Sklansky on Abortion

[Unabridged]

abortion is +EV and its not even close

[ 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.

[vulturesrow]

[ 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?

[ 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?

[vulturesrow]

[ 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 ___________". ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I already filled in those blanks for you.


[ QUOTE ]
Why was Terri Schiavo no longer a person (ie: dead)? "Because a person ____________".


[/ QUOTE ]

Had to quote this one separately because it goes towards what I am saying. Terry Schiavo was most certainly a person, albeit a very damaged one. Without getting into all the attendant political BS that went along with that situation, she certainly deserved to be treated with the fundamental respect and dignity that we afford people. And I am pretty sure that no one would argue otherwise. Why is that? Because we recognize her inherent capacity for personal acts, regardless of her then present inability to carry out those acts.

[ QUOTE ]
How does a single-celled organism have the capacity to speak, reason, or love?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are referring the beginning stages of human life. We know it has the capacity for personal acts because our knowledge based on experience and observation and because once he embryo is formed it is a complete being that will continue to develop along the normal path of human development

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way to discern a capacity for personal acts without observation. So if we suspected that this organism could be a person, than we would refrain from killing it until observation and experience demonstrated its personhood.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ___________". ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I already filled in those blanks for you.

[/ 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why was Terri Schiavo no longer a person (ie: dead)? "Because a person ____________".


[/ QUOTE ]

Had to quote this one separately because it goes towards what I am saying. Terry Schiavo was most certainly a person, albeit a very damaged one. Without getting into all the attendant political BS that went along with that situation, she certainly deserved to be treated with the fundamental respect and dignity that we afford people. And I am pretty sure that no one would argue otherwise. Why is that? Because we recognize her inherent capacity for personal acts, regardless of her then present inability to carry out those acts.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Terri was a person, then it should have been illegal for her family to bury her. But, it wasn't. Apparantly your criteria for personhood doesn't allow us to tell when someone is dead. That's not very useful. Thankfully, medical science has a bit more rational set of criteria to define personhood.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does a single-celled organism have the capacity to speak, reason, or love?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are referring the beginning stages of human life. We know it has the capacity for personal acts because our knowledge based on experience and observation and because once he embryo is formed it is a complete being that will continue to develop along the normal path of human development

[/ QUOTE ]

Potential is not actual.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way to discern a capacity for personal acts without observation. So if we suspected that this organism could be a person, than we would refrain from killing it until observation and experience demonstrated its personhood.

[/ 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fetus at this point is a tenth of an inch long. All of its systems are underdeveloped. It does not possess the intelligence of a human child yet. The only argument that I can see against this is religious in nature.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. I can make a complete argument against this without ever mentioning God. Granted it may get a bit philosophical, but its not religious per se.

[/ QUOTE ]

You failed to mention that your argument would be incoherent nonsense. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I posit that you are religious/spiritual. Am I right? Don't lie. Liars go to hell. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[vulturesrow]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Roman Catholic.


[ 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 ]
If Terri was a person, then it should have been illegal for her family to bury her. But, it wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing legality with moral correctness.

[ 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 ]
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 ]
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.

[vulturesrow]

[ 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. 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 ]
I posit that you are religious/spiritual. Am I right? Don't lie. Liars go to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

See the previous post.

[hmkpoker]

Vulturesrow,

Your debate with Kipbond suggests that the beginning and end of personhood is difficult to define, and seems somewhat arbitrary. Shades of grey. It seems necessary from a legal perspective to define such beginnings and ends, so that we know where to grant human rights and when to pull the plug.

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