Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-19-2005, 12:42 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

I'm not sure if you've given up on this discussion... but I'd still like to hear what criteria defines personhood? What is it that a human being must have in order to be considered a person (meaning, a living human being with the right to life)?

Whatever this criteria is, we should use it in determining when a person is dead. If someone meets this criteria, then it should be illegal to bury them in the ground. If they don't meet the criteria, then it should be legal to bury them in the ground.

So... what is it? When thinking about it, please keep in mind artificial organs (ie: heart), life-support machines, twinning/cloning, DNA-anomalies, and future medical technology (such as extra-utero fertilization and gestation).
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-20-2005, 01:52 PM
vulturesrow vulturesrow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

No I havent given up, thanks for the reminder. Simply put, personhood is having a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-20-2005, 03:12 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
No I havent given up, thanks for the reminder. Simply put, personhood is having a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You used the word "personal" in the definition of personhood. That's a bit troublesome, I'd think. And "performing... acts"... that's a bit... vague, too.

So, anyway, how is a zygote a person by that criteria, but a heart is not? How is a sperm not a person?

And how exactly would a doctor use that criteria to determine if someone is dead or alive?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-20-2005, 04:24 PM
vulturesrow vulturesrow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
ou used the word "personal" in the definition of personhood. That's a bit troublesome, I'd think. And "performing... acts"... that's a bit... vague, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal acts=speaking,reasoning, loving, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
So, anyway, how is a zygote a person by that criteria, but a heart is not? How is a sperm not a person?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully the answer to this should be obvious now.

[ QUOTE ]
And how exactly would a doctor use that criteria to determine if someone is dead or alive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does this matter?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-20-2005, 09:06 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ou used the word "personal" in the definition of personhood. That's a bit troublesome, I'd think. And "performing... acts"... that's a bit... vague, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal acts=speaking,reasoning, loving, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
So, anyway, how is a zygote a person by that criteria, but a heart is not? How is a sperm not a person?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully the answer to this should be obvious now.

[/ QUOTE ]

A zygote can't speak, reason, or love. I guess you are saying a zygote is not a person. I like your "reason" criteria, by the way. That's what I've been saying all along.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And how exactly would a doctor use that criteria to determine if someone is dead or alive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does this matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't want to bury living people -- that would be bad.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-20-2005, 11:26 PM
vulturesrow vulturesrow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
A zygote can't speak, reason, or love. I guess you are saying a zygote is not a person. I like your "reason" criteria, by the way. That's what I've been saying all along.

[/ QUOTE ]

you misunderstood my definition. I said has a natural inherent capacity. Whether it perform every personal act is immaterial. Do you understand the implications of trying to define someone's personhood by what functions he is able to perform or what he is physically capable of?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-21-2005, 11:51 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
you misunderstood my definition. I said has a natural inherent capacity. Whether it perform every personal act is immaterial. Do you understand the implications of trying to define someone's personhood by what functions he is able to perform or what he is physically capable of?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not limiting your criteria. But, don't you think we have to have some criteria? Why is a rock not a person? "Because a person __________". Why is a sperm not a person? "Because a person __________". Why is a tumor not a person? "Because a person ___________". Why was Terri Schiavo no longer a person (ie: dead)? "Because a person ____________".

Fill in the blanks.

How does a single-celled organism have the capacity to speak, reason, or love? We come accross some single-celled organism... and we need to know if it's OK to kill it. We don't want to commit murder. How do we know if this single-celled organism is a person or not?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.