Banno

I think you are just asking arbitrary questions. Loosing interest quickly.

Yeah. You used "human organisms". What is that, if not a human being? Why this forth term?

Not something I am familiar with.

Well, Wallows is you; "Pegasus" is a word. What more do you want?

Not quite; better, the story of Pegasus exists, as does its associated history... it's just use.

Represent?

Human beings have a past and sometimes a future. OK.

Call as in summons? A pentagram and a potion, perhaps. Or as in how does the name work? What reason is there to think that "Pegasus" works differently...

Of course you are aware of how I detest pretence of any sort.

Call what?

SO let's go: P5: past precedes future.

:razz: You assumed that if we can't say it is, then it isn't. The point here is that being real and existing are not the very same.

Difficult wording. What does this say that adds to P4?

https://scontent.fsyd4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51255417_10205892530390560_538636800688652288_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_eui2=AeGehhXeKbUzBAE-MOBWs3NUgWsd0...

A human being can be traced back to a zygote? Sure.

Not twins. I'd go with individual human.

@"Rank Amateur" If I might involve myself in this conversation, I would ask for one thing: consistency in the use of words. Human, human being, and pe...

Yeah, sure. This all looks convolute to my eye. I would just say that killing another person is wrong, end of story. If forced to fill that out I woul...

Of course Harry Potter wears glasses. And "Harry Potter wears glasses" is true if and only if Harry Potter wears glasses. Therefore it is true that Ha...

Sure, it's what brains do. But take care not to make the mistake of thinking brains can do this by themselves. Using words requires a community.

My guess is that it would be a hypothetical cat.

All this says is that we ought not kill people whom we ought not kill. Better to say that we ought not kill people because it deprives them of their f...

Twice named, I appear before you. It's fun to play with what exists and what doesn't. In logic, to exist is to be an element in the domain of discours...

Would that there was a word for the presumption of those from the USA. A yank-o-centric view? "Solemn patriotic duty" - laughable. Dow nunder, we are ...

:razz:

Hm. Yes, men need to make sure women use abortion only when appropriate. :down:

Not a bad summation.

Yes, remember when the OS and MS Word would fit on an 512kb floppy?

:wink: Yes - like jargon, marking who is in and who is out, with those who are out unable to look after themselves. I found one of those special ten-i...

Because that's what we do with them. How does a screwdriver fit so neatly into the head of a screw?

Sure. The main point here is to show the corruption of the anti-choice position.

Are you a millennial? :rofl:

You're kidding. No.

What? Do you group yourself with him? I'd not noticed you presenting an independent opinion. What is your opinion?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/249170 Did you present an alternative?

I don't do definitions. Again, what I wish to do with the capabilities approach is to show how shallow the future of value approach is. Reject the CA,...

No. If the capabilities approach said otherwise, i would reject it. Note the term approach. The list is not a definition of personhood. It's rather a ...

One of the advantages of the capacities approach is that it does not rely on subjective muck such as desires. A foetus has very few unfulfilled capabi...

This is directly from the article.

A google search will reveal the range of Nussbaum's writings, and a collection of videos and podcasts for the non-reader. I'm not here to defend her, ...

Meh. I wouldn't criminalise abortion per se. A third trimester abortion would be a tragedy rather than a crime.

Almost, but not. The qualities listed by Nussbaum are sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. A newborn is a person.

While the capabilities approach has similarities to Kant, it is distinct. And it is actions, not beliefs, that are moral. What would be immoral is pre...

A foetus is not a person, the pregnant woman is a person, so the choices of the pregnant woman overwhelm any responsibility we have to the foetus.

What list are you looking at? Again, the Capabilities approach does not suffer this problem. But here's a question for you: Do you think a blastocyst ...

Not at all. Indeed, the Capacities approach has been taken on board by disabilities advocates precisely because it seeks to have each person treated w...

And so you introduce permission to treat a person as a means to an end, not as an end in themselves. And hence, you position is immoral.

And left to itself a foetus becomes dead. The role of a woman in a pregnancy is not passive.

True. It's not my conclusion, but my starting point. A foetus does not have the characteristics one would reasonably associate with being a person - a...

I entirely agree. If one wishes for a healthy child, one ought take such considerations. If. A person is an end in themselves; a foetus a means to an ...