Natural rights are enforced by nature, but not necessarily in a timely fashion — frank

I don't follow this.

The position I am aware of is that governments have the duty to protect natural rights. For example, my right to free speech isn't given to me by the government, but the government must recognize it and protect it else it's an immoral government.

You seem to be describing some sort of karmic system where mother nature is going to send its wrath if not respected and that will result in eventual compliance with her dictates.

The problem is that you have all sorts of horrible governments that openly deny rights and this can only be stopped by intentional intervention and uprising, if at all, but never just by the consistent hand of nature.

So, if people have the natural right to respect in death, it's obvious the dead can't enforce it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means someone else must enforce it for the dead, just like an infant couldn't enforce its own rights without assistance.

The position I am aware of is that governments have the duty to protect natural rights. For example, my right to free speech isn't given to me by the government, but the government must recognize it and protect it else it's an immoral government. — Hanover

This idea is rooted in Stoicism. The idea is that when things follow their nature, they thrive. For instance, it's in a tree's nature to grow toward the light. If it does this, it will become healthy and green. If it goes against its nature, it will shrivel and die. The same is supposed to be true for individuals and societies. It's supposed to be in the nature of a society to protect the well-being of the citizens. If it doesn't do this, the society will suffer from internal conflict and it will shrivel. So basically, good and evil are the same thing as health and sickness.

So, if people have the natural right to respect in death, it's obvious the dead can't enforce it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means someone else must enforce it for the dead, just like an infant couldn't enforce its own rights without assistance. — Hanover

It just seems like this is pulling the idea of rights all out of whack. It's that tradition weighs in on what we should do with corpses. You can't violate the rights of a corpse. You can go against tradition.

Are you arguing that a both have rights, but one trumps the other? Or are you arguing that only one of them has rights?

I haven’t contradicted myself, or at least you have not shown it. — NOS4A2

Sigh. I'm a glutton for punishment. I'll try one more time. Here are two statements from you:

No measurable property called “personhood” appears or disappears in any given human being. — NOS4A2

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

The second statement clearly contradicts the first. The second statement says that there IS a measurable property that appears (and may disappear) in any human being - namely the capacity to speak a language.

And again, you do not make any distinction between the terms "person/personhood", "human", or "human being" - so you cannot define your way out of this contradiction.

I don't know any way to make this any clearer.

if I had to go use the zygotes to put out the fire to save the child, then I would be doing something immoral — Bob Ross

If you could save one child by pouring billions of zygotes on a burning building to put the fire out, again, do you really have to think about what to do? You wouldn't let the kid die.

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. — praxis

Yeah, Bob is wrong.
https://www.npr.org/sections/2022-live-primary-election-race-results/2022/08/02/1115317596/kansas-voters-abortion-legal-reject-constitutional-amendment

There are two fundamental issues:
1) should individual human beings be protected by government policy?
2) what constitutes an individual human being?

The answer to #1 is: yes, of course. I don't think anyone disagrees.
#2 is the source of disagreement.

There are religions (e.g. Roman Catholicism) that teach that zygotes are individual human beings. For them, this is non-negotiable. However, their religious view should not be imposed on everyone else. There's a rock-solid reason to think zygotes are not individual human beings: monozygotic twins. If a zygote is an individual human being, then monozygotic twins are a single human being, which is non-sensical.

There is no well-defined set of necessary and sufficient properties that unequivocally delineates when something is an IHB. Everyone would probably agree that a newborn infant is an IHB, and this implies an IHB is something that emerges gradually during fetal development. But there is no right answer regarding when the fetus constitutes an IHB: it's a fuzzy concept, not a well-defined one. Any definition we create would be arbitrary

The second statement clearly contradicts the first. The second statement says that there IS a measurable property that appears (and may disappear) in any human being - namely the capacity to speak a language.

And again, you do not make any distinction between the terms "person/personhood", "human", or "human being" - so you cannot define your way out of this contradiction.

I don't know any way to make this any clearer.

The capacity for human beings to acquire a language at some point of their lives is measurable and apparent. Humans are aware of and can understand language at some point in their lives. This seems to me a fact and is observable, at least so long as they are allowed to live. No other species can do this. All of this is because humans have the biology for language. This biology, and all material required to develop it, is present from the very beginning to the very end of every human being’s life—the biological-continuity of identity—none of which comes and goes. And this is just one characteristic of human beings. No such thing can be said of “personhood” or any other account of psychological-continuity.

Yes, I thought I made it clear that “human”, “person”, “human being”, “member of the human species”, are different words for the same kind of entity. I can point to a member of the human species and also call him a “human” or a “person”. In any case I see no contradiction to define my way out of.

By the way “meat” is flesh as food, in English. If human and canine corpses are “meat” as you claim, would you eat them? If you meant “flesh”, do humans lack flesh? If you meant “bug food”, are human beings immune to bug bites?

I don't think that is true at all. Red states are predominantly conservative; and conservatives are not pro-choice.

Is it never warranted for military officers issue orders that are almost certain to result in the deaths of their innocent men?

Yes (under certain circumstances), and this gets into the principle of double effect; and is not pertinent to the abortion discussion.

Technically, it is always wrong to directly intentionally kill an innocent human being—I usually just shorten it to “don’t kill innocent humans” to keep it simple

I am assuming that this was a rhetorical question, since you quoted my answer.

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

So you would let a child die rather than save their life by sacrificing/using zygote(s)? I think your position is absurd. I also don't think you would let the child die, if push came to shove.

I don't think that is true at all. Red states are predominantly conservative; and conservatives are not pro-choice. — Bob Ross

It’s true, and it’s something that you can easily verify for yourself.

When the right to abortion is on the ballot, it wins. It wins in red states that voted for President Donald Trump. It wins in counties President Joe Biden lost by more than 20 points. It wins when popular Republican officials campaign for it and when they ignore it. And it wins even when the outcome has no immediate effect on abortion access.
— Politico

Many more states will vote on it next month. Some Republican lead legislatures in red states prevent it from being on the ballot. Why? See above.

Words have meanings/usages - and your inconsistent statements render your arguments meaningless. Just to give a contrast, I disagree with @Bob Ross but his position is clearly articulated and understandable. I'll give you the last word if you want.

I think you're right. At least in the US, the estate of a deceased person has "rights" and the executor of the will is supposed to enact the intentions of the deceased, and you can have lawsuits related to "the estate of..." but this does seem materially different. I mean, it's also about the rights of the inheritors, but they are alive.

Well, presumably in virtually all cases of elective abortion the woman having the abortion isn't acting in order to have an abortion. I can't imagine the abortion is ever the end being pursued (barring your extreme outlier cases).

The intended goal will be something like avoiding poverty, not detracting from the care of one's existing children, etc.

And yes, we might rank "stop the Confederates from reaching Washington and preserving slavery for another 100 years" differently than an individual family's desire to avoid poverty, but double effect doesn't make the distinction cut and dry.

Yes (under certain circumstances), and this gets into the principle of double effect; and is not pertinent to the abortion discussion. — Bob Ross

Except that the double effect was part of an extended discussion of abortion involving Philippa Foot and Anscombe, the very one in which what 'mercans call the "trolly" problem was first deployed.

Well, presumably in virtually all cases of elective abortion the woman having the abortion isn't acting in order to have an abortion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yep. Folk don't generally fuck in order to have an abortion.

Words have meanings/usages - and your inconsistent statements render your arguments meaningless. Just to give a contrast, I disagree with @Bob Ross but his position is clearly articulated and understandable. I'll give you the last word if you want.

And you think corpses are food. Articulation is one thing, bad ideas are another.

This biology, and all material required to develop it, is present from the very beginning to the very end of every human being’s life — NOS4A2

This is false. There's more to biology than genetics – there's morphology and physiology – and more than the stuff already contained within a zygote is required for it to grow into a baby (e.g. nutrients from the mother).

it is always wrong to directly intentionally kill an innocent human being — Bob Ross

What do (all) innocent human beings have (that other organisms don't have?) that entails this conclusion?

So you would let a child die rather than save their life by sacrificing/using zygote(s)? I think your position is absurd. I also don't think you would let the child die, if push came to shove. — RogueAI

Extending this, here are two trolley problems:

1. If you don't change the track then five babies die. If you do then one baby dies. What do you do?
2. If you don't change the track then one baby dies. If you do then five zygotes die. What do you do?

I don't think there's any moral dilemma with (2), whereas there is with (1), showing the obvious moral difference between killing a baby and killing a zygote. We ought change the track and let five zygotes die to save the baby.

Notice that I've made (2) even more extreme by requiring an active choice that kills more things, whereas traditionally the active choice kills fewer. That's how little zygotes matter.

Missed this:

Are you arguing that a both have rights, but one trumps the other? Or are you arguing that only one of them has rights? — Bob Ross

The argument is pretty clear, and has been stated a few times. Whatever standing the cyst has is negligible in comparison to that had by Mrs Smith.

You don't understand my position; and have straw manned it time and time again. If you want to understand it,then we need to actually discuss it from the foundation up. Otherwise, you will continue to be confused from your own perspective.

The most common republican view, although not officially, is that abortion should be illegal except under certain grave circumstances. E.g., https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx#:~:text=Views%20on%20Legality%20of%20Abortion%2C%20by%20Party%20ID .

Democrats commonly want it legal in all or most circumstances. You are making it sound like both republicans and democrats see eye-to-eye on abortion....not at all.

You are confusing the end with the intentions. I can directly intend something which is not the end I am trying to bring about (e.g., start my car to go to the grocery store). A woman who opts-in for an abortion is directly intended to kill an innocent human being as a means towards the end of upholding her own bodily autonomy; because the abortion (1) at least partially (if not totally) facilitates the end and (2) it is a part of the direct intentional flow of the act.

This is entirely different than your example before, as a tactical bomber is directly intending to bomb, e.g., a military base and only indirectly intends to kill innocents (as a statistical certainty) as a side effect of the means of bringing about the end; which is evident from the fact that if there were no innocents that were to die, then the bomber would still perform the same tasks towards the same end. Whereas, with the abortion, if an abortion is not needed then it changes the act itself; for the act's end stays the same but the objects change (which is not true in the tactical bomber scenario).

Except that the double effect was part of an extended discussion of abortion involving Philippa Foot and Anscombe, the very one in which what 'mercans call the "trolly" problem was first deployed.

What do you mean "except"?

They are persons.

They are persons. — Bob Ross

What do (all) innocent human beings have (that other organisms don't have?) that entails that they are persons?

The most common republican view, although not officially, is that abortion should be illegal except under certain grave circumstances. E.g., https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx#:~:text=Views%20on%20Legality%20of%20Abortion%2C%20by%20Party%20ID .

Democrats commonly want it legal in all or most circumstances. You are making it sound like both republicans and democrats see eye-to-eye on abortion....not at all. — Bob Ross

I know many Republicans that believe that abortion should be allowed up to a certain point in the pregnancy for any reason. I don't know one Republican that says that if prior birth control (condoms, the pill, etc.) failed that the woman should be forced to carry through with her pregnancy.

To me, the issue becomes moral only when the fetus develops a nervous system and is capable of feeling pain. Zygotes do not have nervous systems. The brain and nervous system does not fully develop until the 2nd trimester. This is the grey area for me.

I think that abortions should be allowed for any reason through the first trimester. In the final trimester, the only reason to have an abortion would be because the life of the mother is at risk, and these cases are extremely rare and is stressful enough to not have the government deciding this for us.

If someone was raped or the birth control they were using failed, I would think that they wouldn't wait until the last moment to have an abortion. They have at least 12-16 weeks to make that decision because they already made the conscious choice to not get pregnant in the case of failed birth control. I personally do not know anyone that wanted an abortion waited until after 16 weeks to have one. I don't know if this even happens. So we could be making a mountain out of a mole hill here in this thread.

I don't know one Republican that says that if prior birth control (condoms, the pill, etc.) failed that the woman should be forced to carry through with her pregnancy. — Harry Hindu

Well, there are GOP lawmakers who oppose morning after pills.