Abortion

[pood]

I notice you avoided the question. Is a zygote, embryo, or first-trimester fetus ”someone” (a person) in your view? You certainly seem to imply it, but when asked directly, you dodge the question by saying that you don’t have to prove anything. I find that disingenuous.

Does the statement "life begins at conception" contain some ambiguity? We've been through this already.

Yes, of course it’s ambiguous. It’s why I linked the paper earlier that cited a definition of “life” that is immediately problematic. That definition — “chemical systems capable of Darwinian evolution” — immediately excludes individual people from being examples of “life” (though bizarrely, under the definition, they are still “alive”), while including viruses, which most biologists do not believe are examples of life at all. It also ipso facto excludes unknown life forms that may potentially evolve in Lamarckian fashion, and fire, which grows, reproduces, feeds on resources and does other things characteristic of life, but does not undergo Darwinian selection.

The point, again, being, it is not possible to define any non-trivial term to philosophical completeness.

Moreover, in this latest post of yours, your are moving the goalposts. You asked, “when is it OK to kill SOMEONE,” and not, “when is it OK to kill a clump of cells.” I am maintaining, quite reasonably, that a clump of cells is not a SOMEONE. It’s a clump of cells.

In any case, if it’s impossible define to philosophical completeness “life,” then so too it is impossible to define to philosophical completeness “personhood.”

The "clump of cells" has long been used to relieve the guilt of those who feel bad about killing someone.

You really shouldn’t try to speak for others. No one, like me, who denies that a clump of cells is “someone,” is going to feel guilty killing a clump of cells. Is this really so hard for you to comprehend? Perhaps you feel that a clump of cells is “someone” and think that we should feel that way too, but in that case, as I invited you do to earlier, make an argument for why anyone should consider a clump of cells to be “someone.” By the way, is an unfertilized ovum a “someone” also? How about sperm? Should feel people feel guilty for masturbating or using a condom, and hold funerals for the mass slaughter? You say “life begins at conception” without offering any reason why this so, and moreover you illicitly conflate “life” with “someone.” Your whole argument is an inconsistent botch depending on arbitrary definitions that only serve to confirm your own biases.

In any case, in my view, asking when life begins is the wrong question, because, as someone noted earlier, life does not begin. Life began, here on earth, some 3.8 billion years ago.

you want to claim no person's future ceases to exist because they weren't a person yet, that's your reasoning. If you point at a zygote and say, "I don't see a person."

All I can offer is say, Just wait. They'll be here soon, provided you don't destroy that clump of cells.

No, I don’t see a person. I see a clump of cells. A clump of cells is not a person!

But here you contradict yourself. Earlier you castigated me for characterizing a zygote, embryo or first-term fetus as a “potential person,” and here you are doing exactly the same thing! And in so doing, you are conceding the main point — that a clump of cells is not a person. If it were a person, you wouldn’t to wait for it to become a person, would you?

Also, why do you think I care about your views on abortion?

Why do you think that I think you care? You asked a question — “when is it OK to kill someone?” — and I answered it.

 

[pood]

Incidentally, is a tumor a person? Should we assuage our guilt over treating cancer by calling a tumor a tumor?

A tumor, though, is not a potential person. So if Bronzeage wants to ask a consistent, non-question begging question, what he/she should ask is, “When is it OK to kill a potential person?” I say his original question is question-begging because it assumes what must be proved — that a zygote, embryo or first-term fetus is “someone” (a person). And in saying that if we wait long enough, a clump of cells will becone a person, he/she implcitly concedes the point — that a clump of cells is not “someone.”

 

[Elixir]

I notice you avoided the question. Is a zygote, embryo, or first-trimester fetus ”someone” (a person) in your view? You certainly seem to imply it, but when asked directly, you dodge the question by saying that you don’t have to prove anything. I find that disingenuous.

Does the statement "life begins at conception" contain some ambiguity? We've been through this already.

Yes, of course it’s ambiguous.

It's also entirely inaccurate. "Life" on this planet began billions of years ago, and the formation of a zygote isn't "the beginning of life" or even the beginning of "a" life. It's like saying the "life" of a hair begins with the formation of a follicle.
Lots of anti-choice zealots argue that a "potential life" is the same (or actually better than) a living breathing person because it could, under very specific and narrow sets of conditions, result in the birth of a living breathing unit called a person. But so could a hair follicle. We have the technology, if we ignore ethics guidelines, to create human clones. That research and experimentation with human cloning is not done due to visceral revulsion that we call "morality", does not negate the fact that a zygote out of vitro is no more a person than is a fingernail clipping.

 

[pood]

I notice you avoided the question. Is a zygote, embryo, or first-trimester fetus ”someone” (a person) in your view? You certainly seem to imply it, but when asked directly, you dodge the question by saying that you don’t have to prove anything. I find that disingenuous.

Does the statement "life begins at conception" contain some ambiguity? We've been through this already.

Yes, of course it’s ambiguous.

It's also entirely inaccurate. "Life" on this planet began billions of years ago …

Correct, as I cited above. It must have been you who made that point originally upthread.

 

[pood]

The questions, “what is life” and “what is a person” are intrinsically interesting and worthy of their own threads, regardless of the abortion debate.

Miriam Webster defines a “person” as “a human being regarded as in individual.” We simply can’t say that about a clump of cells.

But is the definition really any good? We are back to the problem of defining any non-trivial term to philosophical completeness.

I hold that the Miriam definition is question-begging, in that it assumes what must be proved: that persons are only humans regarded as individuals.

But why should we restrict personhood to humans? I have been around enough dogs and cats, including three cats just last night, to fully regard them as persons even though they are not human. I am sure personhood can be extended to many other animals as well, perhaps even all of them. Certainly, scientific studies have demonstrated that animals, including ants for heaven sake, have individual personalities. How can you have a personality without being a person?

OTOH, an AI system may mimic a personality, without being a person at all because inside it is a philosophical zombie.

 

[Jarhyn]

The questions, “what is life” and “what is a person” are intrinsically interesting and worthy of their own threads, regardless of the abortion debate.

Miriam Webster defines a “person” as “a human being regarded as in individual.” We simply can’t say that about a clump of cells.

But is the definition really any good? We are back to the problem of defining any non-trivial term to philosophical completeness.

I hold that the Miriam definition is question-begging, in that it assumes what must be proved: that persons are only humans regarded as individuals.

But why should we restrict personhood to humans? I have been around enough dogs and cats, including three cats just last night, to fully regard them as persons even though they are not human. I am sure personhood can be extended to many other animals as well, perhaps even all of them. Certainly, scientific studies have demonstrated that animals, including ants for heaven sake, have individual personalities. How can you have a personality without being a person?

OTOH, an AI system may mimic a personality, without being a person at all because inside it is a philosophical zombie.

In some respects "person" is a personal identity aspect.

People volunteer themselves as such in the same way furries volunteer themselves as such.

Once someone volunteers themselves as a person, they are immediately responsible for playing nice with all the other people: not being trouble; coexisting.

The only real ethical aspect of this is whether we care entirely about killing you or not.

Potential people we do our best to not maim, so long as they live, and to get into the people game.

I think in most cases the question of such is whether it's more effort to just start from scratch or finish the job from here, as regards most such. With potential people, we're usually willing to try to finish the job.

Once you're people, we have the sometimes onerous job of trying to restore coexistence, since the job got finished to everyone's satisfaction and you are one of us now. Of course there is some measure of doubt as to whether you internalize and can meet the expectations of personhood.

I expect some forms of philosophical zombie are human shaped, and at least some philosophically nontrivial actors are already in existence on silicon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, by that standard we recognize exactly that no human EVER gets to take the tissues of another beyond their consent.

Non-replaceable tissues.

We don't have a problem with mandated blood draws for DUI suspects.

You might not.

I do, and so does the law, at least around here - you can always refuse to give a blood sample. The law will assume you to be guilty if you refuse, but nobody will hold you down and take your blood without your consent.

If some US jurisdictions have hugely unethical behaviour enshrined in law, such as taking a blood sample from a person who has said “no”, then that doesn’t surprise me in the least, but would make me even more disdainful of the ethical position of law enforcement in the US.

I'm not sure if it can be compelled, but the implicit guilty of refusing is a substantial force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Incidentally, is a tumor a person? Should we assuage our guilt over treating cancer by calling a tumor a tumor?

A tumor, though, is not a potential person. So if Bronzeage wants to ask a consistent, non-question begging question, what he/she should ask is, “When is it OK to kill a potential person?” I say his original question is question-begging because it assumes what must be proved — that a zygote, embryo or first-term fetus is “someone” (a person). And in saying that if we wait long enough, a clump of cells will becone a person, he/she implcitly concedes the point — that a clump of cells is not “someone.”

Hence my point about Henrietta Lacks. She died long ago--her tumor lives on in many a petri dish. (Quite a problem for researchers--a lot of cell lines have turned out to actually be her tumor, messing up research that thought it was testing on a variety of cells.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's also entirely inaccurate. "Life" on this planet began billions of years ago, and the formation of a zygote isn't "the beginning of life" or even the beginning of "a" life. It's like saying the "life" of a hair begins with the formation of a follicle.

Nitpick: Hair isn't alive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The questions, “what is life” and “what is a person” are intrinsically interesting and worthy of their own threads, regardless of the abortion debate.

Miriam Webster defines a “person” as “a human being regarded as in individual.” We simply can’t say that about a clump of cells.

But is the definition really any good? We are back to the problem of defining any non-trivial term to philosophical completeness.

I hold that the Miriam definition is question-begging, in that it assumes what must be proved: that persons are only humans regarded as individuals.

Nobody has replied to my post asking for a definition of what properties warrant protection.

But why should we restrict personhood to humans? I have been around enough dogs and cats, including three cats just last night, to fully regard them as persons even though they are not human. I am sure personhood can be extended to many other animals as well, perhaps even all of them. Certainly, scientific studies have demonstrated that animals, including ants for heaven sake, have individual personalities. How can you have a personality without being a person?

OTOH, an AI system may mimic a personality, without being a person at all because inside it is a philosophical zombie.

To me, the dogs and cats do not have minds sufficient to warrant being considered people. However, if a flying saucer lands on the White House lawn my presumption would be the occupants (or the occupants of the control ship if it's a drone) should be considered people.

 

[pood]

To me, the dogs and cats do not have minds sufficient to warrant being considered people.

Why not? What is the threhhold?

 

[Bomb#20]

I expect some forms of philosophical zombie are human shaped

Does this count as human shaped?

 

[Elixir]

It's also entirely inaccurate. "Life" on this planet began billions of years ago, and the formation of a zygote isn't "the beginning of life" or even the beginning of "a" life. It's like saying the "life" of a hair begins with the formation of a follicle.

Nitpick: Hair isn't alive.

That’s one reason I picked it. “An egg isn’t a Chicken” failed to convince. A hair isn’t alive, but unless I am mistaken a follicle is a potential human being, with cells containing an entire human genome that could be coaxed into an actual human.
But
IT’S NOT A BABY !!!

 

[Bomb#20]

To me, the dogs and cats do not have minds sufficient to warrant being considered people.

Why not? What is the threhhold?

According to the sign in my vet's exam room, dogs are dogs and cats are people.

 

[pood]

It's also entirely inaccurate. "Life" on this planet began billions of years ago, and the formation of a zygote isn't "the beginning of life" or even the beginning of "a" life. It's like saying the "life" of a hair begins with the formation of a follicle.

Nitpick: Hair isn't alive.

That’s one reason I picked it. “An egg isn’t a Chicken” failed to convince. A hair isn’t alive, but unless I am mistaken a follicle is a potential human being, with cells containing an entire human genome that could be coaxed into an actual human.
But
IT’S NOT A BABY !!!

You could theoretically clone from hair roots, which are alive, but not a hair follicle, which is dead.

Therefore, based on some arguments here, if hair is uprooted, one should feel guilty over killing someone.

 

[Elixir]

if hair is uprooted, one should feel guilty over killing someone.

According to some people’s lodjick you should be put to death for that. Because potential human life is sacred.

(Of course you’re right, I should have said root).

 

[Elixir]

Just for those who thought abortion was the only choice:

 

[bilby]

It's also entirely inaccurate. "Life" on this planet began billions of years ago, and the formation of a zygote isn't "the beginning of life" or even the beginning of "a" life. It's like saying the "life" of a hair begins with the formation of a follicle.

Nitpick: Hair isn't alive.

That rather depends on your definition of ‘alive’, which is the entire point.

 

[bilby]

To me, the dogs and cats do not have minds sufficient to warrant being considered people.

Ours certainly do.

 

[Elixir]

To me, the dogs and cats do not have minds sufficient to warrant being considered people.

Why not? What is the threhhold?

According to the sign in my vet's exam room, dogs are dogs and cats are people.

That’s a sign. A sign from Dog.