The toaster is within my reach! 
—How did you come to the conclusion that personhood is not conveyed in the unborn? Please provide detailed specifics of the technique that you used, so that we may examine its validity.—
If by personhood you mean “is given moral interests” then that is exactly the question I asked you!
Which moral interests, to what degree, when, and for what reasons, are what I want to determine before I run around saying that any given killing is right or wrong in any particular instance.
—Besides which, your statement falsely characterizes the fetus as “a mass of barely undifferentiated cells.”—
I wasn’t talking about the fetus in that particlar instance, and perhaps i should have been more clear.
And actually, in reference to me personally, I DO think that fetuses have moral interests, as soon as they have some sort of functioning nervous system. But that doesn’t mean that they have the same moral interests as adult human beings. If the question, however, is “is it right, all other things being equal, to simply kill a fetus” my answer is flatly no.
But then, I also think it is wrong, all other things equal, to kill a shrimp. Others, however, seem to think that their desire to eat shrimp (a mere convienience really) outweighs the moral interest of the shrimp. I think those people are probably right: shrimps have very minor moral interests.
The question, as I think people agree, is where the line comes down where the mother’s desire not to have a child simply does not outweigh the violation of the moral interest of whatever we are considering. You think that the interests of fetuses, even at a very early stage, is much more important than the interests of mothers not wanting to go through a pregnancy or have a child. I’m not sure I can just up and disagree with THAT estimation on any principle available to me: because this judgement requires weighing some interests against others, and we have no agreed framework here for doing that.
However, I DO think there is something decidedly morally incoherent about thinking that killing a zygote for convienience is wrong, and killing a shrimp for the pleasurable taste is not
(unless for religious reasons, in which case it is not incoherent for that person, but that is not what we are discussing)
As you can perhaps tell, I don’t happen to think that being human BY ITSELF is an important moral characteristic. Humans have all sorts of other very important moral concerns, and it is THOSE that make the difference, not simply belonging to a particular species.
—Oh I see… you mean your question at hand. Well you initially responded to a post I made to robertliguori (scroll up and you’ll see what I’m talking about) . His post said nothing about “moral interests”…but I guess you better go correct him that “moral interests” are the issue at hand?—
Good: he’s on notice then. I hope he will revise his arguments.
Uhmmm…I think it goes without saying that human life is more important than other forms of life. But I should have learned by now not to assume anything here…
That’s right.
Besides which, the vast majority of pro-lifers AND pro-choicers advocate the killing of animals as necessary, for the sake of food and clothing. Does this not suggest that the majority of pro-choicers do believe human life to be more important than animal life?
As a pro-lifer who would like to respond but simply doesn’t have the time to read the thread and generallyget his shit together, I would just like to congratulate JTThunder and Beagledave on their well reasoned and articulate responses in this thread. I also want to thank them for the amount of work they’ve don’e in dispelling the myth that all pro-lifers are misogynistic, bone ignorant, fundamentalist fruit’n nutcases.
Keep up the good work!
First off: I was joking about the slander, Beagledabe. Next off, my hair follicle is human: it came from a human (me). It is alive (or was, until it fell out.) Therefore it is human life. Forgive me for not bolding condescendingly, but I don’t know HTML.
It also appears that the two teams (me and apos vs. JThunder and beagledave) are operating on two different sets of assumptions. Apos and I are arguing based on the premise that a z-e-f is something that becomes human, while JThunder and beagledave are arguing that a z-e-f is already human. You asked for emperical evidence. Okay. Think of something that humans do that, say, the other plains apes don’t. Do z-e-fs do it?
Also, if production of human enzymes/proteins is the requirement for individual-hood? If so, my salivatory glands will be applying for their citizenship sometime soon. Come on, give me a hard one. Oh, yeah, my body cannot produce nerve cells, to answer your earlier claim about me being non-totipotent.
Look, people, we can debate this back and forth and not get anywhere unless we define personhood. How about all concerned parties write in a definition of what makes a person a person?
To start off, I say that personhood is a function of human source material and intelligence. Koko the gorilla is intelligent, but not human. My tongue is human, but not intelligent. Permanent vegetables are human, but only formerly intelligent. Z-e-fs are human, and only potentially intelligent. Also, I’d say that both our metaphors (organ donor vs. bank account) are leaking straw around the edges. Shall we abandon them, or clarify them?
Hmmm mussta missed the smiley in your reply then? :rolleyes:
**
Sigh. It’s like you don’t even bother to read my posts. I invited you to reply with scientific cites to back your claims, you apparently can’t or won’t. That speaks volumes to me. But what the hell…if you’re still to lazy to read the site (again), I’ll quote the relevant passage.
If and when you choose to provide cites from equivalent kinds of sources, then I can respond to your issues about the science.
**
Let me get this straight now…you are now grouping all zygotes, embryos and fetus’ in this hypothetical? I mean damn…I can think of a whole host of things that a teenager, or an infant can do that an 8 month old fetus can’t do. Does that mean 8 month fetus’ are game for abortion in your scenario?
Again. For the third time. Please provide cites from either biology, embryology or genetics texts to support your point. Really. I’m still waiting. Really, I’m still waiting
**
Well of course thats not what the site said, and you know it.
This is what the site says:
IOW, the production of human proteins and enzymes is an example of how the new organism is human, nor bovine or canine. Production of proteins and enzymes is not the sole definition of what makes something a new human…but of course you’re choosing to ignore what Moore and Larsen said.
**
Well of course I never referenced anything in regards to “non-totipotent” (other posters did that) …are you even paying attention to who is posting what? :rolleyes:
**
I already have addressed the notion of “personhood” as a philosophical concept at least twice in this thread. The web site I referenced goes into greater detail.
BTW if apos is on your “team”…apparently you guys need to huddle together and get on the same page.
**
See, apos thinks this is all about “moral interests”…yet you haven’t addressed morality yet. Apparently you should consider yourself “on notice” from apos until you rectify this situation.
robertligouri:
That was me who said something to that effect, and I don’t know where you got that idea from, because it’s not true. When you grow, your nerve cells are dividing just like your bone cells, muscle cells and skin cells are.
Chaim Mattis Keller
On your advice, I went back and reread all your old posts. I’m afraid that you shot yourself in the foot: You clearly stated that
-=The idea of “personhood” is a philosophical notion not directly rooted in science. It’s a notion arived at culturally or through arbitrary structures like sentience or viability. (I use “arbitrary” in the sense that you will have a huge disparity in definitions of personhood among the pro choice community) =-
So stop claiming that what scientists say decides the issue. We are arguing philosophy, not biology. As for me, I would set the age of personhood at sentience, whenever that might occur.
And I read through that article you posted. The person’s one claim to a z-e-f being a human person is the number of chromosomes it has. Correlation does not equal causation: Just because a z-e-f has a characteristic that people have, it is not a person. If I missed another bit of evidence that z-e-f == people, would you terribly mind pointing it out?
Minor hijack: The article contains at least one rather erroneous bit o’ info: the claim that only minor chromosomonumerical changes can occur and still result in a viable offspring. Many plants (roses, for instance)have had doublings and quadrouplings of their diploid number, which made them larger, with twice as many petals. His oversimpliflication is understandable, a 4n mammal would certainly not be viable.
End hijack:
Also, although I searched diligently, I could not find a (your) definition of personhood that includes adult people and z-e-fs, but not tumors, sperm and egg cells, and hair cells. Would you terribly mind reposting it? Also, I am sorry that I mistook you for Chaim Mattis Keller re the totipotence issue.
Drat, forgot to adress the morality issue. My view: If you aren’t a person, you are a resource to be exploited. 8th month abortions are fine with me.
Oh, and CMKeller, that would be news to anyone who has suffered irreversable nerve damage. 
Hmm. Actually, 
Unless, of course, stem cells are used. But that’s fodder for a different thread.
One more question, beagledave. Does a z-e-f have equivilant rights as an adult human, or a child? Or just the right to survive, but not at the expense of the mother?
Ahem. I’ll type R-E-A-L S-L-O-W this time because you didn’t read my entire post. I said
"I’m not sure that “humanity” and “personhood” are equivalent notions. From a common pro life view, the z/e/f is human life at different stages of development.
That the z/e/f is a unique human life can be determined via genetics/biology/embryology etc… "
So let’s review so far. Determination of an organism as a new unique human: a scientific notion arrived at through genetics, biology and embryology.
Description of said organism as a “person”: a philosophical notion influenced by culture and societal mores’…a quite arbitrary notion (even one that many pro choice folks can’t agree on…see earlier post).
Or to quote the article (which appraently you still haven’t read very carefully)
So no, I didn’t shoot myself in the foot.
Get it now?
**
Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. What makes the organism a new unique human is that it is the product of fertilization of the sperm an oocyte, (the chromosomal number does indicate that it is not just a part of the mother…that it contains genetic material from the mother and father) …and that “this human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.”
I
BTW. I have asked you repeatedly to provide cites from medical sources to back your claims. You have still refused to do so…is there a reason why you refuse to do so?
**
Which paragraph of the web site are you referring to?
**
Umm, because I didn’t define personhood (for the reasons laid out in the first paragraph of the site I have repeatedly pointed you two)
You just painted yourself into a corner.
Let’s see. You said your definition of personhood:
Is a baby 1 day out of the womb (after 40 weeks gestation) any “smarter” or “more intelligent” than an 8 month old? If so, prove it. If not, then that 1 day old baby can be treated as an exploitable resource and killed, correct?
Let’s make this more interesting. The neighbors across the street from me gave birth to twins that were two months premature (that would be 7 months gestation). I’m guessing you would have no problem giving the parents the right to kill them at will, correct? They would be an exploitable resource (since they are not even 8 months old?)
Do we have you on the record as supporting infanticide?
Remember your “defintion” of personhood said nothing about location of the organism.
**
Hmmmm “pro life”… I wonder what rights those pro life people are discussing…the right to vote…the right to drive a car…the right to visit titty bars…hmmm real tough question there… :rolleyes:
Many thanks, Gomez.
I know that I rely on, and appreciate, the help of folks like beagledave, Bob Cos, cmkeller and company. We all have a limited amount of free time, and so I don’t always have time to dissect these arguments to my satisfaction. Moreover, I know that b’dave and company often bring additional insights, and phrase my own views in ways that make their impact more clear. Great work, team!
Some of the pro-choicers here have said that the unborn is not a person, and that this therefore justifies abortion. One has also said that the burden of proof rests on pro-lifers to show that it is, and has challenged pro-lifers to define personhood.
I think that there are several fallacies in that approach. Just off the top of my head, here are some of them.
(1) First, I’d like to expand on what beagledave has said. If a pro-choicer is to use personhood as the determining factor, then it is the pro-choicer who must define this term. Pro-lifers are not the ones invoking this distinction, and thus, the responsibility of defining it does not rest on them. Moreever, the pro-choicer must define this term in such a way as to clearly and unambiguously distinguish the unborn from newborn infants, among others. (This assumes, of course, that the pro-choicer opposes infanticide, as they have consistently claimed in this thread.)
(2) The burden of proof rests on the pro-choicers, rather than the pro-lifers. If you are going to kill something, using the rationale that it is “not a person,” then it is your responsibility to show that it isn’t. This should be intuitively clear. If someone is to blow up a building, for example, then the burden of proof rests on that the building is empty of human beings. It is clearly not sufficient for that person to say, “Oh yeah? Well prove to me that it isn’t empty!”
(3) One must also explain why “personhood” (however you define it) should be the deciding factor. This tenet has been implicitly assumed by some of the pro-choicers here, but it remains unjustified. There is ample precedent in moral and judicial law to say that we normally consider human beings to be deserving of life, but can the same be said of “personhood,” except insofar as this term refers to human beings in general?
(4) As I pointed out earlier, one can not use the argument that “The burden of proof rests on pro-lifers to explain how an undifferentiated lump of cells can constitute a person!” Even if that premise were accurate (and for various reasons, I don’t believe it is), it would not justify abortion in general. After all, the overwhelming majority of abortions occur long after cell differentiation has taken place, and long after the body’s systems are in place.
(5) Finally, given what’s at stake – the life of a human being – one should err greatly on the side of caution. As I emphasized earlier, the right to life is by far the most fundamental human right of all, without which no other rights can be exercised or enjoyed. It is not something to be taken lightly. As a result, any definition of personhood that would permit the arbitrary termination of life (without specific adjudication in a court of law, I might add) must be specific, meticulously reasoned and devoid of ad hoc reasoning. (That is, its definition must not be something which was cooked up on the spot, with the specific goal of justifying abortion.)
robertligouri:
Of course some damage can be irreversable. That doesn’t mean that in the normal course of growth, cells of that type don’t continue to divide.
Just to give an equivalent example: someone whose arm is amputated has suffered irreversable bone, muscle, etc. damage. Does that mean his body is not still capable of generating new cells of those types as it grows? A person with third-degree burns may very well have irreversable skin damage. He still generates new skin cells…JUST NOT IN THE DAMAGED AREA.
If you grow taller…or fatter…or you exercise a lot and bulk up your muscles…is this new tissue mass you’ve grown devoid of nerves? Of course not.
Please give your posts a little more thought before you post them.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Morally, I say that a child is a thing until it can think. Of course, since children learn to think at different rates, I can accept birth as the cutoff date for thing/person. And for the record, no, I have no particular problem with infanticide.
To summarize: In my perfect world, people would be people when they started to think, and would be legally protected as if they were people at birth, not because they were, but to avoid rather messy legal problems as to when infants start cogitating.
-=Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. What makes the organism a new unique human is that it is the product of fertilization of the sperm an oocyte=-
Bloody hell. Every friggen’ cell in my body is the product of a sperm cell and an oocyte. Is each individual cell a seperate person?
Can you define human being-hood? Can you come up with a definition of a human being?
And this uniqueness argumet that you keep bringing out is incorrect. Two skin cells are not identical any more than two siblings are. Every cell, every organelle, every membrane is unique.
CMKeller: You’re right. I meant nerves in the brain or spinal cord. Neurons, to be specific. They don’t regenerate.
Also, it appears that we are not reading each others’ posts. I answered your biology cite claim by pointing out that we are discussing philosophy.
JThunder: z-e-gs aren’t people because they can’t move, talk, think, feed themselves, or survive unassisted. With that serve, the burden of proof is in your court.
Look, beagledave, to me personhood is identical with human being-hood. I’m sorry if I caused confusion. Forget soceity’s definiton of personhood or human being-hood. Just give me a definition of human being. And also, please don’t just say a z-e-f, kid, or adult. That would be rather arbitrary.
Well then we have moved out of the realm of the discussion of abortion then…haven’t we? You have no problem with infanticide (which of course is illegal in all western countries that I’m aware of)…you have no problem killing anything that you surmise can’t think. The birth event has nothing to do with “thinking” of course…so why you “accept” it as important is beyond me. You can’t have it both ways…you can’t say that a being is expendable until robertliguori is of the opinion that it “thinks”…but also say that birth is a meaningful event
**
It’s damn hard to track your line of thinking. You have no problem with infanticide…yet want to arbitrarily “protect” newborns because of “messy legal problems” in your perfect world? Whatever
**
I have repeatedly answered the question about the difference between a zygote and a gamete, hair follicle or any other human cell. I have cited several standard genetics/biology/embryology sources in doing so. I have repeatedly requested that you provide equivalent cites to back your claims that hair follicles and zygotes are similar when it comes to a discussion of a new human being, and you have repeatedly refused to back your assertions.
You have now also said that you have no problem with infanticide…although you choose the birth event as some meaningful event when it has no meaning under your concept of “personhood”.
If you choose to back up your claims with cites, I’d be happy to respond your points. Otherwise I’m outta here.
FTR…there are plenty of pro choice dopers who can make a cogent argument, backed up by cites…to at least make an honest debate (a debate, that I of course disagree with…but at least a somewhat honest attempt at such a debate). I’d rather not list specific dopers for fear of leaving out names, but a search of the SDMB archives should give you an idea of what I’m talking about.
You have yet to make that kind of argument. You have yet to supply cites for your scientific claims…you make arbitrary distinctions…you support infanticide. These things are not part of a legitimate debate.
I suspect, based on BlackKnight’s comments, “This thread has nearly convinced me to become pro-life”, that even other pro choice folks might agree with me on this.
It sure has taken a lot longer than we thought. :rolleyes:
First, why should we adopt that definition? Is there any precedent for this specific definition? Or is this an ad hoc definition, used exclusively for purposes of justifying abortion?
Moreover, wouldn’t your definition exclude newborns as well? Remember, I specifically asked for a definition which would not encompass newborn infants. Newborns can not talk, think feed themselves or survive unassisted either. They can move, but so can a fetus or an embryo.
robertligouri:
An amputee can’t regenerate a lost limb either. What does the inability to regenerate damaged body parts have to do with the fact that, as an organism, cell division occurs after conception, and that prior to conception, sperm and egg lack that facility, which is central to a definition of life?
Ain’t that the truth - I think it’s beagledave’s request for cites that you’re falsely attributing to me.
Chaim Mattis Keller