An interesting thought. I must admit that only real-world examples were on my mind.
I am open to refinement of the definition I have put forth - most likely there is a 3C that I had not thought of.
Nonetheless, I maintain that what I put forth is at the least a very good start, which draws distinctions that are both non-arbitrary and in accord with the distinctions between what we all agree is human and what we all agree is non-human. (Obviously, it falls on the pro-life side of the fetus debate; what I mean is that where there is no debate about the humanity of an entity in question, the definition I have provided properly categorizes those entities as human or non-human).
OK, that’s cool. I wasn’t trying to lead you into a trap or anything. Even as a pro-choicer, I’m willing to accept your definition and to stipulate that an unborn baby is at all stages of its development a living human being. At least up until the day some woman spontaneously gives birth to an otter; then, all bets are off.
Chaim, it seems like a workable definition for a contemporary discussion of abortion ethics.
I suspect that we could sit here…toss back a few pints and come up with other “exceptions” as well…as in “What happens if medical science perfects suspended animation at some in the future, would the organism still be adhering to point #2?”
Bob Cos is much better at those hypothetical exercises than I am…so I’ll just nod my head at this point.
Not so. As I emphasized, since it is your defense which hinges on “personhood,” the onus rests on you to provide the definition and the proof.
That’s a strange twist of logic. The legality of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of arguments for or against it, or the manner in which these should be argued. With all due respect, it seems like you’re grasping for ways in which you can foist the responsibility for defining “personhood” onto your opposition.
JThunder: Bloody 'ell, you don’t even have a definition of personhood out yet. Also, you still haven’t answered my question of why do we extend rights to z-e-fs that we deny to skin cells and fruit flies. And no saying that they obviously are not human individuals. To me, z-e-fs are obviously not people.
Chaim: Thank you very much. By giving me a definition, I can actually debate with you.
Some questions: A permanent vegetable on life support. They can metabolize food, but they need a heart/lung machine, IV drip, etc. Since no other being is nurturing them, are they people?
Are newly fertilized ova not yet implanted in the lining of the uterus people? Since the support they need to survive is not actually being provided until they are implanted, they seem to be nonpeople until implantation occurs.
Also, you might want to reword #1 as to avoid mixups with people with Down’s syndrome and similar not actually being people.
Not true. For those few days until implantation, they are self-sufficient. They do not become dependent until they reach the stage at which they are, in the usual, natural course of events, implanted in the uterus (and thereby begin receiving said support).
People with Down’s syndrome and similar chromosomal abnormalities still have the full complement of human genes. There is no need to alter the wording.
robertliguori, we’ve been over this before. Several times, in fact. SEVERAL TIMES.
The pro-life side does not need to define personhood, for reasons that beagledave and I explained. We are NOT the ones whose defense hinges on its definition. In contrast, your arguments do, and so the onus of defining it rests on you.
It is obvious to me that you are desperately trying to pass this responsibility onto your opposition. Well, I’m not taking the bait. It is also clear that you have been unable to devise a consistent definition, and so it is no wonder that you would rather pretend that this responsibility rests on your opponents instead.
JThunder: You say z-e-fs are people. I say they are not, and use mental capacity as a test for personhood. Until you say what a person actually is, you have no business ascribing personhood to things. Or people, for that matter. Look, I’m going to work on Chaim’s actual cogent posts now. Feel free to join us when you have a definition of your own.
Chaim: Gotcha. Cancereous growths. Most of them are 2n, or some variation thereof, their DNA is different than their host, and they depend on nutrients 'n stuff from their host, who has different DNA.
Here we go again. Let’s go over this one more time.
I am not ascribing personhood to anything in my statements. I am not the one who is using that as lynchpin in my arguments. You are the one who is invoking this distinction. Ergo, you are the one who must define this term.
I neither stated nor denied that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are persons. You are the one who brought this up, and so the burden of defining the term rests on your shoulders. For reasons that beagledave already discussed, I believe that line or reasoning to be pointless and unnecessary.
Remember what I said earlier? About how you are clearly trying to foist the responsibility of defining this term onto others? You’re doing it again.
That’s my point, JThunder. You don’t have an argument yet.
And Chaimy:
-=
It has the full complement of human chromosomes
**2) It performs all life functions essential to individual survival(nutrition, respiration, growth, etc). **
It fulfills either of the two following conditions:
a) It is capable of performing those functions without the assistance of other beings, or
b) It has a genetic code distinct from the being from which it derives said assistance
=-
Individual growth is all we’re after. 'Sides, isn’t that all zygotes do?
Ugh! He doesn’t need an argument on this. That’s the point. To justify pro-life beliefs you do not need a definition of what a person actually is. Only pro-choicers do. Since you are the one who is saying this is not a human life worth protecting but thisis, you are the one who needs to come up with the definition which we ( the pro-lifers) can analyse for flaws. This is what JT has been trying to say to you. Can you see now?
So ‘natural’ life support eliminates personhood? Along that line of thinking, does artificial life support disqualify one from being a ‘person’?
And what happens when science can give us test-tube babies, in the Brave New World sense? Since supposedly even zygotes would be maintainable outside of the womb, would they then achieve personhood?
Do you have a better definition? Chaim had a pretty good one. It took me hours to poke holes in it. And this burdern-of-proof is also upon you all do distinguish a z-e-f from a tumor.
robert, coming up with a better definition is YOUR job.
In addition, your definition of personhood must not be ad hoc. That is, it must defended based on precedent and first principles, rather than being tailor-made to justify abortion. As you may recall, many civilized white folks once defined blacks as “non-persons,” so as to justify slavery. I believe that the same thing is occuring when pro-choicers arbitrarily choose to define the unborn as “non-persons.”
Remember, anyone can concoct a “definition.” One must also demonstrate that this definition is accurate, and that it should be adopted.
Or what, exactly? I am arguing that an institution that is currently legal (in the U.S.) should remain so. If this argument were to decide the issue, but neither of us could raise a cogent argument, than it would remain legal. Here, I’ll even revise my previous opinions to concide with the law: a z-e-f before the third trimester has no functioning central nervous system, and is not a person. I’m giving you a whole trimester. Now, start presenting an argument, or default. Feel free to take up Chaim’s, if you wish.
Even as a pro-choicer, I’m willing to accept your definition and to stipulate that an unborn baby is at all stages of its development a living human being. At least up until the day some woman spontaneously gives birth to an otter; then, all bets are off.
