“Nobody knows what you are claiming”
Could be read to mean “I have no idea what you are trying to say and neither does anyone else.”
Or
“This thing that you say you know is in fact is a thing that is not known by anyone.”
Try the latter.
And you know this, how?
Nothing personal, and I am not equating you with Nazis or slavery.
Though I am sure that it was not your intent, there is no getting around the point that accepting an arbitrary assignment of personhood, has had some bad precedents.
As i’ve Pointed out, I remain pro-life In spite of the fact that I can’t say it’s not the killing of persons.
Failing an applicable definition of person, that is an inherent consequence of the stance.
Any definition is arbitrary. The problem isn’t arbitrary definitions, the problem is setting them in places that exclude clear humans.
Look: without being an insufferable pedant, would you call this a mountain?
The first is obviously not a mountain. The second obviously is.
What about this?
Geographers don’t have an agreed-on rigorous definition for a mountain. It’s somewhat arbitrary whether certain geological formations are called mountains or not.
But any geographer that called a single grain of sand a mountain, or refused to call Mount Everest a mountain, would be ignored.
A sperm is obviously not a person. A five-year-old kid is obviously a person. The fact that we can’t find a real-world bright line between the two, where personhood springs into existence, doesn’t mean that it’s reasonable to call a sperm a person, or deny the personhood of a five-year-old.
Had you followed the Sorites Paradox link earlier, I could’ve saved a lot of typing time :).
Both of these interpretations involve you claiming on behalf of others that they do not know what The Left Hand of Dorkness was claiming.
~Max
It’s not about what I want. I just want the arguments to make sense and be consistent in order to consider them good ones. Viability, and personhood are two different things, and I hate to have us confuse them lest we start killing all those on respirators or who need insulin as “unviable”
I too, agree that personhood is emergent.
This whole issue is only relevant to those who argue that a human life/personhood is sacred and be protected b abortion is ok, since a human life is not being taken.
That stance requires a pretty rigorous definition of personhood.
Do you acknowledge the existence of arguments that are NOT based on this concept?
I independently find this comparison besides the point, unless you try to use that argument to say an arbitrary definition of personhood is therefore bad.
Regardless, most people (probably everyone in this thread) agree that a baby which has been birthed has the right to life. If you argue that personhood is inherent and not granted by society (or the mother), it follows then that abortion after viability is generally unacceptable. At that point the baby has all the right stuff to be born, so if personhood is inherent in a birthed child, it is inherent in a viable fetus. So your position should be that abortion after viability is generally wrong (24 to 28 weeks), and I think that position is quite reasonable.
I also like to play both sides of an argument, but based on your previous posts I think you meant to write pro-choice here.
~Max
A rigorous definition that entails a bright line isn’t achievable, any more than it’s achievable for “adulthood.” Nevertheless we establish arbitrary ages for drinking, voting, and signing contracts.
As for what rigorous definitions exist, this is an active area for philosophers and bioethicists. Read sections IIa and IIIb especially.
I guess you are not a big Hugh Grant fan:
I get your point, and I understood it the first time.
My counterargument is that this paradox is amusing and trite when it comes to mountains such, it becomes a bit more pointed when we are talking about human beings.
Even with the mountain, mount, hill problem there have been some serious attempts to get rigorous.
In the case of one who argues for aborting only non persons, a death sentence is at stake for those on the wrong side of the definition, so a bit more precision is required.
That slippery slope is avoided by saying personhood is sacred, or in secular terms, cannot be morally revoked by other persons.
I think you may be fighting against a strawman. The second premise, while possibly the mainstream pro-choice slogan (I wouldn’t know), is not the position I read from the posters in this thread.
~Max
Since you elide ‘human life’ and ‘personhood,’ which are two very different things, I’m damned glad I haven’t followed this thread from the beginning.
Saves me the trouble of reading your OP which spends roughly an eon characterizing the position of those you disagree with, and probably just as accurately.
Right. Follow me for one moment:
Since you can’t create that bright line definition, a pro choice argument that depends upon it is a bad argument.
Then why the resistance?
Ummm… I am happy that you haven’t Participated as well, because I was afraid you would just post snarky comments?
Ah, so pointing out your failure to understand the difference between two fundamentally different concepts that bear directly on this discussion is ‘snark.’
Calling it a name isn’t enough to paper over your underlying confusion.
I follow you. The thing is, nobody is discussing a pro choice argument that depends on having a bright line definition.
I whither before thee.
So conceded. Good job.
Or a child living in squalor. Don’t forget the alternative to abortion is often a child living a life without adequate resources. Maybe hungry all the time, maybe abused or sick. A life of homelessness or crime or retail work. Certainly increased probability of all that.
Or a lump of cells that has no memories or self awareness ceases to be.
It sure makes a lot of sense. Really the only argument against abortion requires us to believe in some absolute law against killing humans no matter what. What sort of society would come up with such a law? Maybe a religious one…
More precision is not required: just a margin of error.
If I am certain that everyone over the age of 1 month is a person, and I am certain that every fetus younger than 20 weeks is not a person, and I’m 99% certain that every fetus prior to 24 weeks is not a person, I can draw my arbitrary line at 20 weeks without running into any risk of aborting persons.
This doesn’t mean I think there’s a bright line definition of personhood. No precision is required. An arbitrary line works fine, without risking aborting persons.