subbie - When Does Personhood Begin?

[_honorentheos]

I can't speak for EA, but I suspect he is making counter arguments to this line of reasoning to point out it's logical flaws while not actually holding those positions himself. It's all built on the assumption the if one assumes we are talking about a human child being killed at the center of the argument, then it becomes very difficult to defend the act of medical abortion from an ethical position. Since conservatives generally do assume we are talking about killing a human child, the argument is going to face ethical challenges.

That said, I do think there is a point to be made related to the problem of evil when one is not debating abortion but the nature of a proposed God behind these acts. If we're talking about amoral nature only, there isn't really much that could be said that EA hasn't point out. If we're talking about an omniscient and omnipotent creator-God, then one has to wonder what purpose murdering all those babies serves in God's divine plan...

Anyway, it is much more logical to focus on the question of what makes a certain bundle of cells a person that is being murdered when their activity is medically halted while other cells with human DNA are ok to murder. It's not about life alone, nor about having human DNA. What makes something a person is fundamentally important to the discussion to be able to have a coherent position.

[_EAllusion]

Not really. The Chicago argument is raised in the context of people complaining about civil rights violations, typically innocent black people being murdered by agents of the state with no disincentive or repercussions to be had. Right Wingers bringing up Chicago are just misrepresenting the argument. The number of black citizens (not working for the state and are typically engaging in criminal activity) killing each other in Chicago s a completely different matter.

There are several variations of how this argument is used, but the most common one currently is that more black people in Chicago are being murdered than by police, so if you cared about murder of blacks, you'd be spending your time on that issue instead of the police killing story du jour. Therefore, you don't really care about the murder of black people and are merely using it as a cudgel in an anti-police agenda.

[_Chap]

It's a necessary evil to being able to reproduce.

Briefly, yes.

One of my aims is to point to the fact that almost everybody has some circumstances under which they agree that there can be something viewed as an 'evil' (though that's not my favourite word in moments of calm discussion), but which one may reasonably decide to accept because it enables one to attain to some other desirable goal.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

.That said, I do think there is a point to be made related to the problem of evil when one is not debating abortion but the nature of a proposed God behind these acts. If we're talking about amoral nature only, there isn't really much that could be said that EA hasn't point out. If we're talking about an omniscient and omnipotent creator-God, then one has to wonder what purpose murdering all those babies serves in God's divine plan...

I'm glad you pointed this out. I'm absolutely coming at it from this angle. I'm surprised ea blithely pushed past this context (I'm not, he's desperate to be right even when there's no need to be), and in doing so makes hard-to-compare analogies that don't really work in context to the discussion.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

If you want to use the existence of premature death as an example of the problem of evil, then you don't need to discuss anything prenatally at all. There's nothing surprising about the existence of people dying of natural causes and either responses to the problem of evil work for them or they don't.

As a specific argument against anything a pro-lifer thinks outside of challenging their likely belief in the God of classical theism, it fails, and you wouldn't need to bring up the issue of abortion at all to make the most famous atheological argument in existence.

It's also worth noting that while religious convictions have a lot to do with pro-life beliefs, pro-lifers tend to offer and say they believe secular arguments against abortion. The public debate occurs largely without reference to or a need to take a position on the existence of God.

[_subgenius]

Your first post was vague. You asked why liberals could not share a consistent belief in a right to life or not. It's been pointed out that "a right to life" in the broad way your phrased it in your first post is something you don't believe in because life is too broad of a subject for anyone to believe is universally a right all things have.

How blatantly dishonest, or ignorant, of you. My statement is not at all vague in the context of this thread and/or your OP. For you to suggest that "Right to Life" could be misunderstood as the right for e.coli to exist on my finger is a deflection at best....moronic at actual. Nothing in my original statement or the OP can reasonably be used to infer a "broader" and "universal" implication.
If you somehow considered that my statement and subsequent question was casting a net over squirrels, squids, and the lot then there is no sense in discussing the matter with you because you're nothing more than sophomaniac.

Simple question, subbie - what traits are necessary for something to be recognized as a human being?

Simple answer : a human being is a homo sapien, and may be found either living or dead.

Now a simple question for you...do you believe in a basic human right for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

[_honorentheos]

Lol, weren't you the dumb idiot who called EA's definition circular?

Yeah, a person has a right to life. But unless it shares the traits I described earlier it isn't a person. I mean, you're so dumb your definition explicitly included corpses but you want to demand they have a right to life? God you suck at thinking.

[_EAllusion]

So the abortion debate is famously complex in phil of ethics, though philosophers have a strong preference for pro-choice positions over all. The single strongest argument for the pro-choice position revolves around the idea that fetuses, or at least fetuses in early development, aren't things that have moral status such that they deserve legal protections. Pro-life arguments commonly, though not always, assert that they do. Whether or not you use the word "person" is irrelevant because person in this context is just the preferred term to refer to a being that has moral status such that it deserves legal protection. Call it whatever you want and you're still having the same argument.

The personhood debate is really challenging and there is no position that does not have some flaws that can be pointed to. That said, the arguments that a blastocyst has rights are notoriously bad. I think subs knows he's in over his head, so he dodges the issue entirely and just asserts his stance in an act of transparent question-begging.

Since Sub sucks at this, I'd like to helpfully point out that the better pro-life arguments ditch trying to argue that a 2 month old fetus is a person. Instead they argue that potential personhood should be morally and legally relevant. These are a stronger series of arguments, ultimately ones that fail in my opinion, but probably where Subs would be wise to spend his time.

So with that said, I have a thought experiment:

Suppose scientists invent a serum that when drank by a cat, it makes the cat a person. That is to say, whatever traits make something a person, this serum makes cats have them. All cats have the potential to become people now.

Suppose further that I stumble upon a cat about the drink the serum out of a randomly placed bowl. I kick the bowl over so the cat can't drink the serum. Was this morally wrong of me? Should it be considered akin to killing a person? Should my action be criminal?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

If the serum is your hot alpha ejaculate and the cat is a lusty wanton hussy of an egg then I think your yet another not quite on target analogy can work.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

If the serum is your hot alpha ejaculate and the cat is a lusty wanton hussy of an egg then I think your yet another not quite on target analogy can work.

- Doc

I'm borrowing and slightly reworking a thought experiment from an old, heavily cited argument used in the abortion debate from a philosopher named Michael Tooley. You wouldn't be the first to write him an angry letter, but feel free to explain to him what's what.

Anyway, whatever you think is significant about the act of sex in creating a person, it's not actually relevant to the argument at hand. I was going somewhere with it.