Abortion...what should be the line?

Originally posted by Halitose
Keeping the distinction of “being a person” and "functioning as a person” in mind, let’s compare the following beings:

A) A normal adult, sound asleep, not conscious.
B) An adult in a coma from which he will emerge in, say, six months and function normally as a person.
C) A normal newborn baby.
D) A normal baby soon to be born.
E) A normal "well as a person. It is as a person that he develops his capabilities to function as a person.

The beings in the list, differ only with respect to their present immediate capacity to function. They are all essentially similar with respect to their basic inherent capacity, and through this, their personhood.

A capacity is such that it could be exercised. The embryo in your example does not possess any capacities relevant to personhood. You may make a case that it possesses potentiality with respect to such capacities, but why should that matter?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not my fault you favor killing them, because...
Kelly

Yep, people are supporting baby killing. Does that formulation make a self-righteous, hysterical screecher like you happy with yourself?

Originally posted by Halitose
See the second post where I address your "capacity" objections.

Your second post also fails to see the proper distinction.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]The beings in the list, differ only with respect to their present immediate capacity to function. They are all essentially similar with respect to their basic inherent capacity, and through this, their personhood.

A capacity is such that it could be exercised. The embryo in your example does not possess any capacities relevant to personhood. Y ...[text shortened]... case that it possesses potentiality with respect to such capacities, but why should that matter?[/b]

A capacity is such that it could be exercised.

Could? How do you objectively determine whether it "could"? I'm sorry, I don't buy the "get out free" card of yours. Either a capacity is exercised or it is not. Whether is "could" is often very hard to determine. You're gonna have to sustain your dodgy position.

Originally posted by Halitose
See the second post where I address your "capacity" objections.

Why wouldn't a human corpse fit under your "capacity" argument? After all, it had more capabilities than a zygote ever did. And according to the predominant religious beliefs of the West, a dead human being can regain such capability. So, burying or burning human corpses is a clear violation of their rights - they should be left alone to continue their development.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yep, people are supporting baby killing. Does that formulation make a self-righteous, hysterical screecher like you happy with yourself?

I believe they are supporting the killing of fetus and other terms used to describe the various stages of human development within the womb. As far as who is the self-righteous “screecher”; whose main debate tactic is to belittle and berate those in disagreement with them?
Kelly

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]A capacity is such that it could be exercised.

Could? How do you objectively determine whether it "could"? I'm sorry, I don't buy the "get out free" card of yours. Either a capacity is exercised or it is not. Whether is "could" is often very hard to determine. You're gonna have to sustain your dodgy position.[/b]

This isn't some magical distinction. 'Could' is in reference to necessary conditions.

Either a capacity is exercised or it is not.

Yeah, but there is a clear distinction between some thing that has the necessary causal structure for consciousness, for example, and some thing that doesn't. A sleeping person has it; a zygote doesn't.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe they are supporting the killing of fetus and other terms used to describe the various stages of human development within the womb. As far as who is the self-righteous “screecher”; whose main debate tactic is to belittle and berate those in disagreement with them?
Kelly

Your entire debate tactic consists of labelling people who disagree with your position as supporters of baby killing. And shrilly repeating this claim over and over and over again. Are you claiming that is not an attempt to "belittle and berate those in disagreement"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why wouldn't a human corpse fit under your "capacity" argument? After all, it had more capabilities than a zygote ever did. And according to the predominant religious beliefs of the West, a dead human being can regain such capability. So, burying or burning human corpses is a clear violation of their rights - they should be left alone to continue their development.

A corpse is not alive -- the zygote is. You can gladly leave a corpse to "continue their development", but you'll find yourself rather uncomfortable once decomposition sets in. I'm sure once medical science develops the capacity to reverse death, if would be a violation of a corpse's rights to bury them.

Originally posted by Halitose
A corpse is not alive -- the zygote is. You can gladly leave a corpse to "continue their development", but you'll find yourself rather uncomfortable once decomposition sets in. I'm sure once medical science develops the capacity to reverse death, if would be a violation of a corpse's rights to bury them.

A recently "dead" corpse has far more living tissue than a zygote. Why is it considered not alive but a zygote is?

Originally posted by LemonJello
This isn't some magical distinction. 'Could' is in reference to necessary conditions.

[b]Either a capacity is exercised or it is not.

Yeah, but there is a clear distinction between some thing that has the necessary causal structure for consciousness, for example, and some thing that doesn't. A sleeping person has it; a zygote doesn't.[/b]

To use no1's tactic, your "necessary causal structure" would embue cadavers with personhood.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why do you worry about its pain, you are ending its life, its pain is important to you? What kind of value system is that, that pain makes it bad, but ending the life, okay fine?
Kelly

Yes, I think the conscious state of pain is morally relevant since I think we have at least prima facie obligations to minimize pain and suffering. That strikes you as strange?

Originally posted by no1marauder
A recently "dead" corpse has far more living tissue than a zygote. Why is it considered not alive but a zygote is?

Medical science has come to accept the finality of death. Once prescribed as dead, a cessation of all life in the body is usually immanent.

Originally posted by Halitose
Medical science has come to accept the finality of death. Once prescribed as dead, a cessation of all life in the body is usually immanent.

That is a pretty weak dodge. It remains true that a corpse recently deceased is more alive than a zygote.

Originally posted by Halitose
To use no1's tactic, your "necessary causal structure" would embue cadavers with personhood.

A necessary structure is of course necessary, not sufficient.

And that's not what I think no1 was saying. In some respects, it is a very interesting question how you in particular would define the death of a person. Since the zygote in your view is a person, it is clearly not sufficient for death that the person stop breathing, his heart stop beating, standard medical death, etc., and it is clearly not sufficient that he lose all neocortical function and indeed all mentality altogether. So, how do you define death of a person? This is a relevant question since conditions that suffice for death of the person also outline necessary conditions for personhood.