3 ms·

there's a gradient between 'nothing' and 'human', and things toward the 'nothing' end can't invoke bodily autonomy, especially against actual humans with real,

there's a gradient between 'nothing' and 'human', and things toward the 'nothing' end can't invoke bodily autonomy, especially against actual humans with real, functional bodies.

svieira 4y ago
The child has a real, functioning body. From the moment of conception there's a separate self-organizing organism performing processes that will improve their body. The mother also has one. Both of them are human bodies.
- clairity 4y ago
  it's pretty clear in the real world what is and isn't a separate human. i can't hang out and play paddycakes with a bunch of barely differentiated cells in a womb. it's like calling our gut bacteria a separate being because they have their own functioning processes. some even argue that gut bacteria have some sort of community sentience, but even that doesn't make them a separate being with any claims at all on the human's body.
  - svieira 4y ago
    You must not mean "separate human" in the sense that biology does (because a distinct individual of the species homo sapiens exists from the moment of conception). What does "human" in this discussion imply if not "distinct individual of a particular species"?
    - clairity 4y ago
      it's 'separate human' whether you're speaking in terms of biology, sociology, politics, or anything else. biology happens to be the most brutal of these, considering human only those who reach viability, which for humans is long after birth unlike most animals. again, a group of cells doesn't an individual make.
      - svieira 4y ago
        I must be misunderstanding something. Are you saying that a one-week post-birth child is still not a separate human from your perspective because they are not "viable" yet?
        clairity 4y ago
        you were making an ontological claim, which simply doesn't hold true in any practical or reasonable sense, in any and all domains. then, i put forth a separate observation (perhaps too tersely and obliquely) that biology is the most brutal (ultra-objective, yet ultra-complex) and so the least reasonable domain to be employed in pursuing your line of reasoning (which is wholly subjective and cultural). biology isn't subject to human reasoning, emotion, or culture, which is where ontological arguments like yours squarely reside.
        svieira 4y ago
        Yes, I assumed that since we can talk about categories and kinds we must be able to talk about a shared truth based in objective reality. Either "human" is a category we can talk about which is based in objective reality (and our understanding of that objective reality in biology, physics, and metaphysics) or we're not going to make any progress because we're discussing "taste" using the language of "truth". To put it another way, either there's something objective which can be said about dropping children off of bridges in the moral realm related to bodily autonomy and our understanding of the duties and rights around bodily autonomy or else there isn't an objective moral realm. I presume, from your previous comments that you hold that there is an objective moral realm. Did I mistake your meaning?
        clairity 4y ago
        yes, objective. bodies (i.e., independent beings) are required to invoke bodily autonomy, which brings with it the direct corrollary that non-bodies cannot invoke bodily autonomy. that's rational and objective, as in, it's beyond culture, beyond 'taste', towards 'truth'. you countered with a subjective opinion hanging off an ultimately irrelevant legal triviality (that's also cultural, not objective).

there's a gradient between 'nothing' and 'human', and things toward the 'nothing' end can't invoke bodily autonomy, especially against actual humans with real, functional bodies.

svieira 4y ago

The child has a real, functioning body. From the moment of conception there's a separate self-organizing organism performing processes that will improve their body. The mother also has one. Both of them are human bodies.

clairity 4y ago
it's pretty clear in the real world what is and isn't a separate human. i can't hang out and play paddycakes with a bunch of barely differentiated cells in a womb. it's like calling our gut bacteria a separate being because they have their own functioning processes. some even argue that gut bacteria have some sort of community sentience, but even that doesn't make them a separate being with any claims at all on the human's body.
- svieira 4y ago
  You must not mean "separate human" in the sense that biology does (because a distinct individual of the species homo sapiens exists from the moment of conception). What does "human" in this discussion imply if not "distinct individual of a particular species"?
  - clairity 4y ago
    it's 'separate human' whether you're speaking in terms of biology, sociology, politics, or anything else. biology happens to be the most brutal of these, considering human only those who reach viability, which for humans is long after birth unlike most animals. again, a group of cells doesn't an individual make.
    - svieira 4y ago
      I must be misunderstanding something. Are you saying that a one-week post-birth child is still not a separate human from your perspective because they are not "viable" yet?
      - clairity 4y ago
        you were making an ontological claim, which simply doesn't hold true in any practical or reasonable sense, in any and all domains. then, i put forth a separate observation (perhaps too tersely and obliquely) that biology is the most brutal (ultra-objective, yet ultra-complex) and so the least reasonable domain to be employed in pursuing your line of reasoning (which is wholly subjective and cultural). biology isn't subject to human reasoning, emotion, or culture, which is where ontological arguments like yours squarely reside.
        svieira 4y ago
        Yes, I assumed that since we can talk about categories and kinds we must be able to talk about a shared truth based in objective reality. Either "human" is a category we can talk about which is based in objective reality (and our understanding of that objective reality in biology, physics, and metaphysics) or we're not going to make any progress because we're discussing "taste" using the language of "truth". To put it another way, either there's something objective which can be said about dropping children off of bridges in the moral realm related to bodily autonomy and our understanding of the duties and rights around bodily autonomy or else there isn't an objective moral realm. I presume, from your previous comments that you hold that there is an objective moral realm. Did I mistake your meaning?
        clairity 4y ago
        yes, objective. bodies (i.e., independent beings) are required to invoke bodily autonomy, which brings with it the direct corrollary that non-bodies cannot invoke bodily autonomy. that's rational and objective, as in, it's beyond culture, beyond 'taste', towards 'truth'. you countered with a subjective opinion hanging off an ultimately irrelevant legal triviality (that's also cultural, not objective).