Abortion and Feminism split from "Look at me" thread

[Sam]

Listen Sam, believe it or not, I have been around this discussion enough to know that there is no "rational criteria" that will be acceptable to all or most. It is a completely subjective endeavor. If you think otherwise, of the number of different definitions I listed, tells us all which one is correct and why. And that is why when deciding who should live or die the definition of person hood should not even enter the debate.

Subjective is not the same as arbitrary. If you've been around this discussion for very long and profess a proficiency, you should know the difference.

And we subjectively decide who should live or die all the time. We do it in law, in medicine, in war, in religion. That all of these decisions are subjective does not mean they are arbitrary.

Your problem here is that you want to make subjective determinations but call them objective and therefore authoritative.

[Sam]

I suppose my question is, why isn't "human" enough as a classification?

Because "human" encompasses a broader range. A cadaver in the morgue is human but we do not offer that cadaver the rights associated with persons. A brain-dead patient in the ICU is human but we do not offer that patient all the rights associated with persons. A blastocyst used in IVF is human but we do not offer that blastocyst the rights associated with persons. A piece of cloned tissue in a petri dish is human but we do not offer that tissue the rights associated with persons.

We need a much narrower scope in which to describe the rights of personhood.

[Zymologist]

Because "human" encompasses a broader range. A cadaver in the morgue is human but we do not offer that cadaver the rights associated with persons. A brain-dead patient in the ICU is human but we do not offer that patient all the rights associated with persons. A blastocyst used in IVF is human but we do not offer that blastocyst the rights associated with persons. A piece of cloned tissue in a petri dish is human but we do not offer that tissue the rights associated with persons.

We need a much narrower scope in which to describe the rights of personhood.

This seems rather ridiculous to me. There is a clear difference between a dead human (a corpse) and a living human (you and me, or a baby). There is also a clear difference between a human being and a human being's hair, or whatever.

I'm not sure where you personally stand on abortion, but you seem to be for it. What definition of personhood are you working from that gives anyone the moral authority to kill a defenseless human being (which a fetus unquestionably is)?

[Sam]

This seems rather ridiculous to me. There is a clear difference between a dead human (a corpse) and a living human (you and me, or a baby). There is also a clear difference between a human being and a human being's hair, or whatever.

I'm not sure where you personally stand on abortion, but you seem to be for it. What definition of personhood are you working from that gives anyone the moral authority to kill a defenseless human being (which a fetus unquestionably is)?

There are clear differences but "human" is not one of them. Therefore, "human" is not a sufficient classification — you need a narrower scope. As you see, we're getting close to the place where we have to really define what it means to be a person with legal rights.

"Human being" is a term used interchangeably with "person". Are you equating the two or do you distinguish between the terms?

[Zymologist]

There are clear differences but "human" is not one of them. Therefore, "human" is not a sufficient classification — you need a narrower scope. As you see, we're getting close to the place where we have to really define what it means to be a person with legal rights.

"Human being" is a term used interchangeably with "person". Are you equating the two or do you distinguish between the terms?

I've never really seen a good reason to distinguish the terms. The only people who seem to want to (as far as I can see) are those who support abortion. In no other context does the distinction even seem to make sense, IMO.

How do you define personhood?

[Sam]

I've never really seen a good reason to distinguish the terms. The only people who seem to want to (as far as I can see) are those who support abortion. In no other context does the distinction even seem to make sense, IMO.

How do you define personhood?

I ask that you indulge me a bit; I've found that a bit of a Socratic-method prelude on this topic makes for better conversation. I promise to provide my definition for personhood shortly.

Let's look at four scenarios: two actual, two hypothetical:

1) An individual is brought to the ICU after crashing his vehicle. The patient is brain-dead and is being kept alive by artificial support. The family agrees to remove artificial support and allow the patient to die.

2) An individual is brought to the ICU with complications of bacterial meningitis and soon becomes unresponsive. After examination, the doctors determine that the patient has suffered extensive and irreversible brain damage and will remain in a vegetative state for the rest of her life. After a year of care, the family decides to stop providing sustenance to the patient, allowing her to die.

3) A group of scientists develop a method to replace human organs through cloning: human cells are attached to a scaffolding and the cells multiply and develop, creating a working human heart.

4) A group of scientists develop a method to replace human organs and tissue through cloning by replicating the entire physiological development of a person. With the exception of a brain, an individual's adult body can be developed, with a central computer system taking over the brain's developmental cues.

In which of these cases is the human entity a person with the legal rights afforded to human persons? If some are not, why not?

[Sam]

I've never really seen a good reason to distinguish the terms. The only people who seem to want to (as far as I can see) are those who support abortion. In no other context does the distinction even seem to make sense, IMO.

How do you define personhood?

And I did mean to add that there are lots of people who want to distinguish between "human being" and "person." Can sentient non-humans (e.g., chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins, aliens) be "persons"? Do they, as sentient creatures, have inalienable rights? Can a computer be a "person" if it develops self-awareness? Why or why not? Can we understand the rights of persons separate from an objective metaphysical entity such as God? Why or why not? Is consciousness necessary for personhood? Do chickens and cows have the inalienable rights afforded to humans (see: PETA)?

"Personhood" is actually quite a valuable and highly-contested definition that has a real impact on many aspects of our lives, not just the abortion debate.

[Zymologist]

I ask that you indulge me a bit; I've found that a bit of a Socratic-method prelude on this topic makes for better conversation. I promise to provide my definition for personhood shortly.

Let's look at four scenarios: two actual, two hypothetical:

1) An individual is brought to the ICU after crashing his vehicle. The patient is brain-dead and is being kept alive by artificial support. The family agrees to remove artificial support and allow the patient to die.

2) An individual is brought to the ICU with complications of bacterial meningitis and soon becomes unresponsive. After examination, the doctors determine that the patient has suffered extensive and irreversible brain damage and will remain in a vegetative state for the rest of her life. After a year of care, the family decides to stop providing sustenance to the patient, allowing her to die.

3) A group of scientists develop a method to replace human organs through cloning: human cells are attached to a scaffolding and the cells multiply and develop, creating a working human heart.

4) A group of scientists develop a method to replace human organs and tissue through cloning by replicating the entire physiological development of a person. With the exception of a brain, an individual's adult body can be developed, with a central computer system taking over the brain's developmental cues.

In which of these cases is the human entity a person with the legal rights afforded to human persons? If some are not, why not?

Honestly, I don't really know how some of these would be considered legally. I'll try:

1. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIK brain death is considered true death by the medical community. In this case, it seems that the patient would be dead.

2. This one is difficult. This person is not brain dead, and is still alive, albeit with severe brain damage. This is a really, really bad situation and difficult for all involved, but I don't think I can agree with the decision to let the person die.

3 and 4. I don't know the answers to these. Maybe someone else can pitch in.

[Sam]

Honestly, I don't really know how some of these would be considered legally. I'll try:

1. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIK brain death is considered true death by the medical community. In this case, it seems that the patient would be dead.

2. This one is difficult. This person is not brain dead, and is still alive, albeit with severe brain damage. This is a really, really bad situation and difficult for all involved, but I don't think I can agree with the decision to let the person die.

3 and 4. I don't know the answers to these. Maybe someone else can pitch in.

They are tough! I'll add in one more to tie my future-thought together:

5) North Dakota passes a personhood amendment on Nov. 4, 2014 which identifies a human fetus as a legal person from the moment of conception. On Aug. 20, 2019, a man shoots and kills his wife and is arrested on charges of homicide. An autopsy later reveals that the victim was four weeks pregnant. Based on this evidence, the man is charged with two counts of homicide.

[Irate Canadian]

I ask that you indulge me a bit; I've found that a bit of a Socratic-method prelude on this topic makes for better conversation. I promise to provide my definition for personhood shortly.

Let's look at four scenarios: two actual, two hypothetical:

1) An individual is brought to the ICU after crashing his vehicle. The patient is brain-dead and is being kept alive by artificial support. The family agrees to remove artificial support and allow the patient to die.

2) An individual is brought to the ICU with complications of bacterial meningitis and soon becomes unresponsive. After examination, the doctors determine that the patient has suffered extensive and irreversible brain damage and will remain in a vegetative state for the rest of her life. After a year of care, the family decides to stop providing sustenance to the patient, allowing her to die.

3) A group of scientists develop a method to replace human organs through cloning: human cells are attached to a scaffolding and the cells multiply and develop, creating a working human heart.

4) A group of scientists develop a method to replace human organs and tissue through cloning by replicating the entire physiological development of a person. With the exception of a brain, an individual's adult body can be developed, with a central computer system taking over the brain's developmental cues.

In which of these cases is the human entity a person with the legal rights afforded to human persons? If some are not, why not?

Number 3 sounds like it is better suited by printing organs, which I don't think most Christians have objections to. I'm not sure if Number 4 is feasible at all. I can understand stem-cell research and organ printing, I don't see the need for cloning.

[Sam]

Number 3 sounds like it is better suited by printing organs, which I don't think most Christians have objections to. I'm not sure if Number 4 is feasible at all. I can understand stem-cell research and organ printing, I don't see the need for cloning.

The question isn't whether they are practical means at attaining an end. The question is whether any or all of the subjects should be afforded the property of personhood and the rights that are attached to that property. As such, we only need to believe that such thought experiments are possible.

It's like Schrodinger's cat: we can understand and talk about the implications of the thought experiment without actually subjecting a house pet to a fatal dose of neurotoxin at an indeterminate time.

[Psychic Missile]

Since this thread was spurred by my comment, I thought I'd answer. My position regarding abortion is that it is a body integrity issue. In other words, it makes no difference whether the fetus is a mass of cells or capable of discussing philosophy. However, regarding objectification, I don't see an issue in this case. If a human is pre or post consciousness (not an intermission in consciousness), then they are not philosophically alive. As far as they are concerned, they are at the same state they were in for millions of years of pre-existence.

[Spartacus]

They are tough! I'll add in one more to tie my future-thought together:

5) North Dakota passes a personhood amendment on Nov. 4, 2014 which identifies a human fetus as a legal person from the moment of conception. On Aug. 20, 2019, a man shoots and kills his wife and is arrested on charges of homicide. An autopsy later reveals that the victim was four weeks pregnant. Based on this evidence, the man is charged with two counts of homicide.

Might we not expect one count of murder and one count of manslaughter?

For 3 and 4, it seems that steps were taken both times to prevent the cloned tissue from becoming a fully functioning human when it otherwise could have been.

[Jedidiah]

Why does the abortion debate have to be about the definition of "personhood"? AFAICT, any pro-abortion definitions of "personhood" also seem to exclude newborns, as well (though most abortion advocates, understandably, won't even come close to saying that themselves.)

The problem with personhood is not so much that it is arbitrary or poorly defined. Personhood does not refer to anything real, it is a nonsense term. A human being is a human being. There is no mystical time when a human being becomes a person. The only valid definition of a person is "a human being."

[Jedidiah]

Honestly, I don't really know how some of these would be considered legally. I'll try:

1. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIK brain death is considered true death by the medical community. In this case, it seems that the patient would be dead.

2. This one is difficult. This person is not brain dead, and is still alive, albeit with severe brain damage. This is a really, really bad situation and difficult for all involved, but I don't think I can agree with the decision to let the person die.

3 and 4. I don't know the answers to these. Maybe someone else can pitch in.

Don't worry about it. It is just a gimmick to try to confuse you into agreeing with a stupid idea.