|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2009 : 18:24:04 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote: | A human zygote is not a human. It's a potential human. And I think we can say that about any stage before viability, even if that line moves in the future. |
If we're talking biological terms, I agree about zygote, but not about embryo.
I think of it this way - I can say that I was once an embryo. When I was an embryo, no part of me as a discreet organism was part of anything else (where with the zygote the placenta is still part of it, and it might at this stage split into twins, resulting in two humans, not one.) I was never a sperm or an egg, because the sperm and egg which resulted in me were not sufficient by themselves. An embryo is sufficient by itself. Once it gets to that stage, it is on a biological path which leads to fetus, infant, child, adolescent, adult. I consider the embryonic stage to be the first stage in the biological existence of any discreet organism which has that stage as part of its normal life cycle. A chimp embryo is the most immature form of a chimp. A cat embryo is the most immature form of a cat. And likewise for humans. (I'm just explaining how this makes sense in my mind and with my understanding of biology.)
But again, I'll concede that its debatable since I don't have a room full of biologists who specialize in studying early life in mammals to ask what the standard consideration is, if there even is a standard consideration. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 05/15/2009 : 19:20:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Kil wrote: | A human zygote is not a human. It's a potential human. And I think we can say that about any stage before viability, even if that line moves in the future. |
If we're talking biological terms, I agree about zygote, but not about embryo.
I think of it this way - I can say that I was once an embryo. When I was an embryo, no part of me as a discreet organism was part of anything else (where with the zygote the placenta is still part of it, and it might at this stage split into twins, resulting in two humans, not one.) I was never a sperm or an egg, because the sperm and egg which resulted in me were not sufficient by themselves. An embryo is sufficient by itself. Once it gets to that stage, it is on a biological path which leads to fetus, infant, child, adolescent, adult. I consider the embryonic stage to be the first stage in the biological existence of any discreet organism which has that stage as part of its normal life cycle. A chimp embryo is the most immature form of a chimp. A cat embryo is the most immature form of a cat. And likewise for humans. (I'm just explaining how this makes sense in my mind and with my understanding of biology.)
But again, I'll concede that its debatable since I don't have a room full of biologists who specialize in studying early life in mammals to ask what the standard consideration is, if there even is a standard consideration.
|
Yeah, well, I'm sticking with viability. An embryo and a fetus is a potential human a until it can survive outside of the womb without its umbilical cord attached, which, by the way, in all mammals, is attached to the placenta.
There is no argument here. You can place humanness wherever you want to. But viability is generally considered the legal cut off point for an abortion to proceed unless the mothers life is at stake. Before that point, other than an unwillful termination of pregnancy, such as abuse to a pregnant woman that leads to a miscarriage or a medically necessary abortion, the termination of a "human life" is not considered. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2009 : 21:17:48 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
You are insisting that there is a singular definition of "person." I reject that notion because it is clear to me that among academics, bioethicists, and laymen, there is quite a bit of debate over how personhood should be defined. You are only right in that the one you are claiming to be the is the one that is most popular. Popularity alone is a pretty weak thing to appeal to, especially when it isn't overwhelming. Bush was the most popular candidate in the 2004 US Presidential Election, but he still barely won by over 50%.
|
There is clearly no point in trying to converse with you. You cry to forum mods if you think you have been insulted, you remain willfully ignorant of the very simple point I am making, and now you insist that because there is debate on the outer edges of the definition of "person" that the word lacks a definition.
If you recover from whatever mental illness you so obviously have, maybe discussion can again be possible. Until that time.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2009 : 01:06:53 [Permalink]
|
What is cynically hilarious about this thread is how we are negotiating about the definition of "definition."
We can stipulate stipulations at will, and definitions do shift over time and with changes in usage. We are constantly negotiating and renegotiating our definitions. I'm afraid this is one of those cases where we do understand your point and simply do not agree with it. Impossible, I know, but there it is.
And Dude, you are being very abusive of Marf. "Mental illness?" Just because she doesn't agree with you? C'mon!. Please cease with that. It really does not speak well of you.
Unless, of course, you have a different definition of "abuse" than the rest of us... |
--------------------------------------------------
- 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 05/16/2009 01:13:21 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2009 : 06:28:21 [Permalink]
|
So you too do not believe there is a useful definition of "person" avilable?
You disagree that there is an attempt by special interest groups to distort that commonly accepted definition, and unreasonably expand it to include human zygotes?
| We can stipulate stipulations at will |
If you want to remain rational you must justify your stipulations.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2009 : 06:32:06 [Permalink]
|
dglas said:
| And Dude, you are being very abusive of Marf. "Mental illness?" Just because she doesn't agree with you? |
Refusal to acknowledge some particular aspect of reality is a mental illness. Constantly insisting that there is no useful definition of "person", when there clearly is, qualifies. Because, you know, I can stipulate stipulations at will.
|
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 - 05/16/2009 : 10:02:15 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote: | But viability is generally considered the legal cut off point for an abortion to proceed unless the mothers life is at stake. |
The Roe v. Wade decision was largely made with consideration for the woman's health, not the festus's status. One of the arguments made for no regulation on first trimester abortions was that it was less riskier to the woman's health than for her to see the pregnancy through. And the regulation allowed in the second trimester was also primarily with consideration for the woman's health. All the decision said about third trimester was that states could ban it unless the woman's health (not life) was in danger. Kind of a grey area since really, what does health include? But it allowed state politicians to make social conservatives happy by officially banning third trimester abortions except in the case of the woman's life being in danger. The stupid thing about those bans is that they are entirely unnecessary. The only women who get third trimester abortions are ones with health concerns, and the only doctors who will agree to performing third trimester abortions are in cases where there is a health concern. But by banning it officially, it gives the impression that there are women and doctors who are willing to do abortions for superficial reasons.
I can't think of any laws which are explicitely protecting the unborn starting with viability. From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act (my emphasis in bold and italics)
| The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." |
Dude wrote: | Constantly insisting that there is no useful definition of "person", when there clearly is, qualifies. |
I never said there was no useful definition. Clearly they are useful enough for me to concede that the one you keep insisting is the definition is at least the most popular one. I've been bringing up limits to how useful these definitions are and also bringing up how contentious even the most popular definition is in both academia and in mainstream society. |
"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 05/16/2009 10:04:17 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2009 : 10:21:35 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | 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. |
I quoted the Fleischer article as an example of a secular argument for establishing a moral concept of personhood based not merely on certain capacities, but rather by virtue of his or her status as a "human being" (wherever we end up drawing that line: fertilized egg, embryo, fetus, viability, or after he or she is born.) Fleischer was clearly moved to write this article largely in response to discussions about neonaticide and whether there should be special exceptions for mothers who kill or abandon their newborn infants. Personally I side with Stephen Pinker that there should be legal exceptions which make sure that neonaticide is not considered murder. But I consider Fleischer's argument to be equally rational. The difference is in values, not rationality. |
"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 05/16/2009 10:22:20 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2009 : 20:29:43 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
| I never said there was no useful definition. Clearly they are useful enough for me to concede that the one you keep insisting is the definition is at least the most popular one. I've been bringing up limits to how useful these definitions are and also bringing up how contentious even the most popular definition is in both academia and in mainstream society. |
It is quite clear that my reference to "the definition" means a specific definition, not an exclusive definition.
This is obvious to any reasonable and rational person who reads this thread.
So you are either unreasonable and irrational, or you are intentionally lying and deliberately misrepresenting my position.
This is nothing new for you though. It is your argument of last resort, you use it all the time when you realize you can't make your own case. You have engaged in this type of straw man dishonesty in numerous threads. I guess I should expect nothing less from you.
|
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 - 05/17/2009 : 20:59:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
It is quite clear that my reference to "the definition" means a specific definition, not an exclusive definition.
This is obvious to any reasonable and rational person who reads this thread. |
One thing is obvious to this person (although I may be wrong): I don't think you've offered up a definition, Dude.
If my memory is correct, you've simply objected to definitions you disagree with, and pleaded with people to use a common one instead ("we all know..."). But if the common definition is never made explicit, then that's a problem.
The most-common definition is usually listed first in dictionaries, but "a living human" doesn't seem to help with this discussion.
So, which dog in this race is yours, Dude? |
- 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 - 05/17/2009 : 22:29:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
It is quite clear that my reference to "the definition" means a specific definition, not an exclusive definition.
This is obvious to any reasonable and rational person who reads this thread. |
One thing is obvious to this person (although I may be wrong): I don't think you've offered up a definition, Dude.
If my memory is correct, you've simply objected to definitions you disagree with, and pleaded with people to use a common one instead ("we all know..."). But if the common definition is never made explicit, then that's a problem.
The most-common definition is usually listed first in dictionaries, but "a living human" doesn't seem to help with this discussion.
So, which dog in this race is yours, Dude?
|
From this it is fairly obvious you have not been following this thread. I don't know if I should be cussing in frustration or telling you that you need to back up and actually read the thread and revise your remarks.
THE DEFINITION OF "PERSON" IS NOT FUCKING RELEVANT TO THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE!
Is there, or is there not, at least one definition of "person" that would be accepted by the overwhelming majority of people? (definitions are, afterall, nothing but a common agreement on the value/meaning of a given set of symbols)
The answer is, um, well... YES!
I have intentionally not included this definition because it will lead to the inevitable argument about the definition. I have, instead, attempted to provide an ostensive definition in the hope that we wouldn't be sidetracked into arguments about the specifics, because the specifics are not relevant to my point!
"a living human" is useless to this debate also. There is no concrete definition of "life", but I think you might agree that you are alive. (ostensive definition #2!)
But apparently no one participating in this sub-argument of this thread is capable of apprehending what I am saying, so here is a definition of "person" that almost no one would disagree with. No, it is not a comprehensive definition, nor is it the only definition.
PERSON- a : a being characterized by conscious apprehension, rationality, and a moral sense b : a being possessing or forming the subject of personality
|
That definition can obviously include any human from birth onward, with a few exceptions. Most people would probably be willing to expand the definition a little further, but the concensus drops rapidly after you back up to external viability.
My point, one more time, for effect, is this: If you wish to include something new in the definition (of any word, not just this one) you must make a case for that inclusion. You have to convince people to adopt your meaning/value for the symbol.
Only recently (since the argument began that lead to Roe v Wade) have people attempted to include a zygote or embryo in the definition of "person".
The only case they have is an assertion. I can say that a rock or tree is a person, but unless I can demonstrate that point no one would accept my expansion of the definition to include those things. The religious rightwingers have done everything in their power to avoid this particular debate, they just repeat their assertion endlessly and invoke emotional hyperbole. DON'T MURDER THE CHILDREN! (as if everyone allready agrees that a zygote is the equivilent of a child) And so on. Anything to avoid substantive debate about why a zygote should be considered a person.
If that doesn't communicate what I'm trying to say, then I give up.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2009 : 22:51:35 [Permalink]
|
  |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 01:42:27 [Permalink]
|
| If there are two replacements for Souter, both having equal legal skills, I'd rather see the judge who has more empathy. |
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. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 01:49:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
My point, one more time, for effect, is this: If you wish to include something new in the definition (of any word, not just this one) you must make a case for that inclusion. You have to convince people to adopt your meaning/value for the symbol. |
A person who believes a zygote or an embryo is a "person" probably always believed so. From their point of view it wouldn't seem like including something new into the definition.
Would it blow your mind to consider the possibility that pro-life people are sincere in believing a person is created at conception?
Originally posted by Dude
Only recently (since the argument began that lead to Roe v Wade) have people attempted to include a zygote or embryo in the definition of "person". |
I'm skeptical about that claim, but if true it's because the personhood of an embryo is only relevant in terms of consideration of abortion.
If the baby is wanted, everyone considers it a person from the moment it's detected.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 02:27:45 [Permalink]
|
mycroft said:
Would it blow your mind to consider the possibility that pro-life people are sincere in believing a person is created at conception?
|
If I were sincere in my belief that a rock is a person, would that make my belief worth seriously considering?
| A person who believes a zygote or an embryo is a "person" probably always believed so. From their point of view it wouldn't seem like including something new into the definition. |
Sure, because their religious leaders have been telling them this is the case for 40+ years. What possible relevance does your sentence have here?
If the baby is wanted, everyone considers it a person from the moment it's detected.
|
Nonsense. They hope it will become a person, but I doubt very many people are as traumatized by a miscarriage at 10 weeks as they are by the death of a newborn.
I'm skeptical about that claim, but if true it's because the personhood of an embryo is only relevant in terms of consideration of abortion.
|
I'm skeptical of your ability to actually be skeptical. Why don't you head back over to the thread where you were inventing straw-men out of Kil's posts and apologize for doing it?
When Roe v Wade was decided the (at the time) president of the Southern Baptist Convention is on record saying he was satisfied with the ruling.
Let me quote something from the wiki article on US abortion history:
A central issue in the Roe case (and in the wider abortion debate in general) is whether human life begins at conception, birth, or at some point in between. The Court declined to make an attempt at resolving this issue, noting: "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, "the unborn have never been recognized...as persons in the whole sense" and thus fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.
SCOTUS clearly recognizes that the attempt to categorize the unborn (and zygotes, and embryos) as persons... is unprecedented.
|
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!
