The Other Michael

Hi Abe,

Sorry, but I don't see that as an ad hom if you are trying to gather data. As long as you aren't attacking the person, no ad hom.

I do see a possible niggle as to the relevance of your question if it moves into the "if you haven't XYZ, then you aren't competent to comment on XYZish topics", since we do spend a lot of time in this forum discussing hypothetical situations, hopefully from the basis of our common human experience (whether or not we may all qualify as persons as yet to be determined).

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

Albion

I think you've probably gathered that a lot of people here disagree with that.

And I gather you're also accepting that from a medical standpoint, the criterion is also arbitrary? Which means we're back to basing our positions on other issues than a purely medical definition. Your position is based on the morality of your religion. Mine is based on individual rights and freedoms to make choices. They're not compatible. My problem is that while I'm not telling you that I require you to live by my standards, you ARE telling me that I'm required to live by yours.


I'm not a moral relativist either. I just don't take my morality from the Bible and expect everybody else to live that way as well. The examples that you give are all examples of illegal behaviour, and they're illegal because somebody is infringing basic rights of somebody else. If people were legally able to do whatever they wanted to people and other sentient beings who were weaker, then society really would break down. This comes back to whether foetuses are people. And I don't think they are; they aren't sentient, they aren't capable of independent life with any sort of support we know how to provide, and their potential for developing into a sentient being is a separate issue.

Oh, no, Geo, it is NOT a total red herring or even a partial one. The point is your desire to impose your morality on people who don't accept it. And your morality doesn't stop at abortion. A few months ago, your morality would have required young-Earth creationism to be taught in schools. The same people who say that no pregnancy should ever be terminated are the very same ones who are saying that all education should be Bible based and that any sort of witchcraft should be outlawed. You'd have us live in a Christian theocracy. Don't tell me that controlling reading matter isn't part of that. Controlling reading matter is a very high priority with the churches that seek to impose their morality on society in general. Like I said, I've had this conversation too amny times before to be fobbed off with comments that things like reading Harry Potter books or being able to go shopping on Sundays are separate issues.


Now, are you going to answer that question about which of those five individuals you'd kill?

Clutch

GeoTheo,

Since you have been unable or unwilling to engage it, I will repeat my critique:

Maybe this is just a typo, GT. But it's a common enough attempted move in reasoning that it's worth pointing out the fallacy. Human just means having a human genetic code. This is not sufficient for all the rights associated with personhood, nor, arguably, is it even necessary.

Something that completely lacks a mind cannot be said to be a person. Certainly there are borderline cases, but in at least some stages of development, the pre-born do not even have brains. Surely nothing that physically lacks a brain counts as a person.

You are correct that the developmental transition from non-personhood to personhood is gradual, and resists characterization in terms of some sharp divide. But this is a familiar phenomenon, and one that simply fails to support extending the later categorization back to the earlier stages.

The fact that no single point or event definitively marks the point of sufficient maturity to vote, or drink, or drive, or screw, or whatever, does not mean that we extend the rights to vote, drink, drive and screw to three year-olds. There is no general pattern of reasoning that supports the extension of a right to life to two or four or eight-celled organisms in spite of their lacking every one of the morally significant properties associated with persons: consciousness, interests, desires, agency... As we've seen, it's quite the opposite; in such cases, our usual practice is to stipulate rough and ready conventional demarcations."

I take that to be a "straight answer" that points out some of the more important errors in your reasoning.

livius drusus

Off the top of my head I can think of many societies that have existed just fine without these values. The exposing of unwanted babies was common in ancient Rome, for instance, and murder was the national passtime. The Old Testament is rife with dead children, many of them murdered by Yahweh or his emissaries.

As for telling the truth, I dare you to find one society that didn't find value in lies when they were convenient or useful or for a "higher purpose".

Albion

Did I say he had? I said that since he'd been contributing to this thread, if you read back you might find what you're looking for.

The Other Michael

It would be interesting to see some answers to my thought experiment from both sides of the discussion. Please show your work and no peeking at your neighbor's answer sheet.

Those who say that the 4-cell critter isn't a person and would be the choice have a clear reason for making that choice - that choice of the 5 doesn't affect a person.

I'm very curious how those on the other side will answer as I don't see a clear cut choice for them to make, and the reasons for whatever choice they do make should help to clarify their position on the topic of personhood (positions which I'm finding are based on reasoning that isn't very clear to me yet).

cheers,
Michael

Pseudonymph

Yes you did say he had. And yes I perused this thread and by found mostly inane one-liners about sperm and sandwiches and insults by Rick. That's not what I'm looking for.

Pseudonymph

Ok...Please respond to my question as to why we simply do not kill comatose people. They in essence do NOT have a mind. Unborn children have a better chance of becoming productive members or society.

I ask again...when does the fetus have what you call a "mind"?

And I'm still curious as to how you can continue to erect these rediculous strawmen about how people want to invade a womans privacy. I say again...the right to swing my fist(do what I want) ends where another's nose(rights of another) begins.

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: SirenSpeak ]</p>

Mageth

Ok...Please respond to my question as to why we simply do not kill comatose people. They in essence do NOT have a mind. Unborn children have a better chance of becoming productive members or society.

Huh? We do sometimes "kill" "comatose" people, if they "in essence" do not have a mind (i.e. are braindead or have little or no chance of meaningful recovery) by removing or withholding life support. That decision's usually left up to the family or other custodian. If a comatose person has a chance at all of awakening, then we determine that the person does indeed have a mind, and typically maintain life support.

Pseudonymph

Correct but totally unrelated. We let people in comas go because they have little chance of surviving on their own. Not because they are an incovienence or bother. An unborn child is almost certainly going to live and become a member of society.