Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OT?: are you a religious person? What faith/religion do you subscribe to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Roman Catholic.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense. When you said you could make the argument without reference to God, I was under the mistaken assumption that you didn't have a religious motive for making the argument. My apologies.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess your answer is: "a person has a natural, inherent capacity for speaking, reasoning, loving, etc".

I don't think a zygote fits that definition any more than a brain-dead person would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does. The capacity exists. The ability to do so may be undeveloped or damaged, but the capacity exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

ca·pac·i·ty
n.
1. Ability to perform or produce; capability.

It doesn't have the ability or capability to speak, reason, or love. If you mean that in the future it might be able to (if it ends up being one of the lucky zygotes that end up implanting in the uterine wall and developing without being miscarried), then a sperm might be able to also. With the additional "luck" of finding a suitable egg to implant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apparantly your criteria for personhood doesn't allow us to tell when someone is dead. That's not very useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is useful, it defines what beings are persons and thus worthy of certain fundamental rights. Thats what we are discussing, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

How does your criteria help determine when someone is dead? How can medical science use your criteria to determine when it would be OK to bury someone?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Potential is not actual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, so lets just allow the killing of infants too since they arent fully developed. Heck the brain doesnt finishing developing until later than infancy so we can pretty much take out any children that dont progress normally in their development.

[/ QUOTE ]

An infant has a functioning brain. It is a person.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, we have to observe it to find it if has the capacity for personal acts... but not be looking for some sort of "functionality". Interesting. I sure don't see how medical science would be able to use this criteria. "Doctor, please remove this tumor from my body..." "OK, but first let's observe it for 9 months to make sure it's not a person."

[/ QUOTE ]

The tumor illustration is wrong because we know from experience that a tumor will never exhibit any capacity for personal acts.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do we know the tumor isn't a person? Maybe it looks like a tumor at first... but after we observe it kinda looks like a person? (This isn't science fiction, by the way.)

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Your debate with Kipbond suggests that the beginning and end of personhood is difficult to define, and seems somewhat arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly is all that if you try to subscribe to some functional theory of personhood.

[ QUOTE ]
What criteria would you propose as best for determining at what times to legally grant or take away (at birth and death, respectively) personhood?

[/ QUOTE ]

Grant: At conception.
Take away: Death.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
How do we know the tumor isn't a person? Maybe it looks like a tumor at first... but after we observe it kinda looks like a person? (This isn't science fiction, by the way.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a little weak, and Vulturesrow isn't stupid. A tumor has never gone on to exhibit properties that most people would deem worthy of personhood, whereas fetuses (sp?) repeatedly have.

I address to you the same question that I asked Vulturesrow: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=3996895

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What criteria would you propose as best for determining at what times to legally grant or take away (at birth and death, respectively) personhood?

[/ QUOTE ]

Grant: At conception.
Take away: Death.

[/ QUOTE ]

I worded that question poorly, I apologize. Let me rephrase:

Why, from a social perspective, should personhood be granted at conception, and not, say, second or third trimester?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You failed to mention that your argument would be incoherent nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If thats the tack youd like to take than we can just call it quits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive me. I get a bit frustrated when someone indicates that they can make a rational argument, but then getting that argument out of them is harder than extracting teeth.

[ QUOTE ]
Ive put it as simply as I could but your responses show that you havent really grasped my arguments at all. This could be my fault for putting it clearly enough I admit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you outline your COMPLETE (your word) argument for the criteria you believe is best in determining personhood (beginning and end). Looking back at all of your posts, I try to piece together what you are saying. It would be helpful if you would outline it in one post, without leaving out any pertinent details (such as the definitions of "capacity" or "personal acts").

Please make sure that your argument addresses how this criteria would be used by medical science in determining when a person is no longer a person (ie: dead).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your debate with Kipbond suggests that the beginning and end of personhood is difficult to define, and seems somewhat arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly is all that if you try to subscribe to some functional theory of personhood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like "capacity for speaking, reasoning, and loving"? That sounds functional to me. But, maybe you can clearly explain what you mean? And if you don't have some sort of "functionality" in the criteria for personhood, I'm not sure how you can ever declare someone dead. I'm still waiting on that from you.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
That makes sense. When you said you could make the argument without reference to God, I was under the mistaken assumption that you didn't have a religious motive for making the argument. My apologies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I have been Catholic, I had pretty much dropped away from any religious belief for quite some time. I was always pro-life and it was actually something that helped bring me back to religion. My motive was to show that you didnt have to reference God or religion to make the argument against abortion.

[ QUOTE ]
ca·pac·i·ty
n.
1. Ability to perform or produce; capability.

It doesn't have the ability or capability to speak, reason, or love. If you mean that in the future it might be able to (if it ends up being one of the lucky zygotes that end up implanting in the uterine wall and developing without being miscarried), then a sperm might be able to also. With the additional "luck" of finding a suitable egg to implant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you ignored the capability part of your own definition. At conception, barring any accidental or intentional intervention in the developmental process, the capacity for all these things exist, it just isnt fully developed.

[ QUOTE ]
How does your criteria help determine when someone is dead? How can medical science use your criteria to determine when it would be OK to bury someone?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a person still has this capacity, even if it is damaged, they arent dead.

[ QUOTE ]
An infant has a functioning brain. It is a person.


[/ QUOTE ]

IF someone goes into a coma, are they no longer a person?

[ QUOTE ]
How do we know the tumor isn't a person? Maybe it looks like a tumor at first... but after we observe it kinda looks like a person? (This isn't science fiction, by the way.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I already answered this. Why does what it look like matter?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Like "capacity for speaking, reasoning, and loving"? That sounds functional to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why there's the qualifier "capacity". BTW, the definition you posted is probably not the one vulture is using. It's probably this one:
"Innate potential for growth, development, or accomplishment; faculty."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do we know the tumor isn't a person? Maybe it looks like a tumor at first... but after we observe it kinda looks like a person? (This isn't science fiction, by the way.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a little weak, and Vulturesrow isn't stupid. A tumor has never gone on to exhibit properties that most people would deem worthy of personhood, whereas fetuses (sp?) repeatedly have.

I address to you the same question that I asked Vulturesrow: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=3996895

[/ QUOTE ]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=teratoma
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a981002a.html

The point of this is that there is something that makes the combination of cells a person.

To answer your questions:

Grant: when a human body has a functioning cerebral cortex.
Revoke: when a human body no longer has a functioning cerebral cortex.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like "capacity for speaking, reasoning, and loving"? That sounds functional to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why there's the qualifier "capacity". BTW, the definition you posted is probably not the one vulture is using. It's probably this one:
"Innate potential for growth, development, or accomplishment; faculty."

[/ QUOTE ]

To have the capacity to speak, reason, and love... a human must have a working brain. If he is saying it has the "potential" to do those things, then I would say so does a sperm.