Heartbeat and brain "activity" are red herrings. Come on, admit it. "Breathing" is your argument. The other two.....not so much.
. . . Wouldn’t it be true that if the end of “personhood” is marked by a lack of breathing, heartbeat, and brain activity . . . that it is reasonable that we judge the beginning of “personhood” by these same criteria?
I maintain all three are
necessary criteria for "personhood" (as well as "human," "individual," and "living") . . . so . . . NOT a red herring (unlike your attempt to derail the discussion by bring in abortion and coma . . . which clearly ARE red herrings).
So, because the zygote might become two individuals that means it isn't at minimum a new individual? Talk about arguing the ridiculous. Is two more or less than one? You're conceding that it is at least one individual but dispute its individuality because it may twin.
I've "conceded" nothing in this regard . . . however . . . taking YOUR "argument" to it's "logical" conclusion (not that your "arguments" are ever "logical") . . .
if a newly fertilized egg is a
separate and
unique "individual" then after "twinning" each "half" is not ONE separate, unique individual but is one-HALF of
one individual . . . :crackup:
A zygote is not and cannot be considered a "separate and unique" "person" until AFTER the
possibility of twinning has passed :nono:.
I'm convinced . . . you'd argue black was white Wiz.
Definition A is unacceptable because there is also definition B, C and D? That would be the case with ALL words, Einstein. What an incredibly awesome argument you've got going on. You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
. . . your response here clearly takes me out of context . . .
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child . . . clearly a zygote is NOT a man, woman, or child (though it possesses the potential for being one).
. . . or . . .
7. the body in its external aspect . . . which makes a dead human body a “person.”
definitions 1 & 7 suit "person" just as sufficiently as yours.
Therefore, no definition is accurate because there are always other definitions to use. Words are undefinable.
I didn't say that . . . I'm saying that the "definition" YOU
choose to define "person" is validly "defined" another way . . . there is a reason an unambiguous meaning for "person" is so hard to nail down. This doesn't make your "definition" wrong and mine right (or
vise-versa) . . . they are both valid.
Person
One of the central problems of metaphysics is what it is to be a person. The answer ought to account for central phenomena of personhood; rationality, command of language, self-consciousness, control or agency, and moral worth or title to respect, are amongst the salient characteristics that have been thought to distinguish persons from other forms of life. In Locke, ‘person’ is a forensic term, applying for moral reasons (‘to agents capable of a law, and happiness and misery’, Essay, ii. 27). A dualistic approach regards a person as an amalgam of an essentially separate mind and body, with the resulting problem of reinventing their unity in the living person (see mind-body problem, occasionalism). Monistic theories, such as that of Strawson's Individuals (1959), work with a primitive concept of a person, as some one thing logically capable of being described in bodily or mental terms. A popular modern analogy is with the compatible software and hardware descriptions of a computer (see functionalism).
|
. . . the concept of a person is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability and the controversies surrounding its use in some contexts. |
I used dictionary definitions. Always have. That is what is so hilarious about you and others whining about equivocation....."human (-being)" and "person" are synonymous. You are just being incredulous about the semantic reality.
Synonyms
1. Person, individual, personage are terms applied to human beings. |
. . . how a word is
applied doesn't necessarily equate to what the word
means.
You've conceded that zygotes are "human" but you want to differentiate between "human" and "human-being" for the sake of your made-up definitions when even dictionaries make no such distinction.
| human being - any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. |
. . . clearly you don't know the difference between a "noun" and an "adjective." Is the zygote human or is the zygote a person? (Waits to watch the equivocation begin.)
Is a zygote an individual of the genus Homo? Yup.
. . . for how long? . . . see also above and the previous post.
EDIT: A dead human body is an "individual" of the genus "Homo" . . . which makes a dead human body a “person” . . . by your definition . . . as pointed out earlier . . . which you ignored . . . as usual.
Damn dictionaries always equivocating.
. . . as I said earlier . . . dictionaries aren't the problem :yawn:.
You avoided these . . .
Is a “person” still a “person” if their brain has ceased to function, their heart has stopped, and they have stopped breathing?
Wouldn’t it be true that if the end of “personhood” is marked by a lack of breathing, heartbeat, and brain activity . . . that it is reasonable that we judge the beginning of “personhood” by these same criteria?
lain: Okay, see you around. :e4e:
