# Pharmacist's conscience and new Indiana abortion law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850 "2011-05-14T00:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/261 "2011-05-19T19:23:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not asking you to define a negative. I’m asking you to give us your definition and why that is objectively the correct one. > > But, if “any dictionary definition” will do, [here are a few](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person): > > The distinguishing characteristic being its DNA and it’s being alive. A fetus fits that definition just fine. No, a skin cell has DNA and is alive. That doesn’t make it a person. A fetus is just a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/262 "2011-05-19T19:47:27Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Great, then you saw that a clump of insentient tissue does not meet the the definition. And neither does a person in a coma. But there is near-universal agreement that a person in a coma has not lost his status as a human being, a person worthy of protection of the law. So your definition is unworkable. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/263 "2011-05-19T19:49:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Any dictionary definition will suffice. > > And I reiterate that it remains incumbent on those who want to assert “personhood” for something to porove, not for anyione else to disprove it. Can you prove a rock is not a person? Demanding proof of the negative is specious and evasive. Why is that? I can’t prove Uncle Steve is a person because he’s in a coma, so along comes **Diogenes** with a mercy pillow? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/264 "2011-05-19T20:15:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, a skin cell has DNA and is alive. That doesn’t make it a person. A fetus is just a thing. Argue with the dictionary, not me. You’re the one who said any dictionary definition will do. I gave you a dictionary definition. Do you want to move the goal posts, or do you want to simply recognize the fact that we can easily modify that definition to exclude skin cells and anything similar? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/265 "2011-05-19T20:39:32Z")
And this is why I said that arguing definitions is pointless. I might well add “repetitive to the point of absurdity” to that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/266 "2011-05-19T20:46:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, a skin cell has DNA and is alive. That doesn’t make it a person. A fetus is just a thing. Let me revisit this, because I didn’t notice it originally. You are claiming, as part of that definition that a fetus is a “thing”. Now, clearly that definition, which does use the word “thing”, is using that word to mean something that is not alive. You are claiming that fetus is not alive, which is, to use a technical term, bullshit. I think we have now established that “any dictionary definition” will not work. It’s just your way of dodging the fact that there is no objective way to define a human life. There are many different ways, depending on the assumptions you make. In fact, I can think of definitions that would exclude live babies up to a certain age. I would also note that if you and I were to come up with our own definitions, I believe those definitions would be virtually identical. The only difference between you and me on this matter is your refusal to accept that other people, starting with different assumptions, are going to come up with other, equally valid, definitions. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/267 "2011-05-19T22:15:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why is that? I can’t prove Uncle Steve is a person because he’s in a coma, so along comes **Diogenes** with a mercy pillow? This is a fallacious leap. If I were to grant that people in comas are not sentient (which I don’t because they do have brain activity), it still would not follow that I therefore want to smother them with pillows. I am pro-choice on the issue. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/268 "2011-05-19T22:15:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And neither does a person in a coma. > > But there is near-universal agreement that a person in a coma has not lost his status as a human being, a person worthy of protection of the law. So your definition is unworkable. A comatose person is someone who has been born, living “sentiently” and most likely “sapiently” until a trauma occurred, causing the person to temporarily lose consciousness (weeks, rarely months), unless the damage is permanent. Like a sleeping or anesthetized person, the person is only taking a short vacation from sentience. Also, there may be some marginal sentience depending on the coma grade (certain brain activity present) just like the depth of sleep. _ **Sleeping people are typically still considered to be sentient beings because they have the capability of sentience. Likewise for the non-permanent comatose patient** _. People in a coma are also independent of of a uterus. Now, a brain dead patient or one in a persistent vegetative state is no longer sentient and never will be sentient again. The patient has shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile. This is an ex-person. In development, you got your zygote which is simply a single cell, an embryo which is a cluster of cells or the beginning of tissue or a pre-third trimester (_maybe_ late 2nd) fetus. These do not have anything present to be able to be sentient. There’s no temporary vacation from sentience. No sentient being. It’s not stunned. It’s not pinin’ for the fjords. It’s a person that never was! (At least not persony enough to outlaw abortion, IMO.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/269 "2011-05-19T22:17:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Let me revisit this, because I didn’t notice it originally. You are claiming, as part of that definition that a fetus is a “thing”. Now, clearly that definition, which does use the word “thing”, is using that word to mean something that is not alive. You are claiming that fetus is not alive, which is, to use a technical term, bullshit. No, I’m claiming being alive doesn’t make it a person. Sperm cells are “things” that are alive and are not persons. All of this still avoids the fact that I’m not the one with the burden of proof, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/270 "2011-05-19T22:27:41Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, I’m claiming being alive doesn’t make it a person. Sperm cells are “things” that are alive and are not persons. > > All of this still avoids the fact that I’m not the one with the burden of proof, by the way. Yes you are. You are asserting that there is only one valid definition of “person”. Prove it. I’m saying you are taking an axiom and asserting that it has truth value. There are different axioms that we can start from to arrive at different truths. Yours is not objectively true. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/271 "2011-05-20T02:05:30Z")
Any dictionary definition is perfectly adequate to exclude a clump of insentient tissue. If you want to assert a magical belief that a clump of tissue is a “baby,” then prove it. I don’t have to prove it’s not a person any more than I have to prove a rock is not a person. It goes without saying. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/272 "2011-05-20T02:07:17Z")
Can you quote the post where I asked you to prove a negative? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/273 "2011-05-20T02:11:36Z")
Every post where you try to demand proof that a fetus is not a person. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/274 "2011-05-20T02:15:27Z")
OK, you can’t. I figured as much, because I never asked (much less demanded) you to prove a fetus isn’t a person. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/275 "2011-05-20T02:27:56Z")
I have no idea what you’re asking for then. “Fetus” does not meet any simple dictionary definition of fetus. That’s all there is to it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/276 "2011-05-20T03:00:29Z")
You have no idea what I’m asking when I’ve posted it half a dozen times? Then you have no idea because you don’t want to have any idea. I gave you a “simple” dictionary definition and you rejected it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/277 "2011-05-20T03:31:19Z")
I didn’t reject the dictionary definition. I reject that the dictionary definition could possibly apply to a clump of insentient tissue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/278 "2011-05-20T04:01:03Z")
Ah, the “clump of tissue” red herring. You still that that works? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/279 "2011-05-20T04:04:19Z")
It’s still ridiculous to call it a person. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/280 "2011-05-20T04:11:07Z")
Depending on the axioms you start with, yes. Or no. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=15)