It's obvious Abortion is wrong

And rights are extended to those BORN or naturalized. So it is explicitly not pro-life.

 

So you didn't read the link?

The Law of the Land protects the reproductive rights of women under the 14th amendment.

 

Reviewing the many opportunities you have had to offer your definition of actual person-hood, it seems clear that you cannot define person-hood in a manner that fits your box.

The zygote, embryo, and fetus are separate stages (much like the acorn and oak tree are different stages) so you are, by default, acknowledging that a zygote is NOT an actual person. The zygote/embryo/fetus are just stages that potentially lead to the existence of an actual person.

Let's consider the acorn. If a squirrel drops an acorn above your septic tank, you might decide this is the wrong place and time to have a tree. Although you value the oak tree and might even want an oak tree in your backyard someday, you destroy that acorn. By doing so, you prevented an oak tree from being created. The acorn does not care. Destroying the acorn is only a problem you live by the mythology that it is wrong to prevent an oak tree from being created.

Now consider the embryo. The embryo has not reached the stage of actual person-hood. The embryo does not care if you destroy it, freeze it to preserve it for some future date, or continue gestation. It has no capacity to acquire and incorporate new experience. Like Terri Schaivo, the embryo has no capacity to call on prior experience. Abortion, prior to personhood, is only a problem if you live by some mythology that a woman is obligated to sacrifice her quality of life to complete gestation for every seed that sprouts inside her body. If that is your mythology, what is the authority that makes this demand?

 

The SCOTUS disagrees with you. Perhaps you should actually do some legal research before you post again on this subject.

 

Again, and for the last time, you continue to read what you want to see and not what I write.

I am not at all claiming a tree is a human being or a person. That's ridiculous to propose, and its even more foolish of you to assume and implies you are intentionally ignoring what I write.

I do not need to define what a person is because that is not the issue. We all agree that a normal human adult is a person, working backwards from that point at what moment does that human become a person? That is the question, not space aliens.

Its certainly a human 1 second after birth, almost all (except people like Peter Singer) agree on that, yet its brain is not fully formed, it has no sense of individualism, it will retain no memories of that birth or even its first year of life, it is completely dependent upon others for all its needs. It is vastly different physically, mentally, psychologically, than an adult, yet it is a human being and a person.

Based on the medical experience that babies are successfully born at 21 weeks, and that hospitals use 24 weeks (some a little earlier) as the point at which they consider delivery, I move to 21 weeks as declaring its a person. All babies that reach 21 weeks are persons.

Based on social, legal, and historical mores, I move the point of personhood to conception. I've already explained the reasoning, go back and read those posts if you have the courage.

The fertilized human egg, baby at 21 weeks, baby at birth, child, teen, adult, and elderly are all stages of a human and all are a "person".

Separate stages does not automatically imply they are not "persons". That's your claim, not mine.

 

Texas and other states only allow abortion until 20 weeks.

 

Why do you continue to perpetuate this lie?


http://www.spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm - 0% survival at 21 weeks or less.

 

You were only correct on one thing: ""Its certainly a human 1 second after birth""......and it's human (adjective) long before that.



""""Based on social, legal, and historical mores, I move the point of personhood to conception. I've already explained the reasoning, go back and read those posts if you have the courage."""


I read all your posts and never saw any credible "reasoning" that a fetus is a person. Simply saying so doesn't make it one.









Why do you insist that a fetus has more rights than anyone else?

 

I said you are using the same terms you would use for any other living organism. I realize you are not DIRECTLY claiming a tree is a person, but when you justify zygote==person based on a reason that applies to other organisms that are clearly NOT people... I will point that out.

You claim "I do not need to define what a person is because that is not the issue. We all agree that a normal human adult is a person, working backwards from that point at what moment does that human become a person?"

That is incorrect:
(1) Person-hood is the primary issue. If our discernment of person-hood is wrong we may (a) intrude on the freedom of an actual person on behalf of a person who does not now and might never exist, or (b) intrude on the freedom of a person who deserves protection.
(2) We do not agree that every adult is a person. Terri Schaivo was a person until her brain ceased to sustain her personhood. Her former body was still an adult human.

The fact that SOME premature babies are born (becoming persons at that moment) and survive at 21 weeks does not mean every fetus will survive at that early stage. If you feel that strongly about it, then you and your pro-life friends should establish a foundation so any woman who wants an abortion after 21 weeks can have an induced labor and give the premature infant to your foundation so you can care for it. If you don't really feel that strongly about it then mind your own business and let the pregnant woman mind hers.

Your evidence addresses viability and then you claim the zygote (which is not viable) will BECOME a person, so it IS a person (or words to that effect) but as I pointed out earlier your fallacy is that it will also become dead at some point in the future. You have no evidence that the zygote is a person (although you claim it without evidence time after time). For example:

"The fertilized human egg, baby at 21 weeks, baby at birth, child, teen, adult, and elderly are all stages of a human and all are a "person"."
That (above) claim is quoted from you but you failed to produce evidence that a fertilized egg IS a person. Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

The term "Person" can be defined as whatever an individual wants it to be. For this reason is it often used by "pro life " people when they begin to realize their position amounts to ego driven self important ignorance. It seldom even gets to discussing how they couldn't care less about the "Person" once it no longer lives inside an actual citizen of the United States.

 

A lot of people define person-hood based on the most recent poster or bumper sticker they have seen. Is that really the way to handle such an important issue?

Most philosophers consider these traits to be significant in order to distinguish between persons and non-persons:
1. consciousness (the capacity to experience the environment in a meaningful way)
2. reasoning (the capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)
3. self-motivated activity (relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)
4. capacity to communicate, by some means, dynamically constructed messages (distinct from pre-programmed, instinctive, messages)
5. the presence of self-concepts and self-awareness

Can you think of any aspect of person-hood that do not require an activated mind?

If not, then a human becomes a person when the mind is activated (which happens at birth).

 

Correct, as I have stated repeatedly, "personhood" is not provable, it is not an objective scientific condition but a subjective social state. You cannot prove personhood, science cannot, all you can do is set subjective conditions, and science can verify the existence of some of those conditions.

I did not state that every adult is a person, I stated that a normal adult human is a person. Once again you prove you do not read, you do not think, and you are a waste of time.

 

With respect to "normal adult human" I assumed you meant all adult humans... otherwise you are excluding every adult with an abnormality. Am I less of a person if I was born without arms? Am I less of a person if I was born with a defective heart and needed an immediate transplant? How do you define "normal" so it includes all persons (and excludes only non-persons)?

Furthermore, Terri Schaivo's body was relatively normal. Her body was so "normal" that her family (and even some professionals) were convinced she still recognized people who entered the room. This reminds us how easily even professionals can be tricked by the reflex movements of the fetus in the womb. The autopsy confirmed that her brain was no longer functional.

Once you establish parameters for things that are (or are not) persons, then you can figure out if a fetus is in (or out) of that group. I think we can agree (for example) that a brick could not possibly be a person.

You have spent a lot of time talking about viability. I think we can all agree that dead things are not persons, but not all living things are persons, are they? If not, then viability is not sufficient to prove person-hood.

Most people agree that a person must have a brain. I believe every characteristics we associate with person-hood is impossible before the brain is activated and impossible after the brain is deactivated. Can you name a characteristic of person-hood that falls outside that timeline?

 

Being a member of the species homo sapien is a characteristic of personhood which has nothing to do with having an "activated" brain (as in a preborn baby).

 

First of all, the label "homo sapiens" is an arbitrary label. I assume you mean DNA. Problems are:

Too inclusive on one hand: Terri Schaivo's body was still a living member of the species but was no longer a person because the brain (long before the feeding tube was removed) was no longer active.

Too exclusive on the other hand: There are living organisms we consider to have person-hood although their DNA does not fit the pattern of "normal" homo sapien DNA. That's not even considering gorillas which might eventually be considered to have person-hood if we were not prejudiced toward our own species, and aliens if we ever encounter any.

Homo sapiens DNA does not prove person-hood. Try again?

 

WHAT?!!!! Every adult ISN'T a person? WTF are they?

Then you say "personhood isn't provable but you have contended a FETUS is a person numerous times....

 

Every sperm is sacred!

 

You asked, "Can you name a characteristic of person-hood that falls outside that timeline?"

I answered, "Being a member of the species homo sapien ".

Then you extrapolate to something you did not ask.

Not only do you not read my posts, you don't even read your own. Strike 3 for you. BTW, why are you here if you don't even read?

 

Could ask the same of you....

""""With respect to "normal adult human" I assumed you meant all adult humans... otherwise you are excluding every adult with an abnormality. Am I less of a person if I was born without arms? Am I less of a person if I was born with a defective heart and needed an immediate transplant? How do you define "normal" so it includes all persons (and excludes only non-persons)?""""







""""WHAT?!!!! Every adult ISN'T a person? WTF are they?

Then you say "personhood isn't provable but you have contended a FETUS is a person numerous times.... """

 

Membership in the species homo sapiens is not a characteristic of person-hood, so you did not provide a proper answer. It is true that all currently acknowledged persons happen to be considered members of the species homo sapiens, but person-hood is not limited to homo sapiens and certainly not limited to organisms with "normal" (23-chromosomes, all matching typical homo sapiens) DNA.

For example, homo habilis and homo erectus had different DNA from homo sapiens, but experts studying those fossils believe they had the capacity for communication and evidence associated with the fossils indicates they were able to use tools. So right here on planet earth we have evidence of persons who were not homo sapiens.

Furthermore, people with genetic defects do not fit typical DNA patterns for homo sapiens (e.g. Down Syndrome) and I assume you still count them as having person-hood although they do not fit your DNA template.

Therefore DNA (i.e. membership in the species homo sapiens) is not a characteristic of person-hood. It is a characteristic of being a human, but not of person-hood. You think it was an extrapolation because pro-lifers are think being "human" is what should be protected but if that was the case the hospital staff should be charged with murder for terminating the life of Terri Schaivo's body because it was still a human body. They were not thus charged because EVERYBODY (except pro-lifers) understands person-hood is different from the living human body.

 

Actually the active brain has everything to do with personhood in the eyes of the law and of society

 

. . . . The parasitic embryo becomes a Fetal "person" when nourished by the placenta which also produces progesterone rather than the monthly corpus luteum. The abortion-promoting philosophers who claim as listed above are dogmatic and ignorant for requiring traits not required of incapacitated people like Terri Schiavo or Curtis J. Neeley Jr. as addressed further below.

Rule 1. A trait of a person not requiring an activated mind is human dignity.
Rule 2. A trait of a complete Fetal person not requiring an activated mind is use of external energy sources verses use of an internally stored energy source for continued growth.

. . . . Human dignity is a trait of a person granted by an external power, which may be measured, weighed, and acknowledged or be considered inadequate for continuing living. e.g. Terri.Schiavo, Osama 'bin-Ladin.

. . . . Teri Schiavo was not murdered or even "killed" but was allowed to expire.naturally. Arguments could be made the physicians violated their Hippocratic oaths and each can still be charged with negligent homicide. No jury, however, would convict. Terri Schiavo was given too much honorable human dignity (See Rule 1) to be allowed to exist as a vegetable. Her prior spouse authorized the artificial introduction of external energy to be discontinued. (See Ruler 2).

. . . . Recently (2013) it was discovered the father's genes control creation of the placenta. It is impossible to know exactly when a person first exists but it is known to occur between 8 - 14 weeks. At this point the dignity of the human Fetus must be weighed against the dignity of the host female.

. . . . Dignity is granted by the same external force that grants the right to free speech and autonomy. This human dignity may be acknowledged by humans or be ignored or be otherwise limited.

. . . . I was unresponsive and in a coma on a respirator and feeding tube for over six weeks. My ex-spouse did a DNR just as Terri Schiavo's spouse once did. I have a severe traumatic brain injury with physical compression injuries in the frontal lobe of my brain. I had an unimaginable, indescribable delusion. There are no human words to describe my delusion. I awoke with knowledge of history, law, and other things, which may never be discussed.
. . . . I will write a book to explain parts as allowed. I will not legally pursue GOOG or MSFT further. Their role in my book will be unpleasant.
Humanity may acknowledge the dignity granted by another with a standard Act of Conscience or other Act. This would end frivolous "fetacide" and would not need to be an Amendment just as acknowledging the definition of "good behavior" would end the senescent SCOTUS oligarchy with a simple majority vote. Being an active Oligarch beyond the age of retirement (65) is violation of the right to be tried by "peers" and is clearly bad behavior.
Science knows when two "persons" have become another "person". Person-hood beginning is too obvious to still debate although it is the debate for deciding the next President.

 

Personally (as I have argued under a different topic) I believe the capacity to acquire and retain experience is a critical aspect of person-hood. The list I found (in my earlier post) touched on acquisition of experience (i.e. consciousness) and the other four aspects imply some capacity to retain experience, but I would prefer to see retention called out with more clarity. That is what I see as a distinct difference between person who is incapacitated, and a fetus. The coma victim (for example) has already acquired some number of experiences since the moment of birth and has retained some number of those experiences. We protect the coma victim because he or she is already a person with unique experience (person-hood) and we hope they will recover and resume that person-hood. When we realize (as in the case of Terri Schaivo) that the mind has lost the capacity to process experience (current or former) we can terminate the body because the person is already gone.

Regarding human dignity - That could mean an individual's sense of self-respect and self-worth (which would be impossible for a fetus, or even a newborn to comprehend). It could also mean a group's sense of self-respect and self-worth. I am guessing based on your statement "Human dignity is a trait of a person granted by an external power" that you mean a group's sense of self-respect and self-worth. If society (or some higher power?) is conveying "human dignity" upon the individual, that is a characteristic of society... not a characteristic of the individual. An person cannot concieve of his or her own human dignity without an active mind.

Regarding use of external energy sources verses use of an internally stored energy source for continued growth - I believe this is true of every organism (I cannot think of any exceptions off the top of my head). That means it is a characteristic of life - not a characteristic of person-hood.

To be a characteristic of person-hood it should be something that is true for persons but not true for non-persons. For example, "persons have two legs" does not work because (a) there are other organisms with two legs and (b) some persons do not have two legs. The goal (for pro-lifers) is to try to identify some characteristic of person-hood that does not depend on the activated mind.

I am glad to hear that you recovered from your coma. Doctors can transplant a lot of different organs in order to preserve an existing person but so far they cannot transplant a brain (and if they did, I believe the person-hood of the original owner would follow the brain). Maybe someday we will be able to clone an entire replacement body and map the complete state of a person's mind (thoughts and memories) to export it to that cloned brain so the individual person can survive beyond the lifespan of the human body.

 

I will make this very simple, maybe you will understand, probably not. I rejected your personal concept of "personhood", no matter how many times you repeat it, I still reject it. No matter how many times you apply your personal definition of personhood to my argument, I still reject your definition. If you want to change my mind, you will have to understand my concept of personhood and frame your arguments around that understanding. Until you reach that point, you are wasting your time, and mine - so if you don't get a reply from me in the future, then you know you still have a closed mind.

- - - Updated - - -

Already discussed, read the thread, you are 100's of posts behind.

 

My personal definition of person-hood is not significantly different from the definition I find in most philosophical discussions. In the abortion debate I focus more on the ability to acquire, retain, and use experience (which is implied by the five typical aspects of person-hood) because it explains the typical distinction between the fetus and the coma victim.

Your personal definition of person-hood seems to be, instead, a definition of the homo sapiens organism (the physical body). By your definition we would be obligated to continue supporting coma victims indefinitely, all fertility doctors would be in jail for murdering extra fertilized eggs, and we would withhold person-hood from people with genetic defects. We might even have to prosecute surgeons who remove living human tissue from a patient because that living tissue has homo sapiens DNA and would have continued to grow if not for the act of the surgeon. In other words, your definition of person-hood is totally inadequate and conflicts with the views of most philosophers (except the close minded philosophers you might find on pro-life websites).

To accomplish your goal, you need a definition that sets the bar so low a zygote will qualify, but high enough to disqualify all those organisms that you do not want to be considered persons. Good luck with that.