Abortion and Feminism split from "Look at me" thread

[seer]

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.

Sam, it is both subjective and arbitrary. It is not an either or. And in the context of deciding personhood the criteria can be quite arbitrary. Good grief you have those who would assign personhood to animals. So when it comes to who should live and die personalhood is meaningless as a useful standard. There can be no agreement.

Some philosophers and those involved in animal welfare, ethology, animal rights and related subjects, consider that certain animals should also be granted personhood. Commonly named species in this context include the great apes, cetaceans, and elephants, because of their apparent intelligence and intricate social rules. The idea of extending personhood to all animals has the support of legal scholars such as Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, and animal law courses are now taught in 92 out of 180 law schools in the United States. On May 9, 2008, Columbia University Press published Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation by Professor Gary L. Francione of Rutgers University School of Law, a collection of writings that summarizes his work to date and makes the case for non-human animals as persons.

[Spartacus]

Let's not forget that corporations are also accorded a degree of personhood by the law.

[Sam]

"The ability to develop and mature as a member of the [human] species."

This definition does not accommodate my objections to Spartacus. It either does not allow for (4) to be a person, since (4) does not possess the ability to develop and mature as a member of the human species or it has to allow for (3) to be a person. It is also contingent upon process and potential.

You've just restated Spart's definition while asking me to imagine that it accommodates my objections. You have to remake Spart's definition that accommodates those objections before I can consider it to be different.

[Spartacus]

This definition does not accommodate my objections to Spartacus. It either does not allow for (4) to be a person, since (4) does not possess the ability to develop and mature as a member of the human species or it has to allow for (3) to be a person. It is also contingent upon process and potential.

You've just restated Spart's definition while asking me to imagine that it accommodates my objections. You have to remake Spart's definition that accommodates those objections before I can consider it to be different.

A blastocyst doesn't just have the potential to grow and mature as a human being-- it already is a human being. It's human life at the earliest stage of its development.

[Sam]

Sam, it is both subjective and arbitrary. It is not an either or. And in the context of deciding personhood the criteria can be quite arbitrary. Good grief you have those who would assign personhood to animals. So when it comes to who should live and die personalhood is meaningless as a useful standard. There can be no agreement.

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.

[Paprika]

This definition does not accommodate my objections to Spartacus. It either does not allow for (4) to be a person, since (4) does not possess the ability to develop and mature as a member of the human species or it has to allow for (3) to be a person. It is also contingent upon process and potential.

As I've said, consider Spart's definition where your objections are accommodated-in this case with allowing 3) to be a 'person'. What's wrong with this definition of 'person'?

[Sam]

A blastocyst doesn't just have the potential to grow and mature as a human being-- it already is a human being. It's human life at the earliest stage of its development.

You're mixing terms and equating "human being" with "person." If the two words are interchangeable, you're begging the question. If they're not interchangeable, you have to explain why the definition of "person" should be "is a human being" and explain why (1) and (3) do not fit the criteria and why (4) should be considered a person even though it was never going to be a functional human being.

[Sam]

Let's not forget that corporations are also accorded a degree of personhood by the law.

That's a legal classification; a legal fiction to be precise. No one is arguing that corporations are ontological persons.

[Spartacus]

You're mixing terms and equating "human being" with "person." If the two words are interchangeable, you're begging the question. If they're not interchangeable, you have to explain why the definition of "person" should be "is a human being" and explain why (1) and (3) do not fit the criteria and why (4) should be considered a person even though it was never going to be a functional human being.

You can define personhood any way you darn well please, but any time you deliberately kill a living human being, it's murder.

Also, it WAS going to, before it was genetically and physically modified to avoid that outcome.

[Paprika]

You're mixing terms and equating "human being" with "person." If the two words are interchangeable, you're begging the question..

Weren't you similarly begging the question by interpreting "all men" from the Declaration of Independence as "all persons"?

[Zymologist]

So, given the above, I've got to put my working definition out there: I define "personhood" as the fundamental neurological capacity for conscious thought. That means that the basic groundwork for higher-level thought is present and functional. In the case of embryology, I don't see how personhood can be obtained prior to 20 weeks, when the fetus' brain begins to develop the capacity for undifferentiated sensation. Since consciousness requires differentiating stimuli, I'd hazard the beginning of personhood to be even later, between 24 and 30 weeks. A 24-week old fetus is a person because it can distinguish stimuli. A 23 week-old fetus is a person because it has the neurological capability for sensation and is considered "viable."

In light of this, what is your opinion of abortions at 23 weeks and later?

[Sam]

As I've said, consider Spart's definition where your objections are accommodated-in this case with allowing 3) to be a 'person'. What's wrong with this definition of 'person'?

For one, it makes any stem cell a "person". Secondly, I don't think anyone really believes that printing organs is equivalent to cloning a person. You have to argue, sincerely, that creating a replacement liver or ear is the equivalent of creating and destroying blastocysts for IVF or creating the "organ farm" in Example 4.

No one, so far, has advocated that and I would argue that this definition doesn't correspond to any other concept of "person" or "human being" — are you going to commit to arguing that a set of stem cells turning into an organ in a lab is a human being, with all the associated rights?

[Sam]

Weren't you similarly begging the question by interpreting "all men" from the Declaration of Independence as "all persons"?

No, that's not what "begging the question" means. And I believe I sufficiently explained that.

[Sam]

You can define personhood any way you darn well please, but any time you deliberately kill a living human being, it's murder.

Also, it WAS going to, before it was genetically and physically modified to avoid that outcome.

But you didn't think that pulling the plug on the patient in Example (1) was murder, if I remember correctly.

[Spartacus]

But you didn't think that pulling the plug on the patient in Example (1) was murder, if I remember correctly.

Do you remember under what circumstances I judged it to be an acceptable course of action?