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

[Samstarrett]

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

Yet unless you can provide proof of this view, it would be wholly irrational for us to enshrine your unsubstantiated opinion in law, particularly as it risks allowing the killing of quite a few persons if you are wrong.

 

[Samstarrett]

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

Yes, actually, though the implied meaning of the answer 'no' that most people will take away is 'I, CabinetMaker, am still beating my wife.' Anyway, the point is that your question about whether a zygote contains within itself all it needs to 'become human' is a question of the same sort. I suppose the answer is the same sort of no.

 

[WizardofOz]

If you're pro-choice, fill in the blank.....

A person is: ______________________

 

[chrysostom]

If you're pro-choice, fill in the blank.....

A person is: ______________________

okay with killing the baby

 

[Town Heretic]

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

Couldn't agree more regarding an objective and particular point on that line as the case. Now you can make a case, rationally, for either the complete divestment of the right or the complete vestment of it along that line, which will carry a point of protection or no point as a necessary consequence...I'd argue for the former, being a creature of rational self interest.

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?

Not if they believe that's what they're talking about, no. But comparing a child with a zygote or, to use the other side, arguing about murder when we haven't established the right's vestment, are equally emotional charges/appeals.

Are they, or aren't they?

Do we vest or divest? I say vest. It's the only way to keep the law consistent when you examine it from my point of being looking back, again. Or we could reverse the course of law, as I noted. I really can't see anyone being in favor of it (except perhaps Gerald).

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

I accept that you believe it, but I note you can't demonstrate more than another arbitrary standard, with no more authority behind it than the next fellow's. So I don't argue for any standard except for reason applied to the operating principle of law and a rational follow through or rejection of it. Once you look at the puzzle going back it becomes much easier to see what our distinctions are reliant on.

...There is no clean-cut answer to this issue, leaving us with a) our assumptions, b) our heart strings, and c) our intuition.

I couldn't disagree more. And that's why I set out an argument that doesn't rely on any of those. It doesn't even rest on our principle of law, since I do allow that we could reject that principle and void the right entirely and be as rational in our conclusion, if less reasonable in relation to self interest.

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.

To my mind, the difference is that you're willing to sacrifice the one for the other without any more justification than your emotional identification. Now that's the meat of most here, on either side of the fence, but I'm pointing out it isn't an inescapable position. And it isn't the rational one.

Well remember, what your argument ultimately rests on is something I dismiss out of hand,

My argument rests entirely on an objective, rational treatment. It doesn't rely on religious principle or emotional attachment. So if you reject what I'm actually doing instead of attempting to overlay my religious principle, I don't think your statement is one you'd care to maintain.

so if you play that trump card, this discussion will go nowhere.

Again, what card? I intentionally divested my approach of the emotional or religious. This isn't about faith or feeling.

No one has argued (and I will not) that zygotes are not "human," but I defy anyone to make a case for its personhood

Read my argument again. Personhood is all about that vesting of right, or, as I set it out to pull the emotional teeth and change the relief, the divestment of right. Again, you can't walk up to me and stab me to death with a letter opener because my letter to the editor convinced you that I wasn't truly human. My right to life has vested. You'd have to demonstrate a horrific violation of our compact and afford me due process to even attempt to abrogate that right.

So here I sit, getting younger by the minute, still possessing that right and the process with it and yet you want to remove it without process or violation when I get to the point where I can no longer voice objection and have become so alien that most people no longer want to thump me affectionately on the shoulder (not that at that point I'll necessarily have one). Sounds like an unjustifiable violation of the point of law based rather singularly on an arbitrary assignment of value and justified, in part, by that human response to otherness I noted.

--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?

The error in this is that you begin with assumptions about the foundation of right/vestment that are exactly those valuations I've noted in both camps. To you it's apparently an intellectual pont of vestment. To another fellow it's the ability to live independent of the mother. To another it's a heartbeat. To another it's inherent. And all of you are proposing the same thing: an arbitrary valuation, no more self authenticating in one than the other, though any one might by virtue of its appeal to the emotions/traditions of the larger group find traction and resonance by degree.

One can only make this case by resorting to religious nonsense.

That, oddly enough, is nonsense. And unlike your part here, I can demonstrate it by reminding you that my argument isn't remotely religious. I could as comfortably have made it as a rationalist/atheist.

Call the zygote what you like: a cell, potential, promise, the building blocks of a possible life, the parental blueprint;

I called it what we all do: human. The rest is a discussion of right and vesting of right, or the recognition of unalienable or inherent right and its protection.

but don't insult my intelligence by equating a cell with personhood, especially when the amelioration of misery is at stake.

Rather, don't insult my intelligence with an appeal to emotion that is no more controlling, or rationally distinguishable, than the fundamentalist wagging finger and calling "child killer".

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.

That's just not demonstrably true, Granite. I set out HOW you're doing the thing that should trouble you. You're countering with rather vague assertions of things you can't actually point to within my response to attempt to equate them. And my religion is literally playing no role in my argument. Read me again and point to a single facet that contradicts that assertion. Name a single support that relies on religious sensibility. :nono:

 

[Silent Hunter]

What is a "person?"

A "person" is a "human?"

What is a "human?"

A "human" is a "person?"

. . . now what? (not so easy . . . is it?)

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yet unless you can provide proof of this view, it would be wholly irrational for us to enshrine your unsubstantiated opinion in law, particularly as it risks allowing the killing of quite a few persons if you are wrong.

The proof we need does not exist. We cannot prove the existence of the soul to any acceptable legal standard. So we are left with a choice. I say that at the moment of fertilization all the DNA that defines a person is in place. If that zygote fails to implant in a uterus then that zygote will never develop past a few tens of cells before it is flushed from the body. By itself, the zygote lacks the nutrients it requires to develop into the person defined by the DNA in its cells. It must have a mother to become a person. That is why I draw the line where I do.

 

[Granite]

Couldn't agree more regarding an objective and particular point on that line as the case. Now you can make a case, rationally, for either the complete divestment of the right or the complete vestment of it along that line, which will carry a point of protection or no point as a necessary consequence...I'd argue for the former, being a creature of rational self interest.

This boils down, of course, to what we think we're protecting. And this another example of religion overreaching under some misguided sense of morality. Put another way, we're stuck in a situation where a pair of cells are worth more than curing Parkinson's.

Not if they believe that's what they're talking about, no. But comparing a child with a zygote or, to use the other side, arguing about murder when we haven't established the right's vestment, are equally emotional charges/appeals.

This isn't a comparison that's made; it's an equation. One you seem to agree with, given the following:

Do we vest or divest? I say vest. It's the only way to keep the law consistent when you examine it from my point of being looking back, again.

Incorrect--we simply set a standard at odds with your own, which I already suggested: the presence of brain activity and or heart beat. Once the standard exists, consistency follows.

I accept that you believe it, but I note you can't demonstrate more than another arbitrary standard, with no more authority behind it than the next fellow's.

Including your own, TH. Stop trying to act as though your own standard is anything less than an arbitrary.

Once you look at the puzzle going back it becomes much easier to see what our distinctions are reliant on.

On this, we agree, though for different reasons.

I couldn't disagree more. And that's why I set out an argument that doesn't rely on any of those. It doesn't even rest on our principle of law, since I do allow that we could reject that principle and void the right entirely and be as rational in our conclusion, if less reasonable in relation to self interest.

Your argument essentially boils down to erring on the side of caution. "Let's be on the safe side," as it were. That seems to be an emotional judgment to me, because I don't think we can separate self-preservation (which you seem to resting on) from emotion.

To my mind, the difference is that you're willing to sacrifice the one for the other without any more justification than your emotional identification. Now that's the meat of most here, on either side of the fence, but I'm pointing out it isn't an inescapable position. And it isn't the rational one.

What's rational about guaranteeing suffering? Where is the rationality behind the perpetuation of agony and disease? When it's within one's power to stop harm and one chooses not to, what do we generally call this kind of choice?

My argument rests entirely on an objective, rational treatment. It doesn't rely on religious principle or emotional attachment. So if you reject what I'm actually doing instead of attempting to overlay my religious principle, I don't think your statement is one you'd care to maintain.

So religion does not inform your opinion on this issue at all? Serious question.

Personhood is all about that vesting of right, or, as I set it out to pull the emotional teeth and change the relief, the divestment of right.

I would agree. Where we differ is of course on the timing.

Again, you can't walk up to me and stab me to death with a letter opener because my letter to the editor convinced you that I wasn't truly human.

That all depends. You are, after all, an attorney.:chuckle:

So here I sit, getting younger by the minute, still possessing that right and the process with it and yet you want to remove it without process or violation when I get to the point where I can no longer voice objection and have become so alien that most people no longer want to thump me affectionately on the shoulder (not that at that point I'll necessarily have one).

I have no idea where you got this idea. You seem to be referring to euthanasia. That, or Benjamin Button.

The error in this is that you begin with assumptions about the foundation of right/vestment that are exactly those valuations I've noted in both camps. To you it's apparently an intellectual pont of vestment. To another fellow it's the ability to live independent of the mother. To another it's a heartbeat. To another it's inherent. And all of you are proposing the same thing: an arbitrary valuation, no more self authenticating in one than the other, though any one might by virtue of its appeal to the emotions/traditions of the larger group find traction and resonance by degree.

The alternative is to defend an object lacking in every single characteristic you just described and invest it with the inalienable rights of those who suffering the object may alleviate. All this in the name of a standard that's acceptable to you because it lacks exceptions and is universal.

Rather, don't insult my intelligence with an appeal to emotion that is no more controlling, or rationally distinguishable, than the fundamentalist wagging finger and calling "child killer".

You just agreed a zygote's a "child," TH. Why not just wear the shoe that fits?

That's just not demonstrably true, Granite. I set out HOW you're doing the thing that should trouble you. You're countering with rather vague assertions of things you can't actually point to within my response to attempt to equate them.

What I did were provide specific examples of the real, tangible harm that stems from an outlook such as yours. And you continue to blithely dismiss these concerns to emotion as though a desire to relieve human suffering is somehow beneath all of us.

 

[WizardofOz]

What is a "person?"

A "person" is a "human?"

What is a "human?"

A "human" is a "person?"

. . . now what? (not so easy . . . is it?)

:hammer:

Not even going to give it a shot?

As I've previously pointed out: "person" is a noun, while "human" is an adjective. That may help your differentiation troubles. :thumb:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Not even going to give it a shot?

. . . waiting on YOUR definition . . . which you've never really provided other than the consistently ambiguous obfuscate of . . .

"person" = "human" = "person" = "human" = etc . . .

Your problem with defining "person" in this context is your equivocation of a noun to an adjective as you "point out" below.

As I've previously pointed out: "person" is a noun, while "human" is an adjective.

It is? Always?

For convenience . . .

HUMAN

noun

1.A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2.A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

adjective

1.Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2.Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3.Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
4.Having the form of a human.
5.Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

That may help your differentiation troubles.

That you don't know "human" can be (and is) used as a noun one can only guess what convoluted definition of "person" you will come up with that would be an adequately better description than those you dismiss . . . :sigh:

Remember to stay within the confines of the thread . . . At what point does a person (first) become a person?

 

[Samstarrett]

. . . waiting on YOUR definition . . . which you've never really provided other than the consistently ambiguous obfuscate of . . .

"person" = "human" = "person" = "human" = etc . . .

Not true. A person is a distinct individual member of the human species or(in principle) another species recognized as carrying the same moral value. So far, no other such species is known.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Not true. A person is a distinct individual member of the human species or(in principle) another species recognized as carrying the same moral value. So far, no other such species is known.

:idea: . . . try to keep up Sam . . . at least read the post before jumping at the first phrase you think you can attack.

(A) HUMAN

noun

1.A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2.(A) person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

In other words . . . "person" = "human" = "person" = "human" = etc . . .

:bang:

 

[Town Heretic]

This boils down, of course, to what we think we're protecting. And this another example of religion overreaching under some misguided sense of morality.

Not my argument, which is about vesting. I was setting the larger table of discussion. The argument remains about a right and where we can or should vest or divest it.

Put another way, we're stuck in a situation where a pair of cells are worth more than curing Parkinson's.

No. You'd have to assume that the only way to cure Parkinson's would be with stem cells and, even less established, stem cells that could only be obtained via an aborted fetus. But even were that demonstrably true it wouldn't control any more than an argument that I could save a handful of lives with organ transplants by taking yours would be a justification for doing so. Of course you have the inarguable right for protection...which only underscores how important it is we get that right's vestment correctly and why you'd likely not find yourself voting with the "let's divest whole cloth" side of the rational alternative to an application of the law's principle set out prior...whew...

This isn't a comparison that's made; it's an equation.

It's a comparison of value, since you declare the child's interests superior to the zygote's.

Incorrect--we simply set a standard at odds with your own, which I already suggested: the presence of brain activity and or heart beat. Once the standard exists, consistency follows.

That actually doesn't justify your "incorrect" given I'm not advancing a standard for determining the point of vestment, but arguing the rationally inescapable conclusion if we want to avoid an arbitrary assertion of right and one that we couldn't sustain attempting it from the other end of things AND because your assignment of value (whether or not you hold a majority position) isn't anything more or less than that very arbitrary thing my posit avoids.

Including your own, TH. Stop trying to act as though your own standard is anything less than an arbitrary.

Rather, demonstrate how it is or leave off declaring it to be what it demonstrably isn't.

Your argument essentially boils down to erring on the side of caution.

No, though I can understand how you'd see it that way. My side says that if I have a right and you can't demonstrate the cessation of it without the application of an arbitrary valuation, then the law would forbid it. That same reasoned progression and the same want for standard should be and must be mirrored in addressing the fetus.

...I don't think we can separate self-preservation (which you seem to resting on) from emotion.

Of course we can. Philosophers have done it for centuries as a matter of argument. Self preservation inarguably has emotional weight, but it can be and is a rational thing at the root. Without being no right matters. To preserve my being is to preserve all, after a fashion....or, to put it another way, without being the argument isn't.

What's rational about guaranteeing suffering?

Depends. I can think of any number of illustrations justifying suffering. So could you, I imagine. Or would you fail to suffer to preserve the life of your child, by way of example...of course you wouldn't. Else and in our wider discourse, my argument isn't about or for guaranteeing suffering.

Where is the rationality behind the perpetuation of agony and disease? When it's within one's power to stop harm and one chooses not to, what do we generally call this kind of choice?

I know what I generally call this sort of argument: an appeal to emotion. And much, if not all of it, rests on supposition. I set that out in my last and earlier here.

So religion does not inform your opinion on this issue at all? Serious question.

No. I have a moral argument. I have a purely religious argument that is different from either, but this doesn't rest in any part on it. Now as I believe that all truth serves the good you could make a tangential connection, but again, this is an argument I could have felt at ease with as an atheist. And I'd bet some will or do who still hold that belief/context.

I would agree. Where we differ is of course on the timing.

But we really don't, insomuch as the argument stands. What I mean is, you have a particular notion about where the point should vest. Within the context of my argument I don't. I only know that my right has vested and that it should only be abrogated, traveling back along my chain of being, by the mechanisms we allow: due process following a fundamental violation of the compact on my part. And that can't be done here. Or, viewed another way, you could say I honor every single subjective belief save the belief that would negate the right entire--while holding out the rationality of doing that, of course.

Re: the first thing we do...

That all depends. You are, after all, an attorney.:chuckle:

:think: There might be a general exception allowed there.

I have no idea where you got this idea. You seem to be referring to euthanasia. That, or Benjamin Button.

:chuckle: It's an illustration of my argument of the deficiency in any advancing argument against the larger vesting. Or at least illustrates that the arbitrary application is hypocritical and violative of the law's context/principles. And so my argument, challenge, and conclusion.

The alternative is to defend an object lacking in every single characteristic you just described and invest it with the inalienable rights of those who suffering the object may alleviate.

You did it again. You spoke of investing. That's rather the issue. It is as arguably vested at every point as divested or vested at any. And that's the thorny problem for anyone in support of abrogating my right (a-la Buttons) or failing to vest at every point.

All this in the name of a standard that's acceptable to you because it lacks exceptions and is universal.

All this because I haven't seen another reasoned course, though I did hold that there are two sides to my argument, however uncomfortable the other might be. We could all divest. That would follow the same principle while eliminating the right. Not much of a stable compact, I'm guessing, but it's possible.

You just agreed a zygote's a "child," TH. Why not just wear the shoe that fits?

No, I just pointed out that a fundamentalist (which I'm not) pointing and declaring you a child killer would be doing the thing you're doing, whatever the right of it, which is playing an emotional card.

You want my opinion I can give you that. This is a different animal. And that animal is wholly reasoned and invites examination on its points.

What I did were provide specific examples of the real, tangible harm that stems from an outlook such as yours.

I answered you on the disease gambit. You can't establish the either/or that is necessary for it to be an inarguable consideration.

And you continue to blithely dismiss these concerns to emotion as though a desire to relieve human suffering is somehow beneath all of us.

Nothing blithe in my rejection of emotion as the standard for gauging right. That way lies madness, interment camps, caste systems and every measure of human misery at the hands of humanity.

 

[some other dude]

What is a "person?"

A "person" is a "human?"

What is a "human?"

A "human" is a "person?"

. . . now what? (not so easy . . . is it?)

from Merriam-Webster online:

Definition of PERSON
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>


hu·man adj \ˈhyü-mən, ˈyü-\
Definition of HUMAN
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

 

[Samstarrett]

:idea: . . . try to keep up Sam . . . at least read the post before jumping at the first phrase you think you can attack.

Did all that.

(A) HUMAN

noun

1.A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2.(A) person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

Note the first definition.

In other words . . . "person" = "human" = "person" = "human" = etc . . .

No.

:bang:

 

[WizardofOz]

. . . waiting on YOUR definition . . .

Still don't get it? The dictionary definitions work just fine for me......

which you've never really provided other than the consistently ambiguous obfuscate of . . .

"person" = "human" = "person" = "human" = etc . . .

Your problem with defining "person" in this context is your equivocation of a noun to an adjective as you "point out" below.

I'll use the dictionary. You offer me something better......waiting for it....waiting for it.....:juggle:

It is? Always?

Usually, yes it is.

For convenience . . .

HUMAN

noun

1.A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Thanks for the assist (as if I needed it)

Is a zygote "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens"?

Well.....is it?

2.A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

"A person"? :noway:
Damn those dictionaries....always equivocating :chuckle:

adjective

1.Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2.Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3.Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
4.Having the form of a human.
5.Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

1-5: Check. Nope no problems for me.

That you don't know "human" can be (and is) used as a noun one can only guess what convoluted definition of "person" you will come up with that would be an adequately better description than those you dismiss . . . :sigh:

Never said it cannot be a noun. :nono:

You have a knack for desiring the exception to somehow become the rule.

Remember to stay within the confines of the thread . . . At what point does a person (first) become a person?

Tell me how even a zygote strays from the fundamental definitions you've offered.

I'll stick with the dictionary until you and your "camp" come up with a better definition....something about "brain activity" or "breathing".

Um yeah. Very compelling.

 

[WizardofOz]

from Merriam-Webster online:

Definition of PERSON
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>


hu·man adj \ˈhyü-mən, ˈyü-\
Definition of HUMAN
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

Is a zygote a human? Yup.
Is a zygote an individual human? Yup.

:mock: Dictionaries equivocating again :chuckle:

 

[Silent Hunter]

. . . waiting on YOUR definition . . .

Still don't get it? The dictionary definitions work just fine for me......

. . . so far . . . you've done an adequate job of "defining" what is "human" (adjective) . . .

. . . were still waiting on your definition of "person" (noun).

A "person" (noun) has other defining characteristics beyond being "human" (adjective).

which you've never really provided other than the consistently ambiguous obfuscate of . . .

"person" = "human" = "person" = "human" = etc . . .

Your problem with defining "person" in this context is your equivocation of a noun to an adjective as you "point out" below.

I'll use the dictionary. You offer me something better......waiting for it....waiting for it.....

EXACTLY . . . we're still waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting . . . (you get the picture) . . . for a definition for "person" (noun) from you which doesn't fit the pattern . . . "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = etc . . .

It is? Always?

Usually, yes it is.

Usually? That's NOT what you said . . .

As I've previously pointed out: "person" is a noun, while "human" is an adjective.

. . . quite clearly implying no other usage.

For convenience . . .

HUMAN

noun

1.A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

[Thanks for the assist (as if I needed it)

Is a zygote "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens"?

Well.....is it?

No . . . but it is human (adjective).

By your usage a dead human (adjective) body is "a member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens" but quite clearly LACKS quite a few of the characteristics associated with being a "person" (noun).

2.A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

"A person"?
Damn those dictionaries....always equivocating

. . . not the dictionary doing it . . . and you're still left with . . .

"person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = etc . . .

adjective

1.Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2.Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3.Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
4.Having the form of a human.
5.Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

1-5: Check. Nope no problems for me.

. . . how did the noun "human" suddenly become the adjective "human?" :liberals:

That you don't know "human" can be (and is) used as a noun one can only guess what convoluted definition of "person" you will come up with that would be an adequately better description than those you dismiss . . .

Never said it cannot be a noun.

You have a knack for desiring the exception to somehow become the rule.

Not me doing it . . . (see above).

Remember to stay within the confines of the thread . . . At what point does a person (first) become a person?

Tell me how even a zygote strays from the fundamental definitions you've offered.

. . . for being "human" (adjective) . . . none at all . . .

. . . for being a "person" (noun) . . . quite a bit . . .

. . . and . . . btw . . . I "offered" no "definition" . . . what was "offered" was done so to show "human" is often "used" as a "noun" as well as an "adjective."

. . . still waiting on YOUR definition of "person" (noun) (assuming Hell doesn't freeze over first) :drums fingers:.

I'll stick with the dictionary until you and your "camp" come up with a better definition....something about "brain activity" or "breathing".

Um yeah. Very compelling.

LOL . . . considerably more "compelling" than . . . "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = etc . . . :kookoo:

How many people (noun, plural of "person") have you ever met who lacked the capacity to breath (other than respiratory arrest) and would still consider them to be a "person" (noun)?

How many people (noun, plural of "person") have you ever met who lacked brain activity ("brain dead") and would still consider them to be a "person" (noun)?

 

[Granite]

No. You'd have to assume that the only way to cure Parkinson's would be with stem cells and, even less established, stem cells that could only be obtained via an aborted fetus.

Time out. I didn't suggest stem cell research (promising as it is) would prove the only solution; it is, however, an encouraging field of endeavor, should we ever be allowed to pursue it. And your claim that zygotes are somehow "aborted fetuses" is grossly incorrect.

But even were that demonstrably true it wouldn't control any more than an argument that I could save a handful of lives with organ transplants by taking yours would be a justification for doing so.

See above. I might have gotten carried away before but you're doing the very same thing.

It's a comparison of value, since you declare the child's interests superior to the zygote's.

I believe that this is beyond obvious.

That actually doesn't justify your "incorrect" given I'm not advancing a standard for determining the point of vestment...

Well then you sure fooled me, considering that you are aruging here that personhood begins at conception. If that's not a "standard," what would you call it? Rule of thumb?

...but arguing the rationally inescapable conclusion if we want to avoid an arbitrary assertion of right...

Again: pinpointing an exact moment where "personhood" occurs is, at this date, impossible. Impossible spiritually, scientifically, and medically. No matter what standard we use, at the end of the day, we're not only guessing, we are doing the best we can with the limited observations we have. Conception strikes you as less-than-arbitrary because it's very clean cut, simple, and very definitive (hence the attractiveness of the opinion).

...and one that we couldn't sustain attempting it from the other end of things...

Not so sure. We determine the existence of life and the presence of death through heart and brain activity; I said before that determining personhood's origins could be correlated to the first occurrence of these functions. That's very much at the other end.

AND because your assignment of value (whether or not you hold a majority position) isn't anything more or less than that very arbitrary thing my posit avoids.

Only because you keep insisting your opinion isn't arbitrary. You just as easily could say that personhood begins right at birth with our first breath or when the fetus develops fingerprints; your opinion is merely sweeping enough and immediate enough to provide the illusion of open-and-shut truth.

My side says that if I have a right and you can't demonstrate the cessation of it without the application of an arbitrary valuation, then the law would forbid it. That same reasoned progression and the same want for standard should be and must be mirrored in addressing the fetus.

I don't see how my opinion would ultimately be at odds with this.

Of course we can. Philosophers have done it for centuries as a matter of argument. Self preservation inarguably has emotional weight, but it can be and is a rational thing at the root. Without being no right matters. To preserve my being is to preserve all, after a fashion....or, to put it another way, without being the argument isn't.

I think I need a drink.:hammer:

Depends. I can think of any number of illustrations justifying suffering.

I wasn't discussing sacrifice so much as I was gratuitous agony.

I know what I generally call this sort of argument: an appeal to emotion. And much, if not all of it, rests on supposition. I set that out in my last and earlier here.

You can try being stoic all day, TH, but your refusal to even answer the question tells me either you can't or you just don't like the implications of the answers.

No. I have a moral argument. I have a purely religious argument that is different from either, but this doesn't rest in any part on it. Now as I believe that all truth serves the good you could make a tangential connection, but again, this is an argument I could have felt at ease with as an atheist. And I'd bet some will or do who still hold that belief/context.

I may have been mistaken here. If so, my apologies.

But we really don't, insomuch as the argument stands. What I mean is, you have a particular notion about where the point should vest. Within the context of my argument I don't. I only know that my right has vested and that it should only be abrogated, traveling back along my chain of being, by the mechanisms we allow: due process following a fundamental violation of the compact on my part. And that can't be done here. Or, viewed another way, you could say I honor every single subjective belief save the belief that would negate the right entire--while holding out the rationality of doing that, of course.

I'd agree that this is a right and by its nature isn't something we choose. The breakdown comes, again, with the question of timing. Timing, and the value that personhood implies. That a zygote didn't ask or choose to show up does not on its own endow the zygote with anything.

It's an illustration of my argument of the deficiency in any advancing argument against the larger vesting. Or at least illustrates that the arbitrary application is hypocritical and violative of the law's context/principles. And so my argument, challenge, and conclusion.

As hypotheticals go maybe it was just a little too out there for my taste.

You did it again. You spoke of investing. That's rather the issue. It is as arguably vested at every point as divested or vested at any. And that's the thorny problem for anyone in support of abrogating my right (a-la Buttons) or failing to vest at every point.

Can it be said that you must be aware of your right in order for it to be abrogated? Or put another way, do you regard all human life as equally valuable, without any manner of a sliding scale?

No, I just pointed out that a fundamentalist (which I'm not) pointing and declaring you a child killer would be doing the thing you're doing, whatever the right of it, which is playing an emotional card.

Maybe I misread but you did seem to admit that you consider zygotes "children."

I answered you on the disease gambit. You can't establish the either/or that is necessary for it to be an inarguable consideration.

Answered above, although you seem to be trying awful hard to act like TOL's resident Spock.

 

[Samstarrett]

In response to Silent Hunter's last post, I will admit that I stand corrected. I need to add the adjective 'living' to my original definition. Are you happy now, Hunter?