|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 21:18:51 [Permalink]
|
Is anyone really even disagreeing about anything here? People mostly (1) want abortion to be a legal option, (2) don't want it to be a legal option, or (1) with qualifiers. No mainstream people support abortions when they can reasonably be avoided (though the definition of "reasonably" may vary from person to person). I would not say no one because one person can theoretically support anything (we cannot prove nonexistence of any opinion, just that it is not mainstream). Population control advocates may be considered "pro-abortion" because they support its occurrence.
I don't think the argument is nearly as easy to solve rationally (opposing all abortion does not imply irrationality). It is not clearly established that a fetus (or unborn person or pre-person or glob of cells or whatever, please do not argue this phrase) is not in fact a person. If it qualifies as a person, I hold all of the social arguments to be irrelevant because we don't generally kill (innocent) people regardless of the good it may produce for society, and not many of us would probably support killing (or terminating or whatever) for that purpose.
I am not arguing it is actually a person, but it needs to be established that it is not -- even further, that it is acceptable to terminate/kill/etc it, whatever it is. Animals are not people and we have laws against killing many of them in certain ways.
I am not supporting anything (other than consistency), I am personally largely undecided on the topic. I struggle a find a non-arbitrary definition of a "person" that includes all humans who have been born but excludes "pre-persons" and few, if any, animals. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/11/2009 21:26:01 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 21:26:42 [Permalink]
|
Machi4elli wrote: | I am not arguing it is actually a person, but it needs to be established that it is not -- even further, that it is acceptable to terminate/kill/etc it, whatever it is. |
"Personhood" is not an objective term. Different people mean different things by that term. Some people will argue that an embryo/fetus becomes a "person" and some particular stage of development by one set of standards, and another person will make a different argument because they are using different standards.
You cannot separate the "personhood" issue from the issue that it (the embryo or fetus) is physically dependent on the mother as an incubator, and here's why: any biological standards we could come up with with establish "personhood" such as brain waves, ability to feel pain, heart beat, hearing, etc. could be logically used to argue that people in comas, very severely retarded people, and newborn babies are not persons.
And yes, we have standards regulating how animals can be killed, but we also don't hesitate to put the well being of a human over the life of any animal, so I'm not sure how that fits into the conversation.
Abortion cannot be discussed sensibly without consideration for the reality that it is only an issue because embryos and fetuses on dependent on the biological mother until they are born. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/11/2009 21:27:46 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/11/2009 : 21:32:28 [Permalink]
|
Your thinking is backwards.
The positive assertion "a fertilized egg is a person" is what needs to be supported, and clearly it isn't. Not for lack of trying, mind you, but no definition of personhood (except the one pulled out of the ass of some religious zealot) would grant that status to a single cell, or even 10,000 cells.
So if you want to stick with reason, logic, and evidence the conclusion of this argument can only end one way. There is no evidence to suggest a fertilized egg is a person. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is not a person.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 21:52:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Your thinking is backwards.
The positive assertion "a fertilized egg is a person" is what needs to be supported, and clearly it isn't. Not for lack of trying, mind you, but no definition of personhood (except the one pulled out of the ass of some religious zealot) would grant that status to a single cell, or even 10,000 cells.
So if you want to stick with reason, logic, and evidence the conclusion of this argument can only end one way. There is no evidence to suggest a fertilized egg is a person. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is not a person. |
Who said I limited it to a single cell or 10,000 cells? Suppose a fetus that was conceived 8 months and 29 days ago? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 22:01:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
"Personhood" is not an objective term. Different people mean different things by that term. Some people will argue that an embryo/fetus becomes a "person" and some particular stage of development by one set of standards, and another person will make a different argument because they are using different standards. |
My goal is to establish something objective.
| You cannot separate the "personhood" issue from the issue that it (the embryo or fetus) is physically dependent on the mother as an incubator, and here's why: any biological standards we could come up with with establish "personhood" such as brain waves, ability to feel pain, heart beat, hearing, etc. could be logically used to argue that people in comas, very severely retarded people, and newborn babies are not persons. |
A definition that includes the examples you gave and excludes a fetus would be nice. We could say "people who can support themselves or cannot support themselves, but were born," but is that not arbitrary?
| And yes, we have standards regulating how animals can be killed, but we also don't hesitate to put the well being of a human over the life of any animal, so I'm not sure how that fits into the conversation. |
Attempted objective definitions of personhood sometimes include some or all animals, which I do not find desirable. That is my only point about animals.
Abortion cannot be discussed sensibly without consideration for the reality that it is only an issue because embryos and fetuses on dependent on the biological mother until they are born.
|
Can a late-term fetus not support itself? (the standard argument continuation being "How late?" "Does that even matter?") |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 22:03:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Your thinking is backwards. |
What makes your argument the default opinion? What places the burden of establishing other opinions on others? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 22:45:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Dude
Your thinking is backwards. |
What makes your argument the default opinion? What places the burden of establishing other opinions on others?
|
Don't lay your ignorance down as some kind of rationalization. If you don't understand simple logic, that is a problem you should seek to rectify.
I'll give you the basics, with small words and simple illustrations:
The burden of proof always lies with the person making the positive assertion. You get accused of a crime, the state has to prove you did it, they have to present evidence that indicates your guilt. You don't have to prove you didn't (arguing against their evidence is not what I'm talking about, in case you are confused by this), inn fact if the state has no evidence implicating you, they can't even bring you to trial.
You claim that the world was created in 6 literal days, you are obligated to prove your assertion. No one is required to prove you wrong.
You claim that a fertilized egg is a person, you are required to present evidence backing your claim. Especially when your intent is to enact laws based on this claim. Your claim can be dismissed without evidence, no one is required to prove you wrong.
Why? Because logically there is only one way to "prove" a negative. By proving a mutually exclusive positive. Anyone can just vomit up some arbitrary assertion, but an assertion must be accompanied by evidence if you plan to take action as if that assertion were true.
That is the case if you intend to remain rational, logical, and reassonable anyway.
Anyone making the assertion that X (X being whatever arbitrary state of fetal developement you choose) is a person need to support that assertion with evidence.
Hope that helps.
You also said:
| Who said I limited it to a single cell or 10,000 cells? Suppose a fetus that was conceived 8 months and 29 days ago? |
Now you are entering into the realm of irrational hysteria. No state in the US allows abortions after the first trimester unless the life of the mother is at serious risk. And that is well before the minimum point of viability outside the womb.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 07:36:54 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: Your thinking is backwards.
The positive assertion "a fertilized egg is a person" is what needs to be supported, and clearly it isn't. Not for lack of trying, mind you, but no definition of personhood (except the one pulled out of the ass of some religious zealot) would grant that status to a single cell, or even 10,000 cells.
So if you want to stick with reason, logic, and evidence the conclusion of this argument can only end one way. There is no evidence to suggest a fertilized egg is a person. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is not a person. |
Since the concept of "personhood" is not an objective term, you are mistaken. In fact, there have been non-religious zealots who have concluded that a fertilized human egg should be considered a "person" by virtue of the fact that it is human, which is quite undeniable. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 07:58:06 [Permalink]
|
| My goal is to establish something objective. |
An “objective” standard established by majority or other social consensus is still arbitrary. What is the point of developing such a philosophical standard? Isn't it much more practical to deal with this particular issue (abortion) on its own?
This is why I like the current legal system which prevents the law from interfering in the first trimester, allows state regulation in the second trimester, and allows states to ban third trimester abortions except in the case of the woman's health being in danger. Because abortion will always be a complex ethical decision with a lot of grey areas, and thus should primarily be up to the pregnant woman and her doctor to deal with.
| A definition that includes the examples you gave and excludes a fetus would be nice. We could say "people who can support themselves or cannot support themselves, but were born," but is that not arbitrary? |
That sounds callous. It is much more persuasively sympathetic when we include a reference to the right of the pregnant woman.
But again, I find such a philosophical exercise ultimately impractical and not of much use.
| Attempted objective definitions of personhood sometimes include some or all animals, which I do not find desirable. That is my only point about animals. |
Yes, and other people would want to include some animals in this concept. I still don't see how you'd ever get a reasonable social consensus on this concept of “personhood.”
| Can a late-term fetus not support itself? (the standard argument continuation being "How late?" "Does that even matter?") |
Late term fetuses are still a grey area for several reasons. While they often do survive if they are born after 6 months, their chance of survival and well-being is lower. Women who get abortions in the third trimester are an incredibly low percentage and they get them due to medical complications connected to their own health. We don't have healthy, 7 months pregnant women dance into abortion clinics saying, “Ohhh, I changed my mind. Tee hee!”
I've always had a strong opinion on this issue, but now that I'm pregnant my opinions are even stronger. I find it appalling that this issue is still so hotly debated. These matters are so incredibly personal to each woman's life – these sort of cold, detached philosophical discussions just make me want to yack.
To give an example, because I wanted to be pregnant, my fetus is called “the baby” by my family members and friends. When it comes to law and philosophy, I do not consider a 2nd trimester fetus to have the rights or status of a “baby”, but given the context of our situation, this is how I and my family and friends relate to this particular fetus. Similarly, people who love their pets like family members often have no ethical qualms eating meat. When I got to first hear the heartbeat (at around 12 weeks) a friend of mine said "I just don't see how people can say that's not a baby. If it has a heartbeat, it's a baby." And I was honestly pretty annoyed she said that 'cause she was taking a very personal experience and extending it to philosophy and politics. This forced me to snap out of my reverie of giddiness over hearing my own embryo's heartbeat, put on another hat, and say to my friend, "I have to disagree. The heart is just one of the first organs to work. I don't think a 12 week old embryo should be considered a full baby. I don't think of it that way."
See how this is annoying? The personal experiences of people are |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/12/2009 08:01:46 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 09:18:44 [Permalink]
|
My own personal opinions: Who cares about heart. Frogs and fish have them and one heart can be passed along to another individual or replaced by some astute mechanics.
What matters, to me, is brain development and activity. That's what make us human.
And that does not happen until quite after the embryo stage, and after the first trimester limit.
After all, almost 25% of the pregnancy spontaneously abort before the sixth week. In many case, it is a problem of chromosomal abnormality. The embryo was never viable to begin with, the embryo was just too primitive to show it.
Obviously, nature does not consider embryos to be 'real persons'. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 10:58:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dude wrote: Your thinking is backwards.
The positive assertion "a fertilized egg is a person" is what needs to be supported, and clearly it isn't. Not for lack of trying, mind you, but no definition of personhood (except the one pulled out of the ass of some religious zealot) would grant that status to a single cell, or even 10,000 cells.
So if you want to stick with reason, logic, and evidence the conclusion of this argument can only end one way. There is no evidence to suggest a fertilized egg is a person. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is not a person. |
Since the concept of "personhood" is not an objective term, you are mistaken. In fact, there have been non-religious zealots who have concluded that a fertilized human egg should be considered a "person" by virtue of the fact that it is human, which is quite undeniable.
|
As usual, a day late and a dollar short. Honestly, I expect nothing better from you these days.
The topic has changed into a discussion about the definition of personhood. Try to follow me now..... Anyone who intends to define what constitutes a person is obligated to present evidence to support their assertion that X is, in fact, a person. That is the only rational method for establishing a new definition. But you know this, and are just being a deliberate jackass. Good job.
Anyone who asserts that a fertilized egg is a person is going to have to do a lot better than "because its human". The urine I just flushed contains undeniably living human cells. Many more cells than a fertilized egg (which is just one cell). But if you define "person" as the equivilent of a "live human cell", you'd have to grant personhood rights to your feces, mucus, tears, saliva, and whatever else. It could become criminal to flush the toilet!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 11:00:06 [Permalink]
|
Simon: | My own personal opinions: Who cares about heart. Frogs and fish have them and one heart can be passed along to another individual or replaced by some astute mechanics. |
Well, exactly! My point was that the heart beating is objectively not that big a deal, but if you are someone like me and my husband who were hearing the heartbeat of our future child for the first time, that is a moving emotional experience. Given the high emotions involved in this issue, I don't think the conceptual discussion over "what defines personhood" is especially useful. I think it is must most useful to discuss the real life impact of different types of legal abortion and access to legal abortion.
| What matters, to me, is brain development and activity. That's what make us human. |
I completely disagree. The stage of brain development that a third trimester fetus or newborn infant possesses is less than that of an adult gorilla. What makes us "human" in a biological sense is our genetic code. The reason we're talking about "personhood" is because merely being human isn't enough to bestow full human rights on, say, a human embryo.
| After all, almost 25% of the pregnancy spontaneously abort before the sixth week. |
Actually, that's a really low estimate. It's probably much higher. In a lot of cases, it happens so early that the woman doesn't even realize she was pregnant. Being aware of these statistics, I was careful to emotionally distance myself from the embryo during the first trimester and remind myself that it was more of a potentiality and hope rather than reality. But that's just the emotional/personal side again. Clearly this is a society-wide response since I've never heard of anyone having a full-out funeral for a first trimester miscarriage. Not to say such an event isn't a sad event which is traumatic for many women, but it doesn't compare to the death of a newborn baby or even third trimester fetus.
In many case, it is a problem of chromosomal abnormality. The embryo was never viable to begin with, the embryo was just too primitive to show it.
Obviously, nature does not consider embryos to be 'real persons'. |
Well, that's sort of like saying that nature didn't think the victims of natural disasters were "real persons". Nature doesn't give a crap about who is a person or not. Nature brings death and destruction whenever and wherever circumstances dictate. In that sense, the number of miscarriages shouldn't matter. What we really need to look at is the human response to miscarriages. As I said, people don't have funerals for miscarriages. We clearly don't think of miscarriages as deaths of people in the same way that we see a hurricane disaster as deaths of people. That is what is ethically significant here. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 11:01:33 [Permalink]
|
Dude, I am not making a claim. I am saying you have no basis upon which to claim your idea is correct. I said it needs to be established.
Marf, I agree it is an impractical discussion, I am not necessarily seeking consensus or a particular policy outcome so much as trying to create a better arguments and find some consistent position on the issue. I don't really care about majority opinions in general in trying to form an opinion. It may be "cold" or "callous", though I detest that characterization of logic or abstract discussion, but that is all I am doing. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 11:16:18 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Anyone who asserts that a fertilized egg is a person is going to have to do a lot better than "because its human". |
I apologize for not making my point more clear. I have read at least one article from a secular point of view about defining "personhood" which made the argument that a fertilized egg should be considered as a person because it is not just human, but a human.
Yes, human urine is human. And a man's sperm and woman's egg are also human. But soon after conception we have an embryo. And embryo is an extremely immature human being. I'm just talking biology, not ethics, not personhood. It is a biological reality that an embryo is a homo sapien (human) simply at a very early stage of development.
My point was simply that there is a secular argument to be made and which has been made in intellectual circles that if we define personhood at a later stage of human development that we are treading onto an ethically dangerous slippery slope. Obviously I don't agree with those arguments because I'm pro-choice. I was simply pointing out that there have been secular arguments against legal abortion.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/12/2009 11:17:11 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 11:16:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Dude, I am not making a claim. I am saying you have no basis upon which to claim your idea is correct. I said it needs to be established.
|
You miss my point, still.
Honestly, it isn't that difficult a concept to grasp.
No one is obligated to establish what is not a person. Those who intend to know what is a person are the ones who hold the burden of proof.
It is a very simple logical concept, and it underpins many things in science, law, and common sense.
If I say that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor no one is obligated to prove me wrong. In fact, if I present that claim with no evidence to support it, the proper response is to dismiss the claim entirely. So when I make the claim I have to bring in the abundant evidence (ERV Insertions, chromosome 2, morphology, genetic similarity, and the host of other things that make the case).
If anyone steps up with the claim that a fertilized egg is a person, they must prove it. No one is obligated to prove them wrong. Not if you intend to remain inside the bounds of reason, logic, and common sense.
I'm not saying you are making that claim. I'm saying that you have left the rational world behind when you said anyone is responsible for proving that a fertilized egg is not a person. In the absence of anything but an assertion, the claim of personhood can be dismissed. There is no requirement to engage in a logical "impossibility" (proving the negative). (the "" is because you can, technically, prove a negative by proving a mutually exclusive positive, but that tend to lend itself to absurdity)
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Souter retires!
