes; and red states vote no; and blue states vote yes. There is no consensus.

Banno, do you really believe that it is equally as obvious that a woman should have a right to abortion as the fact that your hand exists? C'mon man. — Bob Ross

Yep. Although I'd characterise it as that a woman has standing not had by a cyst. I'm sorry you can't see that.

it is a complex issue, and is clearly not resolved in the philosophical literature on abortion. — Bob Ross

Well, yes. But you would have me add to that literature.

The obligation to bury applies to every corpse, even criminals who have been put to death, the unclaimed slain, suicides, and strangers to the community. To be denied burial was the most humiliating indignity that could be inflicted on the deceased, for it meant “to become food for beasts of prey”. — Hanover

That's cool. It's like 'equality in death'. Thanks for the source.

There have been votes; and red states vote no; and blue states vote yes. There is no consensus. — Bob Ross

Without checking, from what I recall this is not true. Since the Dobbs decision, when there’s a vote on the ballot in red states it goes pro-choice. Legislatures in red states don’t always allow the issue to be voted on, however.

Wouldn't the more pertinent issue be wills or a person's expressed desires about what should happen to their body and property after their death?

Seems to me there are obvious limits here, but there also doesn't seem to be no rights. For example, if a person spends their life trying to protect an ecosystem by acquiring land to create a nature reserve, all else equal, it seems unethical to ignore their will and sell the land off to loggers.

Now, wills are a legal issue, but their presumably a legal issue because they have some degree of ethical valance. If people's identities and rights completely vanish at their death it's not even clear why their children should inherit their estate. But "dispossessing the widow and the orphan," is one of the key things railed against as sin/wickedness in the Bible and plenty of other cultural and religious contexts as well.



Is it never warranted for military officers issue orders that are almost certain to result in the deaths of their innocent men? Suppose that the soldiers are conscripts and haven't had a choice in joining the military.

I am not sure this is obvious. The Third Reich's invasion of the Soviet Union couldn't have been repelled without these sorts of acts for instance, and so refusing to do them also essentially dooms many innocents to death.

And the plot hook for Antigone; where would we be without it!

Antigone was Jewish? You learn something every day.

That's not quite right. If there were a vote in 'merca, it would be legal. And elsewhere - in roughly comparable nations - it is a non-issue. Those nations in which it remains problematic are authoritarian, so whatever consensus there is remains hidden behind ideology.

It's not an absolute non-issue. Almost all European states have a limit at or below 15 weeks for elective abortion, most at 10-12, which is a good deal more restrictive than many US states, including some conservative ones. The US is bipolar in allowing abortion at any gestational age or at 20+ weeks in several states (only Iceland, Singapore, and Vietnam have national limits this high) but also banning it in almost all cases.

Quite a few European states have gone in the opposite direction. For instance, in Estonia, where close to 70% of conceptions ended in abortion at one point, is now down to eleven weeks.

Antigone was Jewish? You learn something every day. — Banno

Everyone will eventually be proven to be Jewish.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/christopher-columbus-dna-sephardic-jew-b2630798.html

Is that why I like bagels?


(Also, I much prefer the traditional way of making blastocysts. Much more enjoyable.)

Seems to me there are obvious limits here, but there also doesn't seem to be no rights. For example, if a person spends their life trying to protect an ecosystem by acquiring land to create a nature reserve, all else equal, it seems unethical to ignore their will and sell the land off to loggers. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get what you're saying, but I wouldn't say that cashes out in terms of rights. With civil rights you have to be able to show up in court. Natural rights are enforced by nature, but not necessarily in a timely fashion.

Now, wills are a legal issue, but their presumably a legal issue because they have some degree of ethical valance. If people's identities and rights completely vanish at their death it's not even clear why their children should inherit their estate. But "dispossessing the widow and the orphan," is one of the key things railed against as sin/wickedness in the Bible and plenty of other cultural and religious contexts as well. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think Bob's point was that the corpse itself has natural rights. I think what exists are customs for dealing with the remains of a human. The corpse can't show up in court.

But that reminds me of a story I wrote once. This guy keeps seeing corpses, but the people around him treat them as if they're still alive. The welfare of the corpse is discussed while it's eyeball is falling out.

He goes in for a job interview and people are bustling around the boss, but of course the boss is a corpse.