16 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI saw the words, not the way you said I used them, they are in a different order and even then I was not calling anyone a "Baby Killer", I guess if you see the words you can change them to suit your views and alter the context in your mind to make it mean what you want it too. You lie, since I give you more credit for brains than you are displaying here, I can only assume your just continuing this line to get under my skin. You are not that stupid, at least I didn't think so.
LMFAO!!!!!! What a piece of trash you are. Read the post above.
Kelly
16 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy shy away from calling abortionists "Baby Killers"? Isn't that your position? What's with the semantic games?
I saw the words, not the way you said I used them, they are in a different order and even then I was not calling anyone a "Baby Killer", I guess if you see the words you can change them to suit your views and alter the context in your mind to make it mean what you want it too. You lie, since I give you more credit for brains than you are displaying here, I ...[text shortened]... g this line to get under my skin. You are not that stupid, at least I didn't think so.
Kelly
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, Jack's existence in no way threatens or potentially threatens Jills. It might be a pain in the arse for her but that's a bit of bad luck. Jack is a functioning human being.
Jack and Jill are marooned on an otherwise deserted island. A mentally healthy Jack is quadriplegic and is therefore entirely dependent on Jill for his life -- she picks berries and feeds him, etc. By your definition, Jack is expendable and can be wantonly 'bumped off'.
Sounds like a variation of the Nazi T-4 program.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloSigh. I guess this is not the first time I misrepresent your position; my apologies. In my defense, I don't find your position well defined and frankly it's a bit hazy. Rather than having us going around and around in miscommunicative circles let's first get clarity on each other's positions.
[b]You gave a necessary but not sufficient condition
I know. In this discussion, I just need to show that the young fetus lacks even one necessary condition for personhood. I claim that the capacity for consciousness, for example, is one that it lacks. Of course, you're the one who would need to show something about sufficiency in order t ...[text shortened]... n a formal criterion. And no, the embryo at 7 weeks is not a person.[/b]
Firstly, I'm not even sure of your definition for "person". I don't think we need to necessarily go into the exact criteria for functional personhood, such as self-consciousness, the ability to feel pain, etc. As I said, I provisionally accept whichever you would propose. However, it would be a good start to for you to give me a general definition which somehow includes functional personhood, so that we can test it against actual or hypothetical scenarios.
Currently, I would define "person" as a being that possesses the inherent capacity to function as a person.
I would further define "inherent capacity" as the ability to spontaneously develop and exhibit the said capacity.
Once you've given yours, I'll try to address the points in your post from that perspective.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by amannionNo, Jack's existence in no way threatens or potentially threatens Jills.
No, Jack's existence in no way threatens or potentially threatens Jills. It might be a pain in the arse for her but that's a bit of bad luck. Jack is a functioning human being.
Yeah, right. "In no way"... you're just plain wrong. For example, he could be competing with her for a certain amount of limited resources. Btw, are you implying that whenever there is a relationship where the one's existence "threatens or potentially threatens" the other, they are not available for moral consideration? Your position is becoming more and more ludicrous.
Jack is a functioning human being.
So is the fetus 2 minutes before birth.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by HalitosePlease further define spontaneously as the following scenarios would become clearer:
Sigh. I guess this is not the first time I misrepresent your position; my apologies. In my defense, I don't find your position well defined and frankly it's a bit hazy. Rather than having us going around and around in miscommunicative circles let's first get clarity on each other's positions.
Firstly, I'm not even sure of your definition for "person". I ...[text shortened]... ve given yours, I'll try to address the points in your post from that perspective.
A fertilized egg (embryo?) that is frozen and 'kept on ice'.
A cloned cell.
An egg that is still in the womb but not yet fertilized. (but might be any second.)
Do you have any specific criteria that would stop a chimpanzee falling into your definition of 'person'?
16 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'd define "spontaneously" as requiring no extraordinary external stimulus.
Please further define spontaneously as the following scenarios would become clearer:
A fertilized egg (embryo?) that is frozen and 'kept on ice'.
A cloned cell.
An egg that is still in the womb but not yet fertilized. (but might be any second.)
Do you have any specific criteria that would stop a chimpanzee falling into your definition of 'person'?
"Extraordinary stimulus" further defined as "essentially different to stimulus experienced (and usually required) during the state of functional personhood".
Edit: Do you have any specific criteria that would stop a chimpanzee falling into your definition of 'person'?
As I said above, the functional criteria are of little concern to me. I'll leave that to the experts, such as LJ, to answer.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by HalitoseCurrently, I would define "person" as a being that possesses the inherent capacity to function as a person.
Sigh. I guess this is not the first time I misrepresent your position; my apologies. In my defense, I don't find your position well defined and frankly it's a bit hazy. Rather than having us going around and around in miscommunicative circles let's first get clarity on each other's positions.
Firstly, I'm not even sure of your definition for "person". I ...[text shortened]... ve given yours, I'll try to address the points in your post from that perspective.
In and of itself, this would be a thoroughly horrid definition because the word to be defined shows up in the definition itself in a material way. Regardless, here's what I think you mean: if I were to offer an actual possession based definition of the form 'a person is a X'; then you would reply that, no, I'm wrong and actually a person is 'a being that possesses the inherent capacity to function as a X', where inherent capacity is as you defined. I think I understand you correctly when I say that. So here would be my definition:
(LJ) person -- an entity that possesses the capacity for rudimentary rationality, self-consciousness, and suffering.
Now, I would expect you to respond that, no, actually a person is "a being that possesses the inherent capacity to function as an entity that possesses the capacity for rudimentary rationality, self-consciousness, and suffering". Based on your provisional acceptance clause, is that fair?
A minor cosmetic detail first of all: I really think you probably want to change your definition slightly since, based on your own definition of 'inherent capacity' and based on the consideration that it doesn't really make sense to develop a capacity you already possess, your above definition of 'person' seems to imply that an entity that already possesses the capacity to function as a person is therefore not a person, which I think is clearly not what you want to say. So I think a definition that basically says what you want to say (again, based on a sort of provisional acceptance) is
(Hal) person -- a being that possesses either (i) the capacity for rudimentary rationality, self-consciousness, and suffering or (ii) the inherent capacity for rudimentary rationality, self-consciousness, and suffering.
Before I raise any objections I have to this definition I am attributing to you under a sort of provisional acceptance, is what I have done so far fair enough?
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloBefore I raise any objections I have to this definition I am attributing to you under a sort of provisional acceptance, is what I have done so far fair enough?
[b]Currently, I would define "person" as a being that possesses the inherent capacity to function as a person.
In and of itself, this would be a thoroughly horrid definition because the word to be defined shows up in the definition itself in a material way. Regardless, here's what I think you mean: if I were to offer an actual posses ...[text shortened]... u under a sort of provisional acceptance, is what I have done so far fair enough?[/b]
Excellent, thanks. Carry on.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by HalitoseMy objection obviously enough will be to deny part (ii) of your definition. If an entity has the "ability to spontaneously develop and exhibit" said capacities, then it clearly doesn't yet possess said capacities. If it doesn't actually possess, for example, the capacity to suffer, then there is simply nothing I can do to the entity to make things go worse from its own perspective (if it has a perspective), and there is nothing I can do to make it experience any adverse mental states. In short, there is nothing I can do to harm it. If it can't be harmed in any way, then it doesn't merit moral consideration.
[b]Before I raise any objections I have to this definition I am attributing to you under a sort of provisional acceptance, is what I have done so far fair enough?
Excellent, thanks. Carry on.[/b]
An obvious example here would be the zygote. I roughly grant you that it has the "ability to spontaneously develop and exhibit the capacity for rudimentary rationality, self-consciousness, and suffering", but I deny that it is a person.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
16 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloWould you agree that a person only needs oxygen, nutrition and a safe environment to continue living?
My objection obviously enough will be to deny part (ii) of your definition. If an entity has the "ability to spontaneously develop and exhibit" said capacities, then it clearly doesn't yet possess said capacities. If it doesn't actually possess, for example, the capacity to suffer, then there is simply nothing I can do to the entity to make thing mentary rationality, self-consciousness, and suffering", but I deny that it is a person.
16 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, as your definition so far does not exclude a computer, albeit a sophisticated one not yet invented
Would you agree that a person only needs oxygen, nutrition and a safe environment to stay alive?
[edit]
Do the life support systems required to keep alive a baby that is born prematurely fall into your Extraordinary stimulus definition?