And why is that morally relevant?

That's who you're killing. That's the victim. How is it morally irrelevant?

That's who you're killing. That's the victim. How is it morally irrelevant? — NOS4A2

That's true of every single-celled organism. I want you to explain what makes single-celled humans special.

That's not true of every single-celled organism because do not abort other single-celled organisms.

That's not true of every single-celled organism because do not abort other single-celled organisms. — NOS4A2

We can, and do, kill non-human organisms, including single-celled organisms. You admit to killing flies. Is any of this wrong? If not, why are single-celled humans special? Physically they only differ from non-humans in their DNA and the manner in which they are created. So why is their DNA and manner of creation morally relevant?

This all has nothing to do with religion to me. — Fire Ologist

That’s why your religious views are interesting. Why not share them?

Also, you mentioned that you’re religious. Why mention it if this has nothing to do with religion for you? Another contradiction.

Just make something up if you like.

I’m not religious, btw.

an innocent human has/is Y — Michael

Thank you for saying what you think and explaining it to add some content for us to talk about.

I am focused on the question: “what does any human being have/is?” (These are your terms, invoked by you to make your argument.)

7. It is wrong to kill an innocent human because an innocent human has/is Y
8. It is wrong to kill an innocent frog because an innocent frog has/is Y
9. It is not wrong to kill an innocent frog because an innocent frog doesn't have/isn't Y

Y is what matters. — Michael

Y is what matters most to me too. What a nominal "human" has/is is my question.

I don't think the first question [namely, what is a new human being] matters. I'm not an essentialist. There is no such thing as some necessary and sufficient set of conditions that must be satisfied for an organism to "count" as human. — Michael

I still think it does matter. I think you need to speak to it as well.

For me, that Y concerns a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence, etc. — Michael

You are saying a human being is something that has/is a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence. Correct? I'm sure there is more you would and could say, but you are saying at least this, correct? So for you, "it is wrong to kill an innocent human, because an innocent human has/is a degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence." Correct? Or do we need more premises, maybe about valuing consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence in the first place?

You are saying a human being is something that has/is a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence. Correct? — Fire Ologist

No, I'm saying that (most) humans have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence, and that it is wrong to kill things with a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence.

Non-humans (e.g. aliens) might also have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence, and so it would be wrong to kill them even though they're not human.

Zygotes don't have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence and so it is acceptable to kill them even if they're human.

Whether or not something is human is irrelevant. With respect to killing an organism, it is that organism's degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence that is morally relevant, not it's taxonomy.

Also, you mentioned that you’re religious. Why mention it if this has nothing to do with religion for you? Another contradiction. — praxis

You brought it up first, not me. I was just being open and honest and responding fully to you.

Where are you trying to go with the conversation? Still digging for subtext? Where is Praxis?

You are saying a human being is something that has/is a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence. Correct?
— Fire Ologist

No, I'm saying that humans do have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence, and that it is wrong to kill things with a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence. — Michael

That doesn't track for me. "has/is" has become "do have". And because of this you make a distinction between the phrases:
"a human being is something that has/is a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence"
and
"humans do have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence,"

What is the distinction between these two phrases?

Non-humans might also have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence, and so it would be wrong to kill them even though they're not human. — Michael

I agree with that but that obviously would be outside the general topic of abortion, which is a human practice.

What is the distinction between these two phrases? — Fire Ologist

"X is intelligent therefore X is human" is a non sequitur; something can be intelligent but not be human (e.g. an alien).

It is not the case that I am human because I am intelligent; it is only the case that I am human and I am intelligent.

The reason it's wrong to kill me is because I'm intelligent, not because I'm human; it would be wrong to kill intelligent non-humans too.

You brought it up first, not me. I was just being open and honest and responding fully to you. — Fire Ologist

I did not ask if you were religious. You volunteered that information, for no apparent reason.

The fact that you refuse to describe your religious views strongly indicates that they have everything to do with the subject. If they had nothing to do with the subject there would be no reason to refuse.

Where are you trying to go with the conversation?

Where you want to go, metaphysics and zygotes. Knowing your religious views would be essential, but you don’t want to talk about your religious views. Another contradiction.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

The reason it's wrong to kill me is because I'm intelligent, not because I'm human; it would be wrong to kill intelligent non-humans too. — Michael

I see what you are saying. You are focused on the “because” part of these statements. You don’t want to bother with some underlying subject/substance like “human being” and then attach conditions to that substance like “intelligence”. That would allow people like me to equate “it is wrong to kill human beings” with “it is wrong to intelligent beings” and these aren’t equivalent. And once essentialists make this equivocation we can subsume the “intelligence” as part of the essence and just talk about “human beings” as if the nuance “with intelligence” wasn’t the more material thing.

So can I assume there is some thing called “intelligent being” that we are talking about?

So can I assume there is some thing called “intelligent being” that we are talking about? — Fire Ologist

There are organisms, like me, that are self-aware, can feel pain, can want things, and so on. It is wrong to kill organisms like this.

Zygotes aren't self-aware, they can't feel pain, they can't want things. Nothing about them warrants moral consideration; they are just a tiny mixture of chemicals. It is acceptable to abort them if that is what the woman wishes.

A religious person might say that they’re pro-life because abortion policy is a spiritual issue. — praxis

That was the first time the word “religion” was used between us.

Contradiction contradicted. Again.

What’s your next really important issue in this debate discussion?

There are organisms, like me, that are self-aware, can feel pain, can want things, and so on. It is wrong to kill organisms like this.

Zygotes aren't self-aware, they can't feel pain, they can't want things. Nothing about them warrants moral consideration; they are just a tiny mixture of chemicals. It is acceptable to abort them if that is what the woman wishes. — Michael

Perfectly coherent position based on facts we can both observe for ourselves.

Good. I agree with all of this verbatim:

There are organisms, like me, that are self-aware, can feel pain, can want things, and so on.
Zygotes aren't self-aware, they can't feel pain, they can't want things. — Michael

You said it. I would say it. Exact same page.

So before I go back the positive route of positing what a human being is (because that would be essentialist of me), can I just ask, to go as broadly as possible, are you saying a human being is an organism with enough structure to feel pain, or to just feel or perceive anything, or do you need to be able to want things and be self-aware too?

That was the first time the word “religion” was used between us.

Contradiction contradicted. Again. — Fire Ologist

You implied that I asked you about it. I didn’t.

Why did you volunteer that you’re religious?

I wonder if there’s a law similar to Godwin.

You implied — praxis

True. As I continue to be completely open I'll admit that I implied you may have been interested to know who you were talking to when the words "religion" and "spiritual" came to your mind and you bothered to put them in your post.

Do you think we are having a conversation? I think we are having some sort of job interview. I don't think you trust my answers for some reason. And I'm curious why but really would rather hear some sort of argument relating to abortion from you.

are you saying a human being is an organism with enough structure to feel pain, or to just feel or perceive anything, or do you need to be able to want things and be self-aware too? — Fire Ologist

Essentialism is false. Whether we call zygotes, corpses, the brain dead. or babies born with anencephaly “human” is a choice, with no moral significance.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!! — frank

Ha!

Essentialism is false. Whether we call zygotes, corpses, the brain dead. or babies born with anencephaly “human” is a choice, with no moral significance. — Michael

Damn. So ends the conversation.

There are organisms — Michael

Is that a choice?

Is there any physical/biological fact in this context we both have to accept?

Is that a choice? — Fire Ologist

Yes. Some say that one lone organ isn’t an organism, but that 5 of them (brain, heart, lungs, kidneys, and liver) working to keep each other alive are. That’s an arbitrary decision (even within science), not something that is a discoverable fact capable of verification or falsification by empirical investigation.

Is there any physical/biological fact in this context we both have to accept? — Fire Ologist

I don’t quite understand the question. We (or at least biologists) pretty much fully understand the genetics and morphology and physiology of both zygotes and adults (except for the relationship between the brain and consciousness).

zygotes and adults — Michael

Do I have to see a difference between zygotes and adults in order to understand the significance of what you are saying? I think the answer has to be yes.

Do I have to see a difference between zygotes and adults in order to understand the significance of what you are saying? I think the answer has to be yes. — Fire Ologist

I don’t understand this either. If you can’t see a difference between these two photos then you should get your eyes checked.

I think this can be fairly easily sorted out with a question:

Is your position that a Zygote and an Adult Human are the same thing?

This seems, to me, akin to someone who does not know the difference between a fly and a human. Your experience doesn't matter if you're trying to reason your way to a position.

Given the above, I'm unsure you're even having a 'moral' conversation if that's the case.

If you can’t see a difference between these two photos then you should get your eyes checked. — Michael

Why not just answer the question then? My eyes and your eyes are now the context, you are saying we both, if our eyes are working, must see a difference between a zygote and an adult.

Correct?

So the answer is yes, there are biological facts we both have agree on; if our eyes are working, we will both see the same thing, namely, that a zygote and an adult are clearly different.

I don’t know what you mean by asking if we “must” see a difference. If we have working eyes then we will see a difference. If you cannot visually determine that a human has a head and that a zygote is a single cell then you are either blind or hallucinating.

Is your position that a Zygote and an Adult Human are the same thing? — AmadeusD

This is a difficult question to answer in the context of a living organism.

So let me ask, is me today the same thing as me yesterday?

In some senses no. Too many atoms and cells and other things changed to use the word “same” naively. Heraclitus figured that out long ago and I don’t refute it.

But if we leave it at that, there is nothing left to talk about. How can we even compare me today with me yesterday, when even me today is in motion and not the same thing as me two minutes ago?

I don’t refute any of this. And if you look at a zygote and an adult it is much easier to see they are not the same thing.

But there is another sense to this question. If by “me today” I mean a living, growing, changing body having self-awareness and intelligence, then yes, despite all of the bodily motions, me today endured through all of the changes occurring to me yesterday.

So we need to define a “me” or an adult or a zygote and choose a sense in which the term “same thing” is being used.

Does that track?

Are you just a collection of particles or are you something more? This is where religion probably comes into play.