|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 11:28:07 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli wrote: | 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. |
So you are trying to define "personhood" for yourself in order to solidify an opinion on the abortion issue?
| It may be "cold" or "callous", though I detest that characterization of logic or abstract discussion, but that is all I am doing. |
Oh, I didn't mean that the abstract discussion itself sounded callous. Sorry about that. I meant that to make a special exception that unborn humans are not persons while born persons with the same amount of thinking capacity (or whatever other biological qualifiers are being used to define "personhood") sounds callous. It only doens't sound callous if we state quite clearly that the reason we're making an exception for unborn people is because of consideration for the mother carrying that embryo/fetus.
I guess what I'm really saying is that abortion boils down to a discussion of how the rights of the mother weigh against the rights of the embryo/fetus. To me, that is the only ethical argument.
The whole "personhood" concept just bothers me because since it is a non-objective concept, whatever objective standards you or I or anyone sets up for it is arbitrary and would be thus unconvincing. "Rights" on the other hand are something we regularly establish and defend with laws and so that discussion is much clearer and more accessible to anyone who wants to get in on the discussion. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/12/2009 : 12:30:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
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.
|
I swear, talking to you is like smashing your head into a wall repeatedly. The only thing I take away is a headache.
Am I unable to communicate this mindbogglingly simple point? Are you failing to grasp my intent because you are caught up in the other points of this topic? Are you being intentionally obtuse? Help me out here.
My point, once again, is only to say that: Anyone who asserts X is true is responsible for supporting that assertion with evidence or a sound and valid deductive argument. Those who dismiss unevidenced assertions are not required to prove that X is not true.
Do you apprehend my meaning and intent now? If not, I don't believe I can explain it any better.
Additionally: It would be interesting to read what evidence or argument this alleged "secular" individual used to support their claim that a fertilized egg is a person. I suspect that they have nothing more than the assertion itself, same as the "sectarian" imbeciles who make the same assertion.
| It is a biological reality that an embryo is a homo sapien (human) simply at a very early stage of development. |
That is a complete load of nonsense. Fully differentiated and mature cells can currently be pushed back into a "stem" cell state. There is a very real possibility that we could soon have the ability to force a skin cell to become a viable embryonic cell. To define personhood as a cell that can potentially become a fully grown human... is less than useful. You'd be guilty of murder 10,000 over every time you blow your nose.
| Obviously I don't agree with those arguments because I'm pro-choice. |
Really? That is an interesting statement... Are you sure you mean that as it sounds? Do you, perhaps, mean that you don't agree with those arguments because those arguments are nothing more than a series of assertions without evidence, and arguments based on demonstrably false premises?
|
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 - 05/12/2009 : 12:46:35 [Permalink]
|
I entirely agree that those who claim a fertilizer egg is a person have not proven it. I also do not think anyone has proven that only humans who are born are people. No, the latter does not make the former true or more valid, but both are unproven propositions. We know nothing for sure.
Marf, yes, I suppose I am trying to find a definition for myself, if somome agrees, great, but I don't really care. All I know is that I think it is an important point. I very well may never find a good enough answer framing the political issue this way, but it seems the most logical frame at the moment. |
"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 : 18:34:11 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | My point, once again, is only to say that: Anyone who asserts X is true is responsible for supporting that assertion with evidence or a sound and valid deductive argument. Those who dismiss unevidenced assertions are not required to prove that X is not true. |
Machi4velli wrote: | I entirely agree that those who claim a fertilizer egg is a person have not proven it. |
Again, "personhood" is not an objective term! Look, if we ask whether something is a maple tree, or a Sudan plated lizard, or a human (as in homo sapien), and specify that we're talking about biological definitions, then we already have some objective criteria to appeal to. And sure, there will always be some extremely rare oddities of nature that make it difficult to say whether something of the same species as its parents or something new, but defining a specific species is a hell of a lot more objective than defining whether something is a "person" or not. Before we can even discuss it we have to know what you mean by a "person". Machi4velli brought up the question of finding criteria for defining "personhood." In the context of that discussion, I brought up that there have been intellectuals who have suggested that we include all humans (that is, biological homo sapiens) as persons, regardless of their level of development or brain impairment/disability. Personally I think that defines personhood too widely, but it is an internally consistent concept.
And Dude, an embryo is not a single cell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo
| An embryo is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo from the moment of implantation until the end of the 8th week, whereafter it is instead called a fetus. |
That's WHY I used the term "embryo" and not "zygote" or "blastocyst." A human embryo is the most premature form of a discreet human being - that is simply biological fact.
That was my point about embryos being human as one possible criteria for a secular argument for personhood.
|
"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 : 18:35:43 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli wrote: | Marf, yes, I suppose I am trying to find a definition for myself, if somome agrees, great, but I don't really care. All I know is that I think it is an important point. I very well may never find a good enough answer framing the political issue this way, but it seems the most logical frame at the moment. |
For me, personhood is one of those things I gave up trying to come up with a universal and consistent definition of for myself. Now I just say that I know it when I see it. Good luck in your own search. |
"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 18:36:14 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 19:52:48 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
| Again, "personhood" is not an objective term! |
I think I have a concussion.... because this argument appears to be going in circles. /smash head into wall yet again
I'm not claiming there is any objective definition for the word. How you could possibly think I am is more than a little confounding.
When a person (lets use Robb as a specific example), when Robb says that a fertilized egg is a person, he is making a discrete distintion between personhood and non-personhood. He is imposing an arbitrary starting point to personhood. We'll call this an assertion.
Robb (or anyone else) has yet to provide evidence for why this single cell should be considered a person. Why not a sperm cell, or an egg? Why not wait until it achieves gastrulation? Or implantation?
The argument that it is a "potential" person fails as well, for reasons I have previously mentioned.
All of these assertions, presented without complelling evidence and/or argument, are nothing but empty arbitrary assertions. They should, therefore, be treated as such and dismissed out of hand.
Thats all I'm saying.
| That's WHY I used the term "embryo" and not "zygote" or "blastocyst." |
I'm aware of what an embryo is. There is a good deal of overlap in the terms. You can call a human fertilized egg a zygote, after the first cell division you can call it an embryo or a zygote for about 4 days. Then you can call it a blastocyst or an embryo.... and so on. Interestingly the outer layer cells of a blastocyst will actually become the placenta, further complicating any claim that an early stage embryo is a person. Kinda hard to claim personhood for a placenta, imo.
A human embryo is the most premature form of a discreet human being - that is simply biological fact.
|
"fact" accordinng to....? An embryo is genetically discreet from its parents, but so are gametes.
This line of argument for granting personhood to an embryo seems to be based entirely on the potential of that embryo to become a person. Well, the Tampa Bay Rays have the potential to win the World Series. If they don't, who should I contact for a season ticket refund?
|
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 : 20:40:18 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | I'm not claiming there is any objective definition for the word. How you could possibly think I am is more than a little confounding. |
You are asking for evidence why this or that should be considered a person. That implies that you and the person you are requesting evidence from share a common definition of “person” to appeal to. As far as I can tell, the participants of this conversation haven't established a common definition of "personhood" which to appeal to - we're still discussing various arbitrary factors which could be used to define it. Thus, your request for evidence of personhood seems a bit premature.
When a person (lets use Robb as a specific example), when Robb says that a fertilized egg is a person, he is making a discrete distintion between personhood and non-personhood. He is imposing an arbitrary starting point to personhood. We'll call this an assertion.
Robb (or anyone else) has yet to provide evidence for why this single cell should be considered a person. |
He doesn't have to provide evidence. Hypothetically, Robb's saying that a fertilized egg is a person means that Robb's definition of “person” includes human fertilized eggs. Your definition of “person” obviously doesn't include human fertilized eggs. But that doesn't mean Robb's definition of “person” is wrong since the very concept of “personhood” can vary and be that subjective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person#Who_is_a_person.3F
| I'm aware of what an embryo is. There is a good deal of overlap in the terms. You can call a human fertilized egg a zygote, after the first cell division you can call it an embryo or a zygote for about 4 days. Then you can call it a blastocyst or an embryo.... and so on. Interestingly the outer layer cells of a blastocyst will actually become the placenta, further complicating any claim that an early stage embryo is a person. Kinda hard to claim personhood for a placenta, imo. |
That isn't what I learned in my “Human Growth and Development” class in college, nor is it what Wikipedia describes in the articles defining “embryo”, “blastocyst” and “zygote”. To be clear, when I wrote “embryo” I meant the thing which implants and is the most premature form of a human being. I agree with you that a newly fertilized single-cell egg and even a blastocyst is debatable, but again, I didn't use those terms. I used the term “embryo.”
"fact" accordinng to....? An embryo is genetically discreet from its parents, but so are gametes.
This line of argument for granting personhood to an embryo seems to be based entirely on the potential of that embryo to become a person. Well, the Tampa Bay Rays have the potential to win the World Series. If they don't, who should I contact for a season ticket refund? |
Personhood aside, let's just deal with defining what is biologically a human being. We don't debate whether a child is really a human being just because he or she hasn't reached puberty and other significant stages of maturity yet. We don't say that a newborn baby has the potential to be a human being. A homo sapien is a homo sapien once the clump of cells has organized itself into a discreet form, which an embryo has. So an embryo is a very immature homo sapien. It is a human being. Can we agree on that?
If we can agree that an embryo is a discreet human being at its earliest stage of development, then that becomes one factor which can be reasonably considered when coming up wi |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 21:12:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by marfknox
...
|
But you know this, and are just being a deliberate jackass. Good job.
|
I object to your characterisation of marf's answer.
I thought she stated in no uncartain terms that personhood is arbitrary subjective definition.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 23:41:14 [Permalink]
|
Marf said:
| You are asking for evidence why this or that should be considered a person. |
Yes! Exactly so!
| That implies that you and the person you are requesting evidence from share a common definition of “person” to appeal to. |
(now I think I see the problem. I have failed to point out the obvious. My bad.  )
Of course! And WE DO HAVE THAT DEFINITION! There is no question that you, Marf, are a person! (is there? You could be one of those HuLu aliens...I dunno, it is verging on impossible to communicate with you some days...)
What needs to be clarified, and demonstrated, and evidenced, and argued... is WHY that definition should be expanded and extended to include an embryo.
He doesn't have to provide evidence. Hypothetically, Robb's saying that a fertilized egg is a person means that Robb's definition of “person” includes human fertilized eggs. Your definition of “person” obviously doesn't include human fertilized eggs. But that doesn't mean Robb's definition of “person” is wrong since the very concept of “personhood” can vary and be that subjective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person#Who_is_a_person.3F
|
Is there some grey area? Umm, duh? At some point between fertilization and external viability is the demarcation of personhood. Do I know where that is? No. No one does.
But the natural system is designed to reject a fairly large number of fertilized eggs. For whatever reason, fatal chromosomes, differentiation errors, signaling failures(if your hedgehogs aren't on the job, you're pretty well screwed!), etc. So it seems that you can make a strong case against calling an embryo a person, especially in the very early stages.
| That isn't what I learned in my “Human Growth and Development” class in college, |
The terms, as you have used them, are fine. The overlap I mentioned is there, but not really relevant to this conversation. We'll use them as you learned them.
Personhood aside, let's just deal with defining what is biologically a human being. We don't debate whether a child is really a human being just because he or she hasn't reached puberty and other significant stages of maturity yet. We don't say that a newborn baby has the potential to be a human being. A homo sapien is a homo sapien once the clump of cells has organized itself into a discreet form, which an embryo has. So an embryo is a very immature homo sapien. It is a human being. Can we agree on that?
|
No, we can't agree on that. That is the very point of contention in the broader argument this thread has drifted into.
Mab said:
I object to your characterisation of marf's answer.
I thought she stated in no uncartain terms that personhood is arbitrary subjective definition.
|
Perhaps you should re-read my posts prior to that one, and that particular post as well.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 04:55:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
No, we can't agree on that. That is the very point of contention in the broader argument this thread has drifted into. |
Actually, it looks like the terms "human being" and "person" are not being used as synonyms by marf. In other words, one can grant that a zygote is a human being without also granting that it's a person. The broader argument started over "personhood," not "human being-hood." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 06:29:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
No, we can't agree on that. That is the very point of contention in the broader argument this thread has drifted into. |
Actually, it looks like the terms "human being" and "person" are not being used as synonyms by marf. In other words, one can grant that a zygote is a human being without also granting that it's a person. The broader argument started over "personhood," not "human being-hood."
|
..... Well, "human being" is not a technical term used in biology. It is, however, commonly used the same way as "person".
A human zygote is not a human, it is a human zygote. Human and human zygote are not interchangeable terms.
Just like caterpillar and butterfly are not interchangeable terms.
They are different, and distinct, points in the life cycle of those organisms, yes.
So back to my original point... if you want to extend the definition (legal or philosophical) of "person" to include a human zygote or embryo, you have to explain why. Provide evidence and complelling argument.
|
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 |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 05/13/2009 06:35:29 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 07:53:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
So back to my original point... if you want to extend the definition (legal or philosophical) of "person" to include a human zygote or embryo, you have to explain why. Provide evidence and complelling argument.
|
So, you require that someone provide "evidence" for stipulations (which are negotiated things) that involve value-laden (verify a value please) political discourse?
Tell you what, why don't you provide your own stipulation of human being and be certain to provide evidence for that stipulation - not for determining when someone is a human being - but for the stipulation itself. Good luck.
Because that is what you seem to be requiring of others. What you are doing is quite akin to requiring someone to deductively prove an axiom. This is, it seems to me, an irrational requirement.
What sort of evidence would you accept for a restipulation? |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 05/13/2009 07:59:11 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 08:31:03 [Permalink]
|
Human beings and person are not necessarily the same.
You mentioned the Hulu aliens, albeit jokingly. They would not be human but, in my opinion, would be intelligent and should be considered persons.
I am a bit confused by Dude's post, first he argue that we have the definition of what a person is. Then, he says that we don't know when personhood begins. But, if we had such a definition, it would be a simple matter of applying it to foetus development...
I don't think we have the definition of what a person is. Sure, we have individual cases where we know, but, in the case of embryos, it is more fuzzy and we lack a clear objective definition.
I believe it is because it is a gradual continuous process. We can recognize a green light as being green, but sometime, depending on who you ask, this cyan is more bluish or more greenish...
|
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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 12:36:43 [Permalink]
|
In a philosophical thesis on this very subject, Theodor Geisel struggled with personhood and came to a startling conclusion. His book on the subject, published in 1954, sold in the millions and continues to be a favorite to this day.
In it he concluded that; “A person's a person, no matter how small."
Do to the somewhat nebulas nature of Geisel's writing style, scientists and theologians are still debating over Geisel's proposition, and whether he intended to present it as literal or figurative truth.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2009 : 13:05:59 [Permalink]
|
Or, until the fetus is viable outside the womb, it might be considered an endoparasite vectored by the male of the species. After it is viable, it quickly becomes exoparasitic upon the same host and it's vector.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Souter retires!
