we cannot have a foundational moral concept -valuing a human life- combined with arbitrariness."

"If you claim that human life having great value is a fundamental moral rule, then you are assuming the result. ….. Again, I don't claim that human life with potential has no inherent value."

I’m looking at common usage but could be wrong. I think that again the terms and what it means are mixed and while using the same language mean and are valued by people in different ways.

"I think you're reading in an arbitrary condition that isn't there, ….eg. survival of the species) there is arguably a moral obligation to give birth."

"Well if you can show that *my* criteria for personhood is arbitrary, I'd be happy to change my position, but I don't think it is."

Any criteria is inherently arbitrary, some are just more inclusive than others.

If the community can't afford to support population growth, then as a disincentive and necessity, it makes sense to require contribution from both parents."

Didn’t see the relevance.

” in my usage having inherent value doesn't mean it can't have additional, subjective value for other reasons. The potential for sentience has inherent value, but I consider it to be on a different order of magnitude compared to actual sentience. "

From were I’m coming from by-in-large value or rights are human constructs and while the may have objective qualities mixed in are still largely subjective.

"Mere emotional hurt isn't enough to force …… Those that have significant psychological damage in the latter case would surely be abnormally vulnerable to such things."

Not to those who put a high value on it. Bit of a throw away, easy to use that on anyone who highly values what you don't value.

"would you *force* a parent to run into the house/reactor?"

No but wonder at one that would save one child but not his brother if that was at equal risk.

Should we leave it there, invite some from the other thread or should I just join in over there?