Debates
18 Sep 07
25 Sep 07
Originally posted by agrysonMy point on genetic code is that it is what makes a unique human individual.
Than Merriam Webster is wrong, human is a very specific term, person more all encompassing given that theoretically one doesn't need to be human to have personhood. As for your continued insistence on this genetic point, what exactly do you think genes are? They don't have mystical powers any more than the 1's and 0's flying around inside my computer do. Gen ...[text shortened]... personal experience, has ceased now and forever so they stop being a person by definition.
So if a person is being kept artificially alive, then they are not a person?
I looked up the word "human" in http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human and the 2nd definition is "person"
I looked up the word "person" at the same previous website and here is the results
per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise.
Seems to me like an unborn baby qualifies as a human by definition points 1,4 at the very least since it is a living human and body and is also therefore a person.
Where did you get your definition of a person?
So you would agree that an unborn baby is in fact %100 human?
25 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Definition 3 is both the psychological and philosophical definitions of self, or personhood, though I'm afraid I'll need to do a little searching on the internet for you to get a common reference for that. And yes, I maintain that an unborn foetus is 100% human, but as I said, that is not the issue, the issue is whether it is a person.
My point on genetic code is that it is what makes a unique human individual.
So if a person is being kept artificially alive, then they are not a person?
I looked up the word "human" in http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human and the 2nd definition is "person"
I looked up the word "person" at the same previous website and here is the results ...[text shortened]... r definition of a person?
So you would agree that an unborn baby is in fact %100 human?
As it posesses no individuality (only the potential for such individuality) it cannot qualify as human. Simply posessing an individual genetic code is not sufficient. As I said, that is nothing more than code, using GATC instead of 1 and 0. There are a lot of things that are individual. I just feel that by allowing the rythm method which is a form of abortion (by your own definition of abortion) and disallowing the more conventional method of abortion prior to the second term... it just seems a little hypocritical.
26 Sep 07
Originally posted by agrysonI think you meant "person" instead of human in the last word I quoted you on.
... I maintain that an unborn foetus is 100% human, but as I said, that is not the issue, the issue is whether it is a person.
As it posesses no individuality (only the potential for such individuality) it cannot qualify as human. ...
I would say though that it is not that it possesses "potential" but rather that it is developing individualism.
I disagree with your choice of the word "Potential." Potential seems to mean that something may happen or something may not. I think everyone would agree that individuality always happens in a child. There may be a potential for rain but there is a sure chance a child will have individuality.
I think an unborn baby does have individuality. It is just that it cannot express it as you and I do as it is still developing its features such as arms and legs etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individuality
Main Entry: in·di·vid·u·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: -"vi-j&-'wa-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : total character peculiar to and distinguishing an individual from others b : PERSONALITY
At the moment of conception, the baby's hair color, eye color, chances for diseases and a bunch of other stuff are defined. It is a unique individual defined. I think that would qualify the unborn baby as having individuality.
Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.
Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.
I don't think there is a line of code that tells the unborn when to suck their fingers, when to dream, when to kick etc.
Before the body really begins to develop some of these expressions of individuality can be difficult to show off.
26 Sep 07
Originally posted by BartsThere are some places where overpopulation is a problem and there are places where underpopulation is a problem. Underpopulation is a problem in most of Europe because they have socialism which requires a lot of young workers paying taxes to support the older population, as well as themselves.
Well, it is probably possible to argue that we are underpopulated, but not in this way. Or do you think that every population level under the current one is underpopulated ? And why do you think so ?
The world's natural resources are probably sufficent to handle a world population of at least double or triple what it is now. Advancing technology will probably allow the population to grow much larger than even that.
26 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Yes, I did mean person, not human in that last line, as you can see even I have the bad habit of using the terms interchangeably!
I think you meant "person" instead of human in the last word I quoted you on.
I would say though that it is not that it possesses "potential" but rather that it is developing individualism.
I disagree with your choice of the word "Potential." Potential seems to mean that something may happen or something may not. I think everyone would agr ...[text shortened]... ns to develop some of these expressions of individuality can be difficult to show off.
Also, you point on potential also suggesting a possibility of not, fair enough, instead of potential, I suppose a word that would suit both our purposes is "forming", but an individuality which is forming but is not yet formed is not an individuality. By virtue of the fact that we can say
"Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming."
and that this applies ot all normal healthy babies, then where is the individuality? I'm not arguing for a particular time here, but you have to agree that there is a fuzzy period where the forming individual, the forming person, "becomes". I hazard no guesses as to a particular point, and neither can anyone else, but a period can be chosen that we know that this formation of the individual truly occurs within and provided abortions are only carried out before that point and under no curcumstances during or after, then we have terminated a pregnancy, not a person.
The fact that the forming child has individual code for eye colour, likelihood of heart disease in later life or whatever, yes that code defines certain aspects of the persons individuality, but no more so than the genetic code for a monkey or a mouse. What makes us as humans different is a continuous autobiographical knowledge of our own life and the ability to consciously reflect on it. Thus, by ensuring abortions take place before that period I don't see the difference. (not that I can't, that I don't)
Individual genetic code doesn't give you rights (think of twins) but rather the fact that you are a conscious self-aware being. A foeutus will if unhindered become such, but provided termination occurs before that, then we have not killed a person any more than using the pill does.
26 Sep 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerGood post.
There are some places where overpopulation is a problem and there are places where underpopulation is a problem. Underpopulation is a problem in most of Europe because they have socialism which requires a lot of young workers paying taxes to support the older population, as well as themselves.
The world's natural resources are probably sufficent t ...[text shortened]... w. Advancing technology will probably allow the population to grow much larger than even that.
26 Sep 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerThis is not what the data I have seen shows.
The world's natural resources are probably sufficent to handle a world population of at least double or triple what it is now. Advancing technology will probably allow the population to grow much larger than even that.
Especially if we (as a species not just one country) do not modify how we use technology to become sustainable.
Read up on the Human Footprint:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/footprint/
or
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1025_021025_HumanFootprint.html
Here is a quote:
A growing global human population—six billion today and likely to reach eight billion by 2020, according to the United Nations—is the engine that drives the various influences. People build settlements and roads, transform land to grow food and graze animals, and manufacture goods in ways that frequently lead to pollution, climate change, and ever-increasing consumption of natural resources.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by agrysonI see what your trying to say about the difference between "human" and "person." I disagree completely as I have not heard a definitive definition on how a "person" may not be "human" but rather a rough idea. The definitions I have seen seem dictionaries seem to think that a person is a human and vice versa but anyway I'll continue.
Yes, I did mean person, not human in that last line, as you can see even I have the bad habit of using the terms interchangeably!
Also, you point on potential also suggesting a possibility of not, fair enough, instead of potential, I suppose a word that would suit both our purposes is "forming", but an individuality which is forming but is not yet formed is ...[text shortened]... curs before that, then we have not killed a person any more than using the pill does.
I guess my next question is "why is it ok to kill a human but not a person and why?
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Well, a person requires self-awareness, and currently the only self-conscious things are humans, which is why dictionaries would class them as synonomous, though there is a distinction.
I see what your trying to say about the difference between "human" and "person." I disagree completely as I have not heard a definitive definition on how a "person" may not be "human" but rather a rough idea. The definitions I have seen seem dictionaries seem to think that a person is a human and vice versa but anyway I'll continue.
I guess my next question is "why is it ok to kill a human but not a person and why?
As for your more pertinent question as to why it's ok to kill a human as opposed to a person, the answer is simply that a human without self consciousness is nothing more than any other species, mice and flies have as much importance. a self-conscious being however, such as a human with a sufficiently developed nervous system, is capable of understanding their fate and desiring a choice in the matter, to deny that choice when they are "capable" of making it for themselves is a terrible thing.
But to seperate humans from other animals based purely on our DNA (which isn't all that different) doesn't make sense, whereas, consciousness is something which clearly sets people apart from animals.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by agrysonSuppose one uses the presence of higher self-awareness as a criterion for discriminating between a being who cannot be killed on pain of murder (e.g., an adult human) and a being who can be (e.g., a fetus).
Well, a person requires self-awareness, and currently the only self-conscious things are humans, which is why dictionaries would class them as synonomous, though there is a distinction.
As for your more pertinent question as to why it's ok to kill a human as opposed to a person, the answer is simply that a human without self consciousness is nothing more t ...[text shortened]... ke sense, whereas, consciousness is something which clearly sets people apart from animals.
Does that mean it's okay to kill adult humans in deep sleep?
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI already went into that a bit when using my braindead patient analogy, but to expand on it, there is a difference between being unconscious and not having self consciousness. a person in deep sleep or something like it still has the ability to return to consciousness and continue their internal autobiography so to speak. (Point four in ATY's post a page or two back) an organism, be it human or not, which does not posess consciousness or self-awareness does not have an internal auto-biography at all. Even if a potential for such self awareness exists, potential and actual are not the same thing either.
Suppose one uses the presence of higher self-awareness as a criterion for discriminating between a being who cannot be killed on pain of murder (e.g., an adult human) and a being who can be (e.g., a fetus).
Does that mean it's okay to kill adult humans in deep sleep?
If I were to build a super computer which was capable of self-awareness, but nonetheless did not, yet, would anyone have a moral problem with me dismantling it? I don't think so, but if I had turned it on, and it was self aware already, and I then proceeded to dismantle it against its will, then I think people would have a problem with it. Bringing that analogy back to humans, a human who is not a person yet can be terminated without it being murder.
01 Oct 07
I have to disagree with ATY as his reference is lacking in credentials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person) as it has one of the messages about "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims"
However, I'll continue to look at the idea of an unborn baby at conception being solely "human" as opposed to also being a "person" whatever "person" really entails. I have to admit that this is an interesting notion I have not come upon until now.
I will have to see what I can research on this.
01 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Another set of terms we should differentiate is "human" (as an adjective) vs "a human" (as a noun). They are not the same thing. A human hair is human, but it is not a human. Likewise a fetus is human, but whether it's a human is not so clear.
I see what your trying to say about the difference between "human" and "person." I disagree completely as I have not heard a definitive definition on how a "person" may not be "human" but rather a rough idea. The definitions I have seen seem dictionaries seem to think that a person is a human and vice versa but anyway I'll continue.
I guess my next question is "why is it ok to kill a human but not a person and why?
Possibly anything which is a human is a person, but not everything which is human is a person.