abortion

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]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 sci ...[text shortened]... Lemonjello opines that it is the
capacity for consciousness. What is it for you?

Nemesio

N/M Its useless to post in this kind of debates

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]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 sci ...[text shortened]... Lemonjello opines that it is the
capacity for consciousness. What is it for you?

Nemesio

[/b]What makes a human worthy of value?

Because it is a human... I know you're going to throw the circular reasoning screwball, but when you start making subjective arguments for human value I'm going to be forced to tug on the slippery slope line.

Originally posted by flyUnity
N/M Its useless to post in this kind of debates

😕

Originally posted by Halitose
What makes a human worthy of value?

Because it is a human... I know you're going to throw the circular reasoning screwball, but when you start making subjective arguments for human value I'm going to be forced to tug on the slippery slope line.[/b]

You're the one introducing a slippery slope, not me. You are basing an
'argument' that should dictate the actions of other people on an 'opinion.'

If you can't even express a fundamental concept like why humans should
be valuable, why should anyone respect your opinion such that it restricts
their behavior?

Because you refuse to define just *why* humans are valuable, the slippery
slope you introduce is one of classification: if you can create an arbitrary
boundry called 'human' why not create one called 'White Human' and say
that 'Black Human' has no value? You would say 'because it is still human,'
but all I am doing is employing your 'logic' with different objects. In
other words, I am using the same methodology in my 'logic' that you are
in yours.

However, if you take LemonJello's (real) logic, the capacity for consciousness
would apply to all humans (White and Black). His also entails giving moral
consideration to other non-human creatures which also have the capacity for
consciousness (which I assume he does).

You can confront LemonJello and say 'capacity for consciousness isn't valuable'
or that it, alone, is insufficient for moral consideration. But, if your argument
is simply 'because I say its valuable' then we are all wasting time here. Your
opinion isn't valuable because you say so, so stop shoving it down other people's
throats.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You're the one introducing a slippery slope, not me. You are basing an
'argument' that should dictate the actions of other people on an 'opinion.'

If you can't even express a fundamental concept like why humans should
be valuable, why should anyone respect your opinion such that it restricts
their behavior?

Because you refuse to define just * ...[text shortened]... isn't valuable because you say so, so stop shoving it down other people's
throats.

Nemesio

Did you actually read my previous post?

Here's what I said:

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.

By this I meant that a fetus is a human person, and merits the same rights any other person would.

It is not a concept of value, because then religion and subjective preference would cloud the issue, but rather a concept of fundamental human rights.

Originally posted by Halitose
Humanity cannot be a matter of size, skill or degree of intelligence as this would make some people more human than others - remember Hitler?

I changed a word in your sentence so that it makes better sense.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I changed a word in your sentence so that it makes better sense.

I meant "personhood" and that is what I said...

Originally posted by Halitose
By this I meant that a fetus is a human person, and merits the same rights any other person would.

It is not a concept of value, because then religion and subjective preference would cloud the issue, but rather a concept of fundamental human rights.

I read it.

What makes a human person valuable? What makes a human
entitled to 'fundamental human rights?'

If you say, 'because it's human,' please see my above post.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I read it.

What makes a human person valuable? What makes a human
entitled to 'fundamental human rights?'

If you say, 'because it's human,' please see my above post.

Nemesio

"Human" is not arbitrary. It means a member of the genus Homo Sapien. It is the most inclusive classification. Any other form of subjective classification will result in certain people being more human than others. I refuse to accept such a classification because then the human equality upon which our civilization and democracies are based becomes a moot point.

This also obviously presents the opportunity for eugenics, eh, RatX?

Originally posted by Halitose
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?!!!

Shit. I recced your post earlier by accident -- wish I could take that back because I think your post is pretty content-free and confused.

Most of your efforts are aimed at trying to convince me that the fetus is human. LOL. Of course it is human; it is a human organism and I am not disputing that. The problem lies with moral personhood, not humanhood. With that out of the way, there's not much content to respond to.

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.

Even if true, so what? Which of these properties (or which combination of properties) suffices for personhood in your estimation?

In the remaining 6 months in the womb, nothing new develops or begins functioning

Is that supposed to be a joke? One thing that develops is the capacity for consciousness.

Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species

So you are saying that personhood is unique to all and only humans. There are a couple big problems with this view right off the bat. First, consider intelligent aliens. Suppose they have the same basic capacities that you and I have: for example, they possess reason and self-consciousness, they can plan and enter into agreements, they have a sense of obligation and duty, they possess emotions and feelings, they can argue, negotiate, communicate, express themselves, etc., etc. But they are not human. Therefore, according to your criterion, these intelligent beings cannot be moral persons. That is clearly absurd. So there is a serious charge against your claim that membership in the human race is a necessary condition for personhood. There are also serious charges we can bring against your other claim that membership in the human race is a sufficient condition for personhood: according to your view, even those who are permanently comatose and in a persistent vegetative state who have suffered complete and irreversible brain damage and lack, for example, the capacity for consciousness are moral persons. This also seems absurd to me. Again, why in your view is it that the capacity for consciousness is not a necessary condition for personhood? Because I honestly think a good case can be made to support the claim that they are not moral persons. Why? Because they have no awareness, they have no concept of self, they have no interests one way or the other, they have no points of view, there simply is no person without a conscious self. The young fetus lacks all of the properties mentioned above that made it seem obvious that the intelligent aliens should be considered moral persons. It is absolutely nothing to be like a young fetus. Therefore, the young fetus is no more morally considerable than a rock.

Suppose you were asked "Halitose, what makes you a moral person?" I seriously doubt that you would answer that you are a person precisely because you are a member of the human race. Rather, you would spout off the properties that you possess -- properties that also characterize the intelligent aliens, but utterly fail to characterize the young fetus.

Unfortunately, I am not going to have time to engage in the forums for a while. So don't expect any responses anytime soon. So take care of your morally considerable self in the meantime, will you?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Shit. I recced your post earlier by accident -- wish I could take that back because I think your post is pretty content-free and confused.

Most of your efforts are aimed at trying to convince me that the fetus is human. LOL. Of course it is human; it is a human organism and I am not disputing that. The problem lies with moral personhood, not humanh ...[text shortened]... sponses anytime soon. So take care of your morally considerable self in the meantime, will you?

If it is agreed that we are talking about a human organism, and you
agree that is not in doubt; we are now being asked to accept the
level of worth certain levels of human development rates to us
are we not? My complaint is that is always value judgment that can be
used, using any criteria once someone thinks they have that authority
or right to decide who or what worthy of worth. I know you have settled
on the level of worth to ‘X’, but now that you have taken on that
responsibility and power don’t you see dangers in that ability?
Kelly

Originally posted by Halitose
"Human" is not arbitrary. It means a member of the genus Homo Sapien. It is the most inclusive classification. Any other form of subjective classification will result in certain people being more human than others. I refuse to accept such a classification because then the human equality upon which our civilization and democracies are based becomes a moot point.

This also obviously presents the opportunity for eugenics, eh, RatX?

When you pick 'human' simply because it is 'human' and
not on the basis of some characteristics which are defensibly
valuable, yes, that is arbitrary.

Let me ask you this: if Neanderthals were alive today, would
you say that they are worthy of moral consideration? Or would
it be entirely morally permissible for us to enslave them, beat
them, and kill them with no moral qualms whatsoever?

If your answer is 'no' then your 'classification' is utter crap,
because Neanderthals are not 'Homo Sapien.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
My complaint is that is always value judgment that can be
used, using any criteria once someone thinks they have that authority
or right to decide who or what worthy of worth.

Yes, KellyJay, but not all criteria people pick are equal.

For example, if I say 'only white men have value,' and stick to
that criterion, it suffers from being illogical. Why? Because it
is arbitrary: based on little bits of DNA which influence pigmentation
in skin.

What makes an argument valuable is:

1) It rests on axioms which are agreed upon by all people; and
2) Its argument follows logically from those axioms.

We know that humans are worthy of moral consideration. Why?

'Because they are human' is not a 'reason' and, thus, there is no
'argument' but an opinion.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Yes, KellyJay, but [b]not all criteria people pick are equal.

For example, if I say 'only white men have value,' and stick to
that criterion, it suffers from being illogical. Why? Because it
is arbitrary: based on little bits of DNA which influence pigmentation
in skin.

What makes an argument valuable is:

1) It rests on axioms which are ...[text shortened]... are human' is not a 'reason' and, thus, there is no
'argument' but an opinion.

Nemesio[/b]

I agree, just as when you assign worth it isn't anything but an
opinion as well. With that opinion there are some levels of human
development we arrive at carry more worth, and other levels that
are worth less; so much so that before that arrival of worth there
can be an ending of the life process in human development. The
whole life time that would or could occur isn’t carrying anything
of importance using your argument. only those parts you happen to
favor at the moment.
Kelly