Well, there are GOP lawmakers who oppose morning after pills/url]. — Michael

And there are Democrat lawmakers quoted as saying that abortions should be allowed up to the moment of birth for any reason. I think we can both agree that there are extremists on both sides of the (any) issue. Fortunately it appears that more moderate minds are winning on this issue as many states are voting to keep a woman's right to choose, but with some restrictions.

:100:

OK, construct a trolley-car type scenario (or any scenario really) where you refuse to sacrifice zygotes to save actual persons.

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).

This is a misrepresentation. I never said nor implied biology was equal to or less than genetics.

OK, construct a trolley-car type scenario (or any scenario really) where you refuse to sacrifice zygotes to save actual persons.

Try it with the human zygotes still in their mother, where they are generally found. For some reason you removed the mother entirely.

This is a misrepresentation. I never said nor implied biology was equal to or less than genetics. — NOS4A2

You said "this biology ... is present from the very beginning ... of every human being’s life." Except it's not. The genetics is present but the morphology and physiology aren't.

Try it with the human zygotes still in their mother, where they are generally found. For some reason you removed the mother entirely. — NOS4A2

Then the moral dilemma concerns whether to kill a baby or an adult. We're concerned with whether to kill a baby or a zygote. So for the sake of argument we can assume that the zygote is not growing inside a woman but an artificial womb.

Intentionally sacrificing one, five, or even a million zygotes to save one baby is not a dilemma at all. We obviously should.

You said "this biology ... is present from the very beginning ... of every human being’s life." Except it's not. The genetics is present but the morphology and physiology aren't.

You believe there are just two sets of genes swimming around in there?

Then the moral dilemma concerns whether to kill a baby or an adult. We're concerned with whether to kill a baby or a zygote. So for the sake of argument we can assume that the zygote is not growing inside a woman but an artificial womb.

To kill a zygote you abort it. Go give abortions.

You believe there are just two sets of genes swimming around in there? — NOS4A2

There are 46 DNA molecules, each coiled around proteins, contained within cytoplasm and a cell membrane.

To kill a zygote you abort it. Go give abortions. — NOS4A2

We're considering a variation of the trolley problem as explained here:

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?

We can assume, for the sake of argument, that we are technologically advanced and have developed artificial wombs within which the zygotes in question are growing.

I think that (1) proposes a moral dilemma but that (2) doesn't. It is quite clear that we ought take positive action to sacrifice the zygotes to save the baby, and even though the zygotes are more numerous.

Single-celled organisms, even if capable of growing into something like us, simply do not deserve remotely the same kind of (or even any) moral consideration.

There are 46 DNA molecules, each tightly coiled around proteins, contained within cytoplasm and a cell membrane.

All of which are biological.

We can assume, for the sake of argument, that we are technologically advanced and have developed artificial wombs within which the zygotes in question are growing.

Isn’t that convenient. Remove the one act under discussion from the argument entirely.

Recall that it is the abortionist who must justify the act of killing. These thought-experiments are excuse-making for killing. We’ll need to come up with some better ones.

All of which are biological. — NOS4A2

And? It's not the biological stuff that's morally relevant. Ants are biological. Flies are biological. So what?

Isn’t that convenient. Remove the one act under discussion from the argument entirely. — NOS4A2

We're talking about whether or not it is wrong to kill zygotes. The manner in which the zygotes are killed is presumably irrelevant.

Your deflection is telling.

And? It's not the biological stuff that's morally relevant. Ants are biological. Flies are biological. So what?

Flies don’t develop into human beings.

We're talking about whether or not it is wrong to kill zygotes. The manner in which the zygotes are killed is presumably irrelevant.

Your deflection is telling.

If they are out of the womb they are already dead. Convenient.

Flies don’t develop into human beings. — NOS4A2

Develop into human beings. Interesting that you now phrase it that way.

But also, why does it matter? Why is it wrong to kill something that develops into a human being but not wrong to kill a fly?

If they are out of the womb they are already dead. Convenient. — NOS4A2

As I said, in the scenario under consideration these are living zygotes growing inside an artificial womb. When we have to choose between doing nothing and letting one baby die or doing something that causes five zygotes to die, what should we do? We should do the thing that causes five zygotes to die because they do not deserve anything like the same kind of moral consideration as a baby.

Develop into human beings. Interesting.

But also, why does it matter? Why is it wrong to kill something that develops into a human being but not something that develops into a fly?

I don’t care about flies and am at constant war with them. It’s wrong to kill a human being when he doesn’t deserve it. Flies deserve it in virtue of their very nature.

As I said, in the scenario under consideration these are living zygotes growing inside an artificial womb. When we have to choose between doing nothing and letting one baby die or doing something that causes five zygotes to die, what should we do? We should do the thing that causes five zygotes to die.

Fine, we should kill zygotes if and only if no mother is present and doing so will stop a train from running over babies. Now, absent those conditions, is it right or wrong to kill zygotes?

Fine, we should kill zygotes if and only if no mother is present and doing so will stop a train from running over babies. Now, absent those conditions, is it right or wrong to kill zygotes? — NOS4A2

It's neither right nor wrong. It's morally neutral. We've established from the trolley problem that five zygotes deserve less moral consideration than one baby. And I'll go so far as to say that one million zygotes deserve less moral consideration than one baby. Each individual zygote deserves negligible moral consideration, and certainly when compared to the moral consideration of a woman being forced to carry to term and birth a child.

It's neither right nor wrong. It's morally neutral. We've established from the trolley problem that five zygotes deserve less moral consideration than one baby. And I'll go so far as to say that one million zygotes deserve less moral consideration than one baby. Each individual zygote deserves negligible moral consideration, and certainly when compared to the moral consideration of a woman being forced to carry to term and birth a child.

Is it morally permissible to kill all zygotes then?

Is it morally permissible to kill all zygotes then? — NOS4A2

If it's the mothers' desires, yes.

If it's the mothers' desires, yes.

But it would mean the end of the species.

But it would mean the end of the species. — NOS4A2

Yes, as would happen if everybody alive refused to procreate.

Refusing to procreate doesn't involve the act of killing.

Refusing to procreate doesn't involve the act of killing. — NOS4A2

So? You were suggesting that killing all zygotes is wrong because it would mean the end of the species. I am simply showing that "it is wrong because it would mean the end of the species" is a non sequitur.

No, I think killing a human being in its zygote stage is wrong because he doesn't deserve it. I was trying to appeal to your utilitarianism.

If you could take a time machine and go back to the time when a mother was an innocent zygote, would it be ok to kill her then?

No, I think killing a human being in its zygote stage is wrong because he doesn't deserve it. — NOS4A2

And as shown by the trolley problem killing five zygotes is less wrong than allowing one baby to die. Killing ten million zygotes is less wrong than allowing one baby to die.

The moral worth of one zygote is so negligible that killing it is less wrong than forcing a woman to carry it to term and birth it against her wishes.

If you could take a time machine and go back to the time when a mother was an innocent zygote, would it be ok to kill her then? — NOS4A2

That depends on whether or not killing the zygote in my grandmother's womb would kill me, because killing me would be wrong.

And as shown by the trolley problem killing five zygotes is less wrong than allowing one baby to die. Killing ten million zygotes is less wrong than allowing one baby to die.

The moral worth of one zygote is so negligible that killing it is less wrong than forcing a woman to carry it to term and birth it against her wishes.

It doesn't follow that it is right to kill zygotes.

That depends on whether or not killing the zygote in my grandmother's womb would kill me and my mother, because killing me and my mother would be wrong.

It wouldn't kill you because you weren't born at that time. It would just kill your mother. Her moral worth decreased in proportion to how far we travelled back in time to the point that it is negligible.

It doesn't follow that it is right to kill zygotes. — NOS4A2

I didn't say it's right. I said it's neutral. The moral worth of a zygote is negligible, as shown by the trolley problem.

It wouldn't kill you because you weren't born at that time. — NOS4A2

I misread and thought you were asking about me going back in time and then someone terminating my grandmother's pregnancy, and that it would be a Marty McFly in Back to the Future situation.

But as for the question as asked, that really depends on how time travel works. Does the future still exist in some sense but changes as the past is changed? That would change my answer. If the future doesn't exist then no, it wouldn't be wrong to terminate the pregnancy (but it may be wrong to have gone back in time as that would have erased what was the present and is now the future).

I didn't say it's right. I said it's neutral. The moral worth of a zygote is negligible, as shown by the trolley problem.

But you think it’s right so long as the mother desires it, up until and including species extinction.

I misread and thought you were asking about me going back in time and then someone terminating my grandmother's pregnancy, and that it would be a Marty McFly in Back to the Future situation.

But as for the question as asked, that really depends on how time travel works. Does the future still exist in some sense but changes as the past is changed? That would change my answer. If the future doesn't exist then no, it wouldn't be wrong to terminate the pregnancy (but it may be wrong to have gone back in time as that would have erased what was the present and is now the future).

I was trying to test your intuition of whether the zygote has more moral worth if you knew who she would become: the mother. I didn’t even mean your own mother, but I guess that makes the stakes higher.

But no the future doesn’t exist in the past.

But you think it’s right so long as the mother desires it, up until and including species extinction. — NOS4A2

I think it's not wrong, or at least negligibly wrong, or at least less wrong than forcing the mother to carry the child to term and birth it (much like it's less wrong than allowing a baby to die).

But no the future doesn’t exist in the past. — NOS4A2

Then abort away.

I think it's not wrong, or at least negligibly wrong, or at least less wrong than forcing the mother to carry the child to term and birth it (much like it's less wrong than allowing a baby to die).

Assuming that no one is forcing the mother to carry the child, and everyone believes it is wrong to intervene, should she or should she not kill her child?

The act of abortion is the act to which we need to apply our ethics, but remains completely unresolved.

You are making it sound like both republicans and democrats see eye-to-eye on abortion.... — Bob Ross

No, I’m simply pointing out the fact that abortion has been on the ballot in seven states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and in each instance, in red states and blue states, anti-abortion advocates have lost. And again, many more states will vote on the issue next month.

But you've switched the example. The example was ordering men to make a last stand where they are sure to die. That the men not retreat or surrender but instead fight to the death is the intention.