Sklansky on Abortion

[peritonlogon]

I haven't read the entire thread but...I'd say I disagree with about 100% of what you said here.
[ QUOTE ]
Kip,
I've read most of this thread and have to tell you that if you are looking for a solid, undebatable definition of what constitutes a person or human existence you will not find it.

[/ QUOTE ]
First, if you are looking for undebatable definitions to solve a problem you really aren't going to solve too many... indeed, the only (pretty much) undebatable definitions are synthetic and, as such, apply to what ever system has been constructed, where undeniably A=A and only A=A. So pretty much what I mean is that this simply doesn't cut it as a refutation or even as an argument.
[ QUOTE ]

Some of the greatest minds on earth have thought deeply on this for years, even before science FURTHER complicated the issue.

Nobody really has a good answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is false, there are plenty of good answers and the fact that many people choose not to be exposed to them or that not everyone can agree is no argument not debate it.
The primary reason why people can't agree on what constitues a person or human existence is that these are very manifold things. And, usually the debate involves people confusing the respects in which a person is said to be constituted. By this I mean, people are usually not debating the same thing, while they are using the same words, they are talking past eachother...Apples and Oranges if you get me... "fruit is read and green" "no fruit is orange."

[ QUOTE ]
The best Descartes could do was "I think, hence I am."


[/ QUOTE ]
This quote comes in two places in the course of Descartes' writings and both spots it is used as a fundamental premise from which he is able do deduce God, that God is benevolent, and therefore that the world isn't fake. Has no bearing on what Descartes thought constitued a person.
[ QUOTE ]

That having been said, coming back to the topic of abortion, your position seems to be "since nobody can effectively prove that a fetus is a person it's ok to abort them"

Why is the opposite not correct? Until you can prove a fetus is NOT a person you shouldn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not how things work in American Democracy and, in most of the world. Where I'm from things are permitted until they're prohibited and before things are prohibited there needs to be a reason for the prohibition. Not, as you're proposing, that a thing ought to be prohibited until proof comes that it can be allowed.
[ QUOTE ]

Tangling up the complex issue of abortion with an impossible to answer question ("What constitutes human existence/personhood") just makes things more difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is really the crux of the argument for the vast majority of people walking about the States, and is therefore what ought to be discussed.
[ QUOTE ]

We as a society must come to definitive answers when it comes to things, even if no such philosophical definitive exists.
Thus I believe having a debate about existence, which spirals further and further into the great beyond, does not contribute much to the question at hand.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I certainly agree that we as a society must come up with a sort of an answer, that is where the power to enact and enforce the law comes from. But debating the various aspects of the issue, would seem to me the only way to arive at this and is the only course of action that contributes to answering the question at hand.

This is an argument tactic that is becomeing more and more fasionable amongst conservatives and people in general, it can be summed up like this "there is a debate over this thing therefore there is no definitive conclusion, therefore whatever point you may make is irrelevant since you can't come up with proof to the level of perfection that mathematics is held to, and since your point is irrelevant we shouldn't talk about it."

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the opposite not correct? Until you can prove a fetus is NOT a person you shouldn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Another thought on this... (even though I'm not talking about proofs, I'm talking about rational agreements and understanding):

How exactly would you prove (or show) that a fetus is not a person? That's basically what I'm asking us to do: decide what criteria denotes personhood. Then, if a fetus has that, it would be a person; if it doesn't, then it wouldn't be a person.

Has anyone proved that a chicken is not a person? Or a rock? If not, should we eat chickens or break rocks unless we can prove they are not people? Obviously, we have some ideas of what constitutes personhood, and use that for justifying our position in killing chickens.

But one more step... people are buried every day. We say they are not longer "alive" (or, no longer "persons" meaning they do not have the "right to life"). How do we know? If we aren't sure, then shouldn't we try to maintain their bodies, just in case they are alive? Surely buring them in the ground before we know they are no longer people would be murder?

My point is, we DO have a working theory on what consitutes personhood. I'm trying to get us to think about it rationally, to see if it makes sense, and then use that in determining if and when abortion should be legal.