I know you hate them from me but here is a thought experiment. A man approaches you with a box that has a button on top of it. He says that if you push the button two things will happen. First an organism of the species human will be killed. Second you will recieve 1 million pounds.

Is it morally correct to push the button?

deleted

No.

I don't actually, I just think (like this one) that they often miss the point.
What does he mean by 'an organism of the species human'? Might it be a person?

It might be something you and I would agree is worthy of moral consideration.

Then no, it would be immoral. (It doesnt matter if it's human).

So is it fair to say that it is not enough to be worthy of moral consideration but rather that you must sure it isn't worthy of moral consideration before you kill it?

Are you sure a fetus isn't worthy of moral consideration?

ps....I'm done for tonight.

No, I misunderstood your 'might' qualifier there. If there's only a chance that the act is going to kill a person then the immorality goes down. I'm not sure it's moral to eat meat, yet I do.
Pretty sure, yes. (I think some fetuses are though - my position is not that any fetus can be aborted without moral consequence).

No offense but it sounds like your "moral code" is the products of whims and personal intuitions rather than reason.

The first and more common definition applies. A fetus is a being because it exists. A rock is a being too.

It looks as if your definition came from dictionary.com. Here is that websites definition for Human Being.

Again the first definition applies. A fetus is an individual of the genus **** Sapiens.

What about an embryo created by invitro fertilization? It exists in a petri dish as a seperate and distinct organism outside a mother.

Would it be fair to say that your position is when it is implanted in the womb it becomes comglomeration of constituent cells and when it is born it becomes a seperate a distinct organism again?

Also what exactly does being a different species have to do with being a distinct individual organism? If a tape worm can exist as a seperate and distinct organism in the body of another seperate and distinct organism then why can't a human being?

I believe when certain fish concieve the products of conception in many species are never contained in the body of a fish. The female lays her eggs and the male then fertilizes them with his sperm. Would such a fertilized fish egg be considered a seperate and distinct organism or would you consider it constituent cells?

Yes (but it depends)

Personal intuition and reason - just like everyone else's. (there's nothin irrational in my response, perhaps you missed the rationale).

I don't think a fetus is an individual. Note that the second definition requires that it be a person.

However, given a rock is a being an (early term) fetus is a human being in the same way a pancreas is.

I would like to point out that the majority of Christians in this world
are not Roman Catholic, and don't hold to Roman Catholic views on
birth control.

I can respond to this, but not before you respond to the beginning part of my post #74, instead of just the end (which really comes from the unanswered post #54, and then there's also post #67 where I explained why I didn't think DNA mattered as you had claimed, and instead of responding to that whole line of reasoning you asked a new question instead). I'd like to be sure that we're engaging in an intellectually honest debate here, or else what's the point? But if you are unwilling to address evidence either showing you to be wrong or having a poor memory, or even just an argument against your position, then posting more would feel like a waste (yes, somehow I do not feel that posting in RGT is normally a waste).

When do you believe a fetus becomes a human being and what rational basis do you have for that belief?

I believe a human being begins to exist at conception because the products of such can be identified as an individual organism.

Matching DNA doesn't prove individuality but unmatching DNA does. Even if you tested the DNA of a transplanted organ and found that it was different then the host you would have evidence of two distinct organism...i.e. the recipient and the donor.

Fascinating. What kinds of entities are entitled to be considered in moral questions?

People use personal intuition when there is a lack of evidence on which to formulate a moral course. That is not the case here. We have a very good biological understanding of what an individual of the human species is.

However you want to toss all that aside and persue another question because you think it allows you to say I am mischaracterizing the position of the pro choicers.

If you were asked outside the abortion debate what is the youngest human being science is able to identify what would be your answer? If you answer that the youngest individual human being science can identify is an embryo then I am not mischaracterizing the position of the prochoice movement.

If you want help answering this scientific question just open a biology text book and look up the life cycle of human beings. An embryo is depicted.

How is this a response to my post? Does it mean that you refuse to answer post #74? Interesting, but honestly not expected.

Sure - but that isnt a moral question. The moral question is "What kinds of entities are entitled to be considered in moral questions?" or "What kinds of entitites have rights?" or similar.
No - I want to pursue another question because that's always the question I want to pursue. It's the one that matters and has real, moral implications.

The fact you are mischaracterising the position of pro choicers is a separate matter and has nothing to do with my interest in discussing the moral question over an unrelated biological one.
Zero. But I expect I'd qualify that, depending on what they mean by 'human being'.
You are mischaracterising my position and it's just a general fib to portray 'the pro choice movement' as having "a position" beyond the belief that abortion should sometimes be legal. There are a plethora of views amongst those of us who support legalised abortion - just like 'the anti-choice' lobby are not all abortion clinic bombers.
I'm not interested in answering biology questions. I prefer to decide how to act based on ethical considerations. If the biological issues become germane (as I think they will) then we shall consult scientific sources. All we have to do to begin is to answer the question:

"What entities are entitled to be considered in moral questions?"

The question you are asking in that post adds no value to the discussion. But if you want an answer it is I have a very short mememory and a very short attention span.

Well, this is clearly false in the super-rare cases of chimerism.

As for donors (or even blood transfusions), it's not as clear. I would actually say that once the organ is transplanted, it becomes part of the host organism. And if you transplant bone marrow, for instance, although all the blood cells produced will have the same DNA as the donor and not the host, I would still claim that they are cells of the host organism, not the donor.

Sure, all the donated stuff originated elsewhere, but now they are part of the total body system of a different organism. I find that sufficient to claim ownership over the cells and other matter.

The value it adds is in demonstrating that even if you are shown to be incorrect, you will not concede the point, but instead just ignore it and move on. You made a claim, I showed that not only were you wrong, but that you were aware that you were wrong 2 months ago. Why debate with you now if, even if I show you to be wrong, in 2 months you'll just go back to saying those things I showed to be wrong? There's no possible gain for me if you are unwilling to admit mistakes and have a terribly poor memory.

But in all the cases you are referring too the cells which have unmatching DNA are working for the benefit of the host organism.

Do the cells of the fetus work toward the benefit of the host organism? If not toward what organism is the work of those cells a benefit too?

What is the youngest human being science can identify?