25 Apr 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis is simply a marginally coherent expression of the continuity argument. Early fetuses don't have the capacity for reason and choice. They may have the potential to develop such capacities, but nothing in the article gives us a reason to take ascriptions of potential personhood and pershonhood to have even roughly equivalent moral entailments. Further, early fetuses aren't borderline cases, they clearly don't have the sort of cognitive infrastructure necessary to undergird the required capacities. Further, the author simply begs the question by claiming that persons are kinds and that we are clealry the same kind of creature as fetuses. Although we are clearly the same biological kind as early fetuses, this doesn't entail that we are of the same moral kind.
There have been lots of debates, also on this site, about when a human being is a person, a human being endowed with human rights, included the Right to Life.
I have searched for scientific and philosophical arguments to support the position that personhood starts at conception.
Many pro-abortion people erroneously label such a point of view as "relig ...[text shortened]... that innocent life shall not be killed.
25 Apr 07
Originally posted by hamltnblueDon't get me wrong, I'm against abortions except for when the mother's life is in danger. I don't think I could ever get one. And I think it's horrible. But I realize that my decision might not be right for every woman, or every situation (examples: underage sex, rape, etc.).
It the person inside the woman is a female, does she have the right to choose? To live or die?
Even if the law does go as planned (which it won't) we're talking about hundreds of thousands of children in the foster care system. If we can't adopt the children we already have, what makes you think we can do it on an unimaginable scale? More children means that they are more likely to get lost in the system, and possibly even exploited. Plus, it means much higher taxes for every American citizen.
Women who are desperate will not let a law stop them from terminating their pregnancy. They will have back alley abortions, and the only difference will be women will be dying too. You cannot moniter all pregnant women and make sure that they don't harm themselves in order to terminate the pregnancy.
26 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: "This is simply a marginally coherent expression of the continuity argument."
This is simply a marginally coherent expression of the continuity argument. Early fetuses don't have the capacity for reason and choice. They may have the potential to develop such capacities, but nothing in the article gives us a reason to take ascriptions of potential personhood and pershonhood to have even roughly equivalent moral entailments. Further, e me biological kind as early fetuses, this doesn't entail that we are of the same moral kind.
Can you provide any links presenting better expressions of the continuity argument ?
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by shavixmirbad example. if a woman chopped off her leg she'd likely wind up in a psychiatric ward (in the U.S.).
I've told you a million times: It doesn't make a difference.
It's a woman's body. She can do with it what she wants. No matter how you philosophize, argue or debate. No matter how moral you find it.
If a woman wants to kill herself she can and everything in her dies. If she wants to chop off her leg. She can. If she wants an abortion she can.
End of story.
It's her body. It's up to her.
i remember a science fiction book where babies and kids that didn't meet spec wound up butchered in the local meat markets ("not meeting spec" including mutations such as an extra finger would fail spec, substandard physique, maybe even substandard IQ, not just retardation). adults were cooked and eaten at their wakes, rather than cremated or buried.
26 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo then you would certainly agree with what the author terms this "critical fact", right?
I agree with the position stated in the article.
The critical fact of life that is accessible to any rational study, of course, is that we are each of us the same unique identity now that we were a year ago, or at birth, or at the moment of conception.
Could you explain, ivanhoe, why you agree with this? If the above is true, then what exactly comprises your identity? At conception, the zygote is a single diploid cell. It satisfies the basic requirements for biological life, and it has (human, and probably unique) genetic information. Are these what you take to comprise your identity?
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeNope, I've only seen bad ones. I'd love to see one that could show that because biological development is gradual and continuous that moral considerability isn't.
Bbarr: "This is simply a marginally coherent expression of the continuity argument."
Can you provide any links presenting better expressions of the continuity argument ?
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by LemonJello"Identity" is of course a controversial term, but it could be described as "I am who shall be", or "He or she is who will be".
So then you would certainly agree with what the author terms this "critical fact", right?
The critical fact of life that is accessible to any rational study, of course, is that we are each of us the same unique identity now that we were a year ago, or at birth, or at the moment of conception.
Could you explain, ivanhoe, why you agree with th ...[text shortened]... and probably unique) genetic information. Are these what you take to comprise your identity?
The relevant issue here is whether you assume one's identity as a human being can change during one's life, or that at some time in one's life, which as you seem to agree with starts at conception, one does not have an identity. Is it your position that one's identity as a human being can change ? Is it possible that at one point in a human being's life it is possible to say that he or she is not what he or she will be ?
Where are the "break-off" points ?
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by bbarrThere is something I do not understand. Does the continuity argument tell us that biological development is gradual and continuous and that moral considerability isn't ? Could you elaborate on this please ?
Nope, I've only seen bad ones. I'd love to see one that could show that because biological development is gradual and continuous that moral considerability isn't.
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeSure, take the following quote from your cut and past job:
There is something I do not understand. Does the continuity argument tell us that biological development is gradual and continuous and that moral considerability isn't ? Could you elaborate on this please ?
When we try to assign a time at which we "acquire personhood," we find that there are no break-off points. There are no nice points in human life at which we can see that we have characters A, B, and C afterward, but lacked them before. (Unless we limit ourselves to some very arbitrary and superficial descriptions -- usually physical.)
The implicit argument goes like this:
1) Human adults are persons.
2) If we look at the development of human persons in reverse, there is no clearly identifiable point prior to which we were not persons.
3) Hence, failing to ascribe personhood to a human entity at any point in the developmental continuum is ultimately arbitrary.
When you add to this the claim that personhood is something like a moral kind (so either you are a person with all the attending rights or you are not a person), then the claim will be that the continuity argument shows that we should ascribe full personhood to conceptates.
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by WajomaOf course you have the right, but it would be a mistake to think that the mere fact that some labor contract is agreed to renders the contract fair or justified.
If what I produce with my mind and hands is mine, don't I have a right to trade those skills, labour and knowledge with an employer?
He has something I want, I have something he wants, voluntary trade, everyone happy.