Abortion and Feminism split from "Look at me" thread

[Sam]

So you admit that equating blastocysts with the products of adult stem cells has no basis in reality. Thank you, and good-bye.

You're getting snippy but you still have not provided a definition that resolves the contradiction you faced. Paprika is trying to use your definition by implicitly resolving the contradiction but that leads to something we agree is an absurdity.

[Sam]

Keeping the blastocysts alive is as simple and inexpensive as keeping them frozen indefinitely. It's unlikely to constitute an undue burden on anyone this side of a civilizational collapse.

If blastocysts are persons entitled to legal protections, why is keeping them frozen and alive in a state of suspension acceptable? Is this the Matrix?

[Spartacus]

If blastocysts are persons entitled to legal protections, why is keeping them frozen and alive in a state of suspension acceptable? Is this the Matrix?

Only until we can provide them with the opportunity to gestate.

[Paprika]

You're getting snippy but you still have not provided a definition that resolves the contradiction you faced. Paprika is trying to use your definition by implicitly resolving the contradiction but that leads to something we agree is an absurdity.

And apparent absurdity is such a good rule of thumb to determine who are 'persons'.

[Sam]

Do you have criteria for abortions before 23 weeks? In other words, does an abortion go from "no big deal" at <23 weeks (approximately) to "grossly immoral" at >23 weeks (approximately)? Or would you only support abortions <23 weeks under certain circumstances (i.e., not for whatever reason the mother wants)?

Since a fetus <20 weeks cannot be considered a person, it cannot be afforded the legal protections of persons. That means that I wouldn't have any constitutional criteria for abortions < 20 weeks, though we could, as a society, agree that fetuses are to be protected through some point (say, after nine weeks). I don't think such a law would survive a constitutional challenge, however, as a woman has a right to alter her body in ways that make the womb hostile to non-persons.

[Sam]

And apparent absurdity is such a good rule of thumb to determine who are 'persons'.

It's not an apparent absurdity, it's an absurdity illuminated by systematic thought. Lots of people see things as absurd when they are completely rational (i.e., Schrodinger's Cat). The purpose of these thought experiments is to show which definitions are sound, which are incoherent, and which are absurd on their merits.

That you're pushing for a definition of person that you yourself do not believe shows something important about the soundness of your criteria.

[Sam]

Only until we can provide them with the opportunity to gestate.

Would you be cool with cryo-freezing orphans against their will until we can provide them with the opportunity for a stable home and family?

[Sam]

My point is that it is absurd to argue over definitions of 'persons' because you can't even demonstrate that such a definition is wrong.

All I have given is a definition of "person"; I have at this point said not said anything about rights or legal protections under this definition.

If something is a "person," then it has rights and legal protections offered to persons. As Spart says, corporations are "persons" and are afforded some of the basic rights of persons — the rights and legal protections necessarily exist qua personhood. You can't argue that something is a "person" by nature of its human-ness and then turn around and say that it doesn't have the rights and protections afforded to all persons under the law.

I don't have to demonstrate that your definition is "wrong;" I only have to demonstrate that it is worse, less sound, incoherent in that it leads to a contradiction, or absurd in that it does not correspond with reality. You are free to do the same with my definition.

[Spartacus]

Would you be cool with cryo-freezing orphans against their will until we can provide them with the opportunity for a stable home and family?

Icy, what you did there.

The situations are not quite equivalent. In one case, it's a question of providing an ideal home, in another, of assuring basic survival. It would presumably be not much more expensive to feed and clothe and educate the orphans without cryo-freezing them.

[Paprika]

That you're pushing for a definition of person that you yourself do not believe shows something important about the soundness of your criteria.

That you cannot show that it is wrong, and that despite my challenging you to do so, you have not shown why your definition is good, corresponds better to reality or whatever: both these are rather telling.

[seer]

Assigning personhood to animals isn't arbitrary, as the argument is that animals possess the same rational criteria of personhood as humans (i.e., sentience). You're simply using the word completely wrong: arbitrary means random, lacking rational basis. If there's one thing objectively true about philosophical personhood discussions, it's that they are replete with systematic criteria and thus are not arbitrary.

Your claim is just profoundly wrong on its face.

arbitrary: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something; Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference

Philosophy: Arbitrary actions are closely related to teleology, the study of purpose. Actions lacking a telos, a goal, are necessarily arbitrary. With no end to measure against, there can be no standard applied to choices, so all decisions are alike.

So yes Sam, I certainly can use arbitrary in this context. But even if I can't my point stands - when it comes to life and death, personhood is meaningless as a useful standard. There can be no agreement. I have asked you a number of times Sam, whose criteria for personhood is correct and why?

[Spartacus]

Adult stem cells are not the beginning stage of the development of a new human person. Insisting that they are equivalent to blastocysts, which are a new human life at its earliest stage, is utterly nonsensical.

[Paprika]

If something is a "person," then it has rights and legal protections offered to persons. As Spart says, corporations are "persons" and are afforded some of the basic rights of persons — the rights and legal protections necessarily exist qua personhood. You can't argue that something is a "person" by nature of its human-ness and then turn around and say that it doesn't have the rights and protections afforded to all persons under the law.

Hold up. A "person" is separate from whatever legal protections a legal system at a certain time may choose to afford to the persons: you claim that "personhood" based on ontology, but law is not fixed and subject to the whims of the lawmakers.

I may say that "X is a "person"", but that does not mean that I agree that "X should have all the rights afforded to "persons" under law in country Y at time Z".

I don't have to demonstrate that your definition is "wrong;" I only have to demonstrate that it is worse, less sound, incoherent in that it leads to a contradiction, or absurd in that it does not correspond with reality.

Which you have not yet done.

[Sam]

Adult stem cells are not the beginning stage of the development of a new human person. Insisting that they are equivalent to blastocysts, which are a new human life at its earliest stage, is utterly nonsensical.

Blastocysts are essentially stem cells with surrounding material. They are functionally equivalent to adult stem cells in that both are capable of serving at "the beginning stage of the development of a new human person."

It's the opposite of utterly nonsensical.

[Spartacus]

Blastocysts are essentially stem cells with surrounding material. They are functionally equivalent to adult stem cells in that both are capable of serving at "the beginning stage of the development of a new human person."

It's the opposite of utterly nonsensical.

If they are equally capable of serving as the beginning stage of a new human life, why don't you implant some adult stem cells in a uterus and see what happens?