(June 9, 2021 at 2:05 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: We know what it means to be an organism (as opposed to an organ or tissue). We know conception is the beginning of a new organism and everything else is development (at least for sexual reproduction). We know what it means to be taxonomically human (as opposed to another ape). And we more or less know what it means to be alive (as opposed to dead).

All these things together are how we can identify a human.

The last few pages have been frustrating to read.  The apology for the value of a human zygote goes like this:

1) Most people agree that humans (the children and adults we meet each day) have inherent value.
2) A human zygote has the modifier "human" in it.
3) Therefore a human zygote must have the same inherent value and protections.


No, no, no.

If you want to argue that potential children have the same value as children, have at it.  It is a stupid proposition, and can only be justified by religion -- i.e. a magical soul being imparted at the moment of conception.

Don't try to claim that biology does this for you.  "Look, it will develop into a baby if we give it nutrition and womb" doesn't cut it.

zygote != baby.

(June 9, 2021 at 2:05 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(June 9, 2021 at 1:39 pm)brewer Wrote: You, like Neo, need to define human and then tie it to unborn rights and define those rights.

We know what it means to be an organism (as opposed to an organ or tissue). We know conception is the beginning of an organism and everything else is development (at least for sexual reproduction). We know what it means to be taxonomically human (as opposed to another ape). And we more or less know what it means to be alive (as opposed to dead).

All these things together are how we can identify a human.

I see that you don't seem to be able to give direct answers to direct questions, and pick and choose what to respond to. Much like a politician.

That's a start but it needs much more. Next question (I expect a dodge again but what the hell), is everything that develops from conception human organism?

The mindless flock will follow their shepherd anywhere, even into oblivion, for the name of holy glory.

(June 9, 2021 at 2:52 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: The apology for the value of a human zygote goes like this:

1) Most people agree that humans (the children and adults we meet each day) have inherent value.
2) A human zygote has the modifier "human" in it.
3) Therefore a human zygote must have the same inherent value and protections.


No, no, no.

That's not an invalid argument whether you disagree with it or not. That's how logic works:

If human organisms deserve X rights, and zygotes are human organisms, then zygotes deserve X rights.

I don't have an antidote for your moral confoundment. Your best bet here is to argue against the premise that all humans deserve X rights.

(June 9, 2021 at 3:17 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: That's not an invalid argument whether you disagree with it or not. That's how logic works:

If human organisms deserve X rights, and zygotes are human organisms, then zygotes deserve X rights.

I don't have an antidote for your moral confoundment. Your best bet here is to argue against the premise that all humans deserve X rights.

It is a category error.  You take a statement from one category of human (actual persons), and try to change the category (to include blastocysts and zygotes) yet make the same claim.

If human organisms deserve X rights

Just as you can't define God into existence, you can't define zygote rights into existence.

(June 9, 2021 at 10:31 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I know this question wasn't directed at me, but: To the same extent that I know a rabbit doesn't have full personhood because its brain isn't capable of undertaking person-level activities, I know a fetus with fewer brain cells than a rabbit isn't yet a person.

I understand that this is used in practice as a standard. The idea that abortion is OK up to a certain point but not after is based on this, I think. It's certainly a more defensible option than saying that the thing is a fetus and not a baby up to the point of birth.

While in the womb, I'm not sure the fetus is using its brain at person-level activities, even quite late. After a certain point, it has the potential to do so after it's born. 

Is there an objective way to define "person-level activities"? Is it language? Rational thought? How do we define this non-arbitrarily? 

Quote: The only way to argue that a fetus is already fully a person is to bring in supernatural qualities that can only be claimed, not detected. If justifed belief is knowledge, my position has that justification while the opposite position is based on nothing that can be verified at all.

Here I think maybe you haven't read the thread yet. No supernatural arguments have been offered. 

Your position seems reasonable in practice but comes into play at a fairly arbitrary point in the life cycle. It also demands that we define "person-level activity" and that isn't unproblematic. Who decides?

The "opposite" position, if that is what Neo and John have been arguing, is certainly based on something that can be verified: fertilization. Their argument depends on potentialities. Fertilization is the point at which the ontological change occurs. From that point potential is developed along a very subtle sliding scale. Development continues throughout life and ends at death. These are verifiable facts. 

To them, a person begins when a discrete organism with the required genetic material begins its development. For you, a person begins at some point along the sliding scale of that development, which we decide on. "Human-like activities" appear at a point when we define them as doing so, depending on a non-provable definition of that term. 

The "opposite" position wishes to avoid using non-provable definitions changeable by governments. It uses the point at which the discrete organism begins its development -- the non-arbitrary point at which a new thing may be said to exist.

(June 9, 2021 at 3:17 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(June 9, 2021 at 2:52 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: The apology for the value of a human zygote goes like this:

1) Most people agree that humans (the children and adults we meet each day) have inherent value.
2) A human zygote has the modifier "human" in it.
3) Therefore a human zygote must have the same inherent value and protections.


No, no, no.

That's not an invalid argument whether you disagree with it or not. That's how logic works:

If human organisms deserve X rights, and zygotes are human organisms, then zygotes deserve X rights.

I don't have an antidote for your moral confoundment. Your best bet here is to argue against the premise that all humans deserve X rights.

Faulty logic, fails to take into account the developmental process, which I believe you brought up earlier but now seems to have forgotten for the sake of argument.

Edit: Not all zygotes from the process of human conception can be considered human. Example - molar pregnancy.

(June 9, 2021 at 4:41 pm)brewer Wrote: Faulty logic, fails to take into account the developmental process, which I believe you brought up earlier but now seems to have forgotten for the sake of argument.

Organisms are not what "things" are getting developed into. They are the things doing the developing. And development continues throughout the lifespan to senescence and death—at no point does it make sense to say we've arrived. Studying how things developed into humans might be the jurisdiction of evolutionary biology, but studying the way human organisms develop is the jurisdiction of embryology, etc.

Edit: Doing some digging it seems molar pregnancies are missing maternal DNA, etc. If that's the case I don't understand the objection. These are examples of how reproduction goes astray. And there are thousands of genetic/developmental problems that can occur.

(June 9, 2021 at 5:14 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(June 9, 2021 at 4:41 pm)brewer Wrote: Faulty logic, fails to take into account the developmental process, which I believe you brought up earlier but now seems to have forgotten for the sake of argument.

Organisms are not what "things" are getting developed into. They are the things doing the developing. And development continues throughout the lifespan to senescence and death—at no point does it make sense to say we've arrived. Studying how things developed into humans might be the jurisdiction of evolutionary biology, but studying the way human organisms develop is the jurisdiction of embryology, etc.

Edit: Doing some digging it seems like molar pregnancies are missing the maternal DNA or have some other issues combining the genetic material. If that's the case I don't understand what your objection is. These are all examples of how reproduction goes astray. And there are thousands of developmental and genetic problems that can occur during or after takeoff.

Acardiac twin is an in utero development abnormality creating a twin incompatible with human life. It does not therefore deserve X rights. I suppose you could say a zygote gets x rights until a development abnormality occurs, but what's the point?

The original position was unborn rights from conception, makes no sense when you consider molar pregnancies and other genetic abnormalities without more precise definitions.

Bold: This is my point, you and Neo need better definitions.

You're no longer worth my continued attention.

(June 9, 2021 at 6:48 pm)brewer Wrote: The original position was unborn rights from conception, makes no sense when you consider molar pregnancies and other genetic abnormalities without more precise definitions.

IF you believe humans have/deserve rights then you're logically committed to that premise. And if you have an issue with that premise just amend it so that not all humans have rights. For example, since you take issues extending rights to any organism with developmental problems, just change the first premise to reflect that: Only humans without developmental problems have/deserve rights, etc.

I don't understand why a twin dying in the womb, or fertilization going astray, throws a wrench into your whole conception of humankind. The acardiac twin is dead—it's got bigger things to worry about than you giving rights to it.