toldailytopic: At what point does a person become a person?

[WizardofOz]

As I said once, religion complicates everything. Ensoulment, the personhood of zygotes, the misery and suffering that these beliefs lead to--classic case in point.

I don't know about belief in a soul, but Rusha and fool agree with zygote "person hood" and they're both atheists. :idunno:

 

[Granite]

I don't know about belief in a soul, but Rusha and fool agree with zygote "person hood" and they're both atheists. :idunno:

I'd say they're in error for different reasons. Zygote "personhood" has stalled embryonic stem cell research for years and has managed to perpetuate suffering because of a misguided attempt to defend "persons" where persons don't exist.

 

[Nick M]

I don't know about belief in a soul, but Rusha and fool agree with zygote "person hood" and they're both atheists. :idunno:

You can be against God (a-theist) and still know what is right and wrong.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'd say they're in error for different reasons. Zygote "personhood" has stalled embryonic stem cell research for years and has managed to perpetuate suffering because of a misguided attempt to defend "persons" where persons don't exist.

I'd say that's a frightening "argument from utility" on the one hand and nothing more or less than speculation on the other. Welcome to the larger, arbitrary/subjective foundation club. lain:

 

[Granite]

I'd say that's a frightening "argument from utility" on the one hand and nothing more or less than speculation on the other. Welcome to the larger, arbitrary/subjective foundation club. lain:

What's more frightening: the end of a zygote or the cancer that's going to kill a nine-year-old? That we've gotten to the point where we protect zygotes and allow conscious suffering says a lot about how absolutely warped we are as a culture.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I think you'll confess you don't know what the moment of ensoulment is, right? And in that case, we must protect life all the way down the line.

I don't know but I think it happens when the fetus quickens.

 

[CabinetMaker]

...


Since I maintain that the zygote is a human, this question is rather like the more famous 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?'

...

The answer to that questions is no. Do you understand the question well enough to understand my answer?

 

[Town Heretic]

What's more frightening: the end of a zygote or the cancer that's going to kill a nine-year-old?

That's the moral question before us, in part. But you haven't quite framed it. What's more frightening: the possible death of a young girl to cancer or the certain death of that same girl at the hands of a surgeon earlier in her life? Because if we can't establish a point of vestment that isn't simply an expression of our taste, that's what we risk. And an appeal against the most other is the easiest emotional appeal of all.

But it isn't a rational one.

That we've gotten to the point where we protect zygotes and allow conscious suffering says a lot about how absolutely warped we are as a culture.

Rather, that we've legalized the unsupportable premise of the vesting of an unalienable right says something far worse about our collective thinking.

So you'd rob my established right, looking back along my chain of being, at some point within my mother's womb, but for no less arbitrary a reason than a killer who'd end it capriciously at every point.

 

[Nick M]

What's more frightening: the end of a zygote or the cancer that's going to kill a nine-year-old? That we've gotten to the point where we protect zygotes and allow conscious suffering says a lot about how absolutely warped we are as a culture.

America has outlawed abortion? Really! That is great news! When did it happen?!?!!

So you think because a child is suffering, we should just kill it? You are the only one that is warped. You don't want to protect an innocent child, and you want to murder one that is suffering, and call others warped? You are a heartless, brainless monster.

 

[Granite]

That's the moral question before us, in part.

...and one half of it is always ignored or justified by religious folks.

What's more frightening: the possible death of a young girl to cancer or the certain death of that same girl at the hands of a surgeon earlier in her life?

You're asking if the end of a zygote's potential is the same as a child's agony? That's not even apples and oranges anymore.

Because if we can't establish a point of vestment that isn't simply an expression of our taste, that's what we risk. And an appeal against the most other is the easiest emotional appeal of all.

You're making an emotional judgment of your own. Any decision that we make for the beginning of personhood will be informed by our own emotions--that's pretty much unavoidable.

Rather, that we've legalized the unsupportable premise of the vesting of an unalienable right says something far worse about our collective thinking.

I'd say one way or another that our social priorities are fairly misguided. But I don't see how anyone can defend the perpetuation of suffering and claim to be anything less than a zealot.

So you'd rob my established right, looking back along my chain of being, at some point within my mother's womb, but for no less arbitrary a reason than a killer who'd end it capriciously at every point.

Says the guy who just lectured me on being irrational.

 

[CabinetMaker]

...and one half of it is always ignored or justified by religious folks.

And you ignore the other half.

 

[Lighthouse]

Fertilization.

You stole my answer.

Would it then follow that any living human without a heart beat or brain activity isn't a person?

I think he's saying he's not a person.

Simple...under law, execute those engaging in abortion the same way that other murderers are executed.

Unless, of course, they were forced into it.

 

[Town Heretic]

...and one half of it is always ignored or justified by religious folks.

Interestingly enough, when I advanced a purely rational argument against it I was met with either silence or thinly veiled appeals to emotion in response, so I don't know that I've seen either side do more than assert subjective valuations, by which I mean no one can demonstrate more than that.

You're asking if the end of a zygote's potential is the same as a child's agony? That's not even apples and oranges anymore.

See, you're doing it again, assuming the conclusion and wrapping it in terms that are charged to that purpose. A clinical "zygote's potential", not the actual killing of it contemplated, set against a child's agony. That's the other I was mentioning. Rather, we have a human entity, from tip to tail, chronologically, and the question then is at what point does right vest and at what point, looking back, can you divest me of mine?

Now if your answer is an arbitrary assignment of value, you can apparently win the field looking forward, but the law wouldn't allow you to do that the other way around. And therein lies an unsupportable error that needs a harder look.

You're making an emotional judgment of your own.

No. I have one, but my argument doesn't rest on it. Yours has to...and so the language you use to support it.

Any decision that we make for the beginning of personhood will be informed by our own emotions--that's pretty much unavoidable.

It's only unavoidable that we have an emotional response. The argument, as I've set out here and elsewhere, needn't be rooted in or reliant on it.

I'd say one way or another that our social priorities are fairly misguided. But I don't see how anyone can defend the perpetuation of suffering and claim to be anything less than a zealot.

I don't see how anyone could support the arbitrary ending of the inarguably human and be more than errant.

Says the guy who just lectured me on being irrational.

Just bending your rhetoric, but its a true statement. You end life as it suits you and so does a killer. Your values may be far more understandable and far less other than that killer, but they're no more or less arbitrary. And that should trouble you as a rational creature.

 

[chrysostom]

the reason we can't do anything about abortion is we can't agree on when it is really bad
and
that is too bad

 

[Granite]

Interestingly enough, when I advanced a purely rational argument against it I was met with either silence or thinly veiled appeals to emotion in response, so I don't know that I've seen either side do more than assert subjective valuations, by which I mean no one can demonstrate more than that.

Considering the guesswork and assumptions involved, no one can make an absolutely rational case for personhood one way or another.

See, you're doing it again, assuming the conclusion and wrapping it in terms that are charged to that purpose.

I see, so referring to zygotes as "babies" and "children," as many are wont to do, isn't an intentional attempt at charging the discussion?

Are they, or aren't they?

Rather, we have a human entity, from tip to tail, chronologically, and the question then is at what point does right vest and at what point, looking back, can you divest me of mine?

I already explained when I believe we can say with confidence that "personhood" is absolutely and undeniably recognizable.

Now if your answer is an arbitrary assignment of value, you can apparently win the field looking forward, but the law wouldn't allow you to do that the other way around. And therein lies an unsupportable error that needs a harder look.

As is yours, remember. There is no clean-cut answer to this issue, leaving us with a) our assumptions, b) our heart strings, and c) our intuition. In other words, the issue is a complete mess. The difference with us, I think, is that you're unwilling to step backward in the chronology in the name of alleviating present suffering, and I am.

No. I have one, but my argument doesn't rest on it.

Well remember, what your argument ultimately rests on is something I dismiss out of hand, so if you play that trump card, this discussion will go nowhere.

It's only unavoidable that we have an emotional response. The argument, as I've set out here and elsewhere, needn't be rooted in or reliant on it.

On this we agree.

I don't see how anyone could support the arbitrary ending of the inarguably human and be more than errant.

No one has argued (and I will not) that zygotes are not "human," but I defy anyone to make a case for its personhood--for can you honestly say a cell that may not have even dropped into the fallopian tubes yet possesses the consciousness, rationality, self-realization, self-recognition, and fear of mortality that is part and parcel the human condition? One can only make this case by resorting to religious nonsense. Call the zygote what you like: a cell, potential, promise, the building blocks of a possible life, the parental blueprint; but don't insult my intelligence by equating a cell with personhood, especially when the amelioration of misery is at stake.

Just bending your rhetoric, but its a true statement. You end life as it suits you and so does a killer. Your values may be far more understandable and far less other than that killer, but they're no more or less arbitrary. And that should trouble you as a rational creature.

The only way an otherwise bright chap can come to this is through the madness and ethical dead-ends required of you by your religion. And while that won't trouble you, it should.

 

[some other dude]

Why on earth do you guys jump right into these debates without defining terms?



I guess you just like arguing past each other. :nono:

 

[chrysostom]

Why on earth do you guys jump right into these debates without defining terms?



I guess you just like arguing past each other. :nono:

why can't we assume they are using a dictionary?

 

[WizardofOz]

Why on earth do you guys jump right into these debates without defining terms?

why can't we assume they are using a dictionary?

That's the problem I've run into....a dictionary isn't sufficient for people with pro-choice views. They prefer to make definitions up that fit their view.....see Dr. Watson's abortion thread for more info......

The whole concept of "personhood" as distinct from "human" is home-made pseudoscience. Each and every time they offered a definition I pointed out that they just declared other people not "persons" i.e. comatose patients for one example.

The only pro-choice poster in the entire thread who offered any sort of consistency was Silent Hunter who declared open-season on all still in the womb. He didn't want to admit that he's OK with abortion even minutes prior to birth but this was the logical conclusion from his stance.

Yay for him:devil:

Still not addressed by Dr. Watson or Greenrage (see last page in thread)....

Whatever you want to call this new stage of human development whether it be "person", "person-hood", "human-being" (vs. human) etc., what are the defining parameters? You must somehow separate the characteristics a comatose human possesses but a developing human does not. If not, you must either concede that your argument was a red herring all along or you must be willing to concede that a law declaring it illegal to actively kill a comatose patient is without merit.

 

[chrysostom]

That's the problem I've run into....a dictionary isn't sufficient for people with pro-choice views. :

it doesn't really convey the idea that you are okay with killing the baby

 

[WizardofOz]

it doesn't really convey the idea that you are okay with killing the baby

They just don't want to use dictionary definitions because it hampers their ability to appear rational.

For example......

Uh, no, in fact pretending dictionary definitions fit complex and developing social ideas is silly.

And so, they make up their own definitions.....after much kicking and screaming.