04 Nov 05
5 edits
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "In other words, you are saying 'because it is human:' a human being
Originally posted by ivanhoe
The zygote has a body which is formed by the cell, the cell in which the DNA information is stored. The DNA can be IDENTIFIED as human DNA. On top of that it can be established that this specific DNA in the cell is a UNIQUE living That's not really an argument. I look forward to your considered reply.
(No rush.)
Nemesio
should be respected because it is a human being."
No. I'm saying a zygote is a human person and therefore it has the accompanying rights.
Why is the zygot a human being ?
Because it has the necessary DNA and the "body" to be a human being.
Why does the zygote has rights ?
Because the zygote is a human person.
Why is the zygot a human person ?
Because it has a unique identity.
But as I have told you, i'm thinking on this.
05 Nov 05
Originally posted by NemesioLemonjello, for example, is saying that the capacity consciousness
In your case, you are labelling personhood as you like.
To wit: Entities with human DNA are persons because I said so.
That's fine and you are entitled to your opinion. However,
the imposition of that opinion on people who do not share it
is unacceptable. If you [b]demonstrate why your opinion
is logically sound, then you might find that people ...[text shortened]... y your opinion is worthy of consideration, you
have no right to impose it on others.
Nemesio[/b]
is his criterion....He is starting with an axiom: consciousness confers moral consideration because consciousness entails ...
I am not suggesting that the capacity for consciousness itself is sufficient for, or confers, moral considerability. I am only suggesting that it is necessary for moral considerability. If we are talking about a criterion (in the sense of jointly both necessary and sufficient conditions) for personhood or moral considerability, then I think basic consciousness is only a portion of the criterion. For example, Feinberg would say that the moral agent, in addition to consciousness, must have a concept of itself, awareness of itself, emotions, reason, the ability to plan, etc. Others would say that the moral agent must, in addition to possessing consciousness, be able to enter into agreements and contracts and thus must have an understanding of moral obligations and duties. Under these views, not even the newborn baby or infant is a moral person. As to what is the proper criterion (in terms of both necessary and sufficient conditions), I must confess I am still formulating my views on that very difficult issue. Therefore, even when the fetus develops the capacity for consciousness in the third trimester, I am still not yet convinced that the fetus at that point possesses sufficient conditions for personhood.
However, as far as I can see, the abortion debate concerning abortions that take place in the first two trimesters is a much, much simpler debate. Even though I am not exactly sure what the proper criterion is for personhood, it seems pretty obvious that the capacity for consciousness is at least a necessary condition. The young fetus lacks it, so the young fetus cannot be an actual person. Even if that were agreed upon, however, that still would not end the debate. For example, it would still leave open questions regarding whether or not the potential personhood of the fetus is sufficient for moral considerability.
05 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't have much time before I have to head to bed, but I thought
[b]Lemonjello, for example, is saying that the capacity consciousness
is his criterion....He is starting with an axiom: consciousness confers moral consideration because consciousness entails ...
I am not suggesting that the capacity for consciousness itself is sufficient for, or confers, moral considerability. I am only suggesting that it is ne ...[text shortened]... her or not the potential personhood of the fetus is sufficient for moral considerability.[/b]
you were quite right. I owe you and more than likely several others
here my apologies for saying promoting abortions, when if fact it
isn't something anyone here, and I mean anyone here is doing!
My fault, my bad, I'm sorry. I'll respond to the points of yours and
others later, I just felt I was doing you guys a disjustice and I
wanted to make that right at least as far as I can by saying I'm
sorry.
Kelly
05 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI should probably clarify a bit further still because if you look back through some of my posts, I do assert that personhood is conferred on the fetus in the third trimester once it possesses the capacity for consciousness. In reality, I am not sure if this assertion is true because, as I said, I am still formulating my views on what constitutes sufficient conditions for personhood. However, within the context of this debate, it seems reasonable to make that concession -- namely, to concede the assumption that the third trimester fetus is a person with rights. I say that this concession seems reasonable because not too many people support abortions in the third trimester to begin with (except in extenuating circumstances when the woman's health is jeopardized); further, such a concession does not affect the argument designed to show that abortion is morally permissible when performed in the first two trimesters.
[b]Lemonjello, for example, is saying that the capacity consciousness
is his criterion....He is starting with an axiom: consciousness confers moral consideration because consciousness entails ...
I am not suggesting that the capacity for consciousness itself is sufficient for, or confers, moral considerability. I am only suggesting that it is ne ...[text shortened]... her or not the potential personhood of the fetus is sufficient for moral considerability.[/b]
05 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're a good guy, KJ. 😀
I don't have much time before I have to head to bed, but I thought
you were quite right. I owe you and more than likely several others
here my apologies for saying promoting abortions, when if fact it
isn't something anyone here, and I mean anyone here is doing!
My fault, my bad, I'm sorry. I'll respond to the points of yours and
others later, I ju ...[text shortened]... sjustice and I
wanted to make that right at least as far as I can by saying I'm
sorry.
Kelly
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNemesio, have you answered this question allready ?
Nemesio: "Provide and argument and compel me. I swear by Almighty God, if
you can provide a rational argument for the legal impermissibility of
abortion, I will adhere to it."
If you write "legal impermissability" do you mean "moral impermissability" or indeed the "legal impermissability" within the US legal system ?
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by joedrummer2422
I think abortion is murder. It is pretty obvious.
You can argue small points here and there, but they
never add up to anything. Pro-choice does have
boundaries, ok it should.
So if any of you and your stupid girlfriends want to
have an abortion go ahead. The law says you can.
But also know that the law is a little on the wrong side
and you are actually murdering your pre-born baby!
WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT FOR CHOICES, but when it comes
to pregnancy this is how it works.
You chose rather or NOT your want to reproduce by having sex!
If you do not want to reproduce, dont have sex and get pregnant.
If you do want to reproduce then have sex.
After you do however, the choice has been made, and normally
this choice is not reversable!!!!
Now a days we have drugs and technology science and doctors, and some years ago we received an ignorant supreme-court decision.
NOW>> people can finally kill there babies.
Just wait untill it is born. Then rip its head off or something.
You would get the same effect. Besides, you people feel that
an unborn child is the same as a tumor, or cancer or a mole on
your face.
Only think about yourself and keep sending your children to the
dumpster.
Enjoy it while it lasts murders, but if their is a judging GOD at the end
of your short murderous lifes. He will have his own version of pro-choice.
All of you would go to hell.
If there is no GOD which I doubt there is, then for the most part you
are good to go.
Joe
07 Nov 05
4 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloThanks for the reply LJ.
[b]1. What exactly do you mean by a capacity for consciousness? Brain
activity? Neural infrastructure? How would one ascertain or measure
this?
There is cognitive hardware, so to speak, that is necessary to support
consciousness, with 'consciousness' itself being not so trivial to define.
However, if these cognitive faculties are not present ...[text shortened]... ebate because it suffers from a serious form of
vagueness that gives rise to sorites paradoxes.[/b]
I read through your links - interesting.
In making my argument, I contend that science confirms that the fetus (which literally means "young one" ) is a human being. Just like toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at a particular stage of their development. As such, it is scientifically inaccurate to say an embryo or a fetus is not a human being, simply because he is at an earlier stage of development than a born infant. So using moral considerability is a Chewbacca Defense to detract and place sub-human qualities to a scientifically recognised human. There is no stage in the human development where it can scientifically be considered non-human.
The arbitrary line-in-the-sand of the third trimester (6 months) is as holey (holy 😛) as Swiss cheese. At 18 days (a sixth of the way through the first trimester) the heart is forming. By 21 days, it is not only beating, but pumping blood. Most women haven't even realised they are pregnant, by the time the unborn has budding arms and legs. By 30 days, the fetus has a brain and blood flows through his/her veins. At forty days (a little more than a third of the way through the first trimester) the preborn human's brain waves can be recorded. By 42 days, the brain is already controlling the movements of muscles and organs. At 45 days (just six-and-a-half weeks) after conception, the fetus has all the internal organs of the adult in various stages of development. By 12 weeks, the fetus is kicking, turning his feet, curling and fanning his toes, making a fist, moving thumbs, bending wrists and opening his/her mouth. This all happens in the first trimester, the first 3 months of life. In the remaining 6 months in the womb, nothing new develops or begins functioning - the child only grows and matures.
Please, substantiate on this mystical, clutching-at-straw, 3rd trimester jocularity.
Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human must be human from the beginning.
Here's what I meant by "classical" personhood:
Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by a stage of development within that species. A living being's designation to a species is determined not by the sum total of its biological characteristics, actual and potential - which is genetically determined. If we say that the fetus is not human, i.e. a member of Homo Sapiens, we must say it is a member of another species... what would this be - Homus Unwantus?
My dictionary defines person as a "human being", "human individual" or "member of the human race". What makes a dog a dog is that he came from dogs. His father was a dog, and his mother was a dog, and therefore he is a dog. What makes a human a human is that he came from humans, he can be nothing other than a human person.
Personhood cannot be a matter of size, skill or degree of intelligence as this would make some people more human than others - remember Hitler? 😛 There is no objective evidence to indicate that someone can be a member of the human race, but because he/she lacks certain qualities, he/she thereby fails to be a person.
The Fourteenth Amendment says that the state shall not deprive any person of life without due process of law. When that was written, the word human was a synonym for person and could just as easily have been used. The Supreme Court admitted in R vs W: "if the suggestion of personhood (of the unborn) is established, the appellants’ (pro-abortion) case of course collapses for the fetus's right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the amendment."
The strategy now seems to admit that a fetus is a human life, but not a person. We must not reduce issues of life and death and basic human rights into a semantic game in which we are free to redefine terms, changing the meaning of words does not change reality.
IMO the "morally considerable" and "commonsense person" arguments are arbitrarily defined red-herrings in a semantic game which overlooks the scientifically obvious humanity of the unborn child.
I believe in times to come, future generations will look back and ask: “How could we have been so barbaric as to butcher our own children for convenience?”
Edit: Darn! When are they gonna install a spell-checker into this forum?!!!
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseThank you for taking the time to read through those rather lengthy links. I'll respond to your post tomorrow; but I was wondering if you know some good links or articles that argue for the notion that personhood is conferred at conception -- you know, ones that you think are coherent and compelling.
Thanks for the reply LJ.
I read through your links - interesting.
In making my argument, I contend that science confirms that the fetus (which literally means "young one" ) is a human being. Just like toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at a particular stage of thei ...[text shortened]... for convenience?”
Edit: Darn! When are they gonna install a spell-checker into this forum?!!!
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloHmmmmm.... I'll have to do a bit of homework. I'll search around a bit for ones that don't contain prolife stereotypes and religious bigotry that would merely result in ad hominems that detract from the issue at hand. I've based my arguments loosely on many different titbits that I've picked up here and there over the last couple years. The problem with most mainstream prolife websites and arguments is that are heavily spiced and entwined with religious content. Btw, I really did read through your links, that is why I changed my approach a tad: denouncing them as red herrings. 😛
Thank you for taking the time to read through those rather lengthy links. I'll respond to your post tomorrow; but I was wondering if you know some good links or articles that argue for the notion that personhood is conferred at conception -- you know, ones that you think are coherent and compelling.
07 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloThanks for that.
You're a good guy, KJ. 😀
If you would give me the points you want me to address.
For that matter since I had some blinders on any who feel I have
missed their points please list them. I will do my best to not make
this a personal thing and address them.
Kelly
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJayYou always have blinkers on.
Thanks for that.
If you would give me the points you want me to address.
For that matter since I had some blinders on any who feel I have
missed their points please list them. I will do my best to not make
this a personal thing and address them.
Kelly
Try imagining the bible is just a book written by ignorant people of a bygone era.
Open your mind and your eyes.
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by Halitose
In making my argument, I contend that science confirms that the fetus (which literally means "young one" ) is a human being. Just like toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at a particular stage of their development. As such, it is scientifically inaccurate to say an embryo or a fetus is not a human being, simply because he is at an earlier stage of development than a born infant. So using moral considerability is a Chewbacca Defense to detract and place sub-human qualities to a scientifically recognised human. There is no stage in the human development where it can scientifically be considered non-human.
Halitose. Please read carefully. No one has said that a fetus is not a human being. It is,
from conception. It's not a lizard, turtle, paramecium, nothing. It's human.
The question is: What makes a human worthy of value? Lemonjello opines that it is the
capacity for consciousness. What is it for you?
Nemesio
08 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe: I write rather precisely. If I meant moral impermissibility, then I
Nemesio, have you answered this question allready ?
would have said it.
Part of my moral framework entails the notion of a 'soul.' However I don't
demand that people respect that or any aspect of that framework which rests
on it because notion of the existence of such an entity is illogical.
Nemesio