Abortion...what should be the line?

Originally posted by dj2becker
What would you say does a person need in order to continue as a living being?

Again, life was not part of the definition.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, as your definition so far does not exclude a computer, albeit a sophisticated one not yet invented

[edit]
Do the life support systems required to keep alive a baby that is born prematurely fall into your Extraordinary stimulus definition?

So you imagine that a sophisticated computer could be regarded as a person?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Again, life was not part of the definition.

So does a corpse have human rights?

Originally posted by dj2becker
What would you say does a person need in order to continue as a living being?

I've already offered my definition of a person. I don't think a person necessarily satisfies the conditions for biological life in the first place. But obviously, for a person to stay a person, I would say it just needs to retain those capacities that make it a person.

You might think that's a stupid answer, but I think yours is a stupid question, so...

Originally posted by dj2becker
So does a corpse have human rights?

A corpse clearly fails the definition of a person on other grounds. However, a brain dead human being is clearly alive but not a person.

Originally posted by LemonJello
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 ...[text shortened]... mentary rationality, self-consciousness, and suffering", but I deny that it is a person.

If it doesn't actually possess, for example, the capacity to suffer,

How about a person injected with anaesthetics?

Originally posted by twhitehead
A corpse clearly fails the definition of a person on other grounds. However, a brain dead human being is clearly alive but not a person.

So you are saying that a live human being is not a person and has no human rights????

Your stance is as holey as my grandfather's vest.

So it's fine a kill a human being as long as you don't regard it as a person?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]If it doesn't actually possess, for example, the capacity to suffer,

How about a person injected with anaesthetics?[/b]

That would not preclude the capacity to suffer. The capacity to suffer is not merely just something like the physiological ability to feel pain. Even if you were to anaesthetize my body entirely, that would not preclude me from experiencing adverse psychological states or preclude things from going worse from my own point of view.

Originally posted by LemonJello
That would not preclude the capacity to suffer. The capacity to suffer is not merely just something like the physiological ability to feel pain. Even if you were to anaesthetize my body entirely, that would not preclude me from experiencing adverse psychological states or preclude things from going worse from my own point of view.

So how about a fetus, when does it become a person? Only at birth?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you are saying that a live human being is not a person and has no human rights????

Your stance is as holey as my grandfather's vest.

At no point have I said that human rights are dependent on being a person. However many people in the world would actually agree that a brain dead human does not have human rights. In fact, termination (not murder) in this case is more common than not I believe.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So how about a fetus, when does it become a person? Only at birth?

By the definition given, I think it would be at some point during brain development. I don't know if that is before or after birth. I would say that unless we include chimpanzees and a significant number of other species of animal then it would have to be after birth.

[edit]As no tests for personhood have been given it would be rather hard to determine. However before the development of a single brain cell it would definitely not fit into the definition.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So how about a fetus, when does it become a person?

When it acquires the capacities of personhood. Starting around the beginning of the third trimester, it is difficult in my opinion to assess exactly what sorts of conscious experience the fetus can have; and around that time it acquires the capacity for conscious states, such as pain, which I think is morally relevant. After that point I don't support abortion in the absence of extenuating circumstances. The vast majority of abortions are performed well before this point, usually within fifteen weeks gestational age.

Originally posted by twhitehead
At no point have I said that human rights are dependent on being a person. However many people in the world would actually agree that a brain dead human does not have human rights. In fact, termination (not murder) in this case is more common than not I believe.

So it's fine to murder a live human being as long as you call it termination?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So it's fine to murder a live human being as long as you call it termination?

😵

That's not what he said.

Originally posted by LemonJello
When it acquires the capacities of personhood. Starting around the beginning of the third trimester, it is difficult in my opinion to assess exactly what sorts of conscious experience the fetus can have; and around that time it acquires the capacity for conscious states, such as pain, which I think is morally relevant. After that point I don't support a ...[text shortened]... f abortions are performed well before this point, usually within fifteen weeks gestational age.

How about a live brain dead human being? Is such a person no longer a person? 😉