Child sacrifice in America dealt with by heaven

[InterestedAtheist]

SPF, Selene, it's been a most interesting conversation, but I'm going to have to leave it now. Pressures of work have risen over the last few days, and I don't have the leisure to stay on CF for the moment. Thank you both for your interesting comments; maybe see you another time.

 

[Selene03]

SPF, Selene, it's been a most interesting conversation, but I'm going to have to leave it now. Pressures of work have risen over the last few days, and I don't have the leisure to stay on CF for the moment. Thank you both for your interesting comments; maybe see you another time.

Take care, my brother. Don't overstress yourself. Too much stress isn't good for the brain.

 

[Chriliman]

Life begins at conception, but personhood does not. Consider this argument, which I posted to dad above:

1. What is a human person? Anything possessing human DNA? Obviously not. A scrap of skin, an appendix, an arm or leg - these things are not people.
2. Well then, a living human body? That sounds closer. But consider this: imagine a "brain dead" human body in which the brain is completely, medically dead, totally incapable of recovery, but the body can be sustained - and could, in theory, live indefinitely. Would you say this body, without a brain, was a person? I think we would all agree that it is not.
3. Therefore, we arrive at the conclusion that "personhood" resides in the possession of a working brain (if you disagree with this, please explain why). To forestall some objections I have heard to this, people who are asleep, stupid, mentally disabled or suffering from dementia still possess the ability to think, and so qualify as persons.
4. A baby does qualify as a person before it is born, as the brain is developed and active. However, that is no problem, as abortions are not performed during this time. All abortions (with exceptions for emergencies, such as when the baby is crippled to such a point that life would be a living hell for them) take place long before the baby's brain has begun to work, or is even present.
6. Therefore, abortions are not murder. They are the aborting (stopping development) of a potential human person, yes, but not yet a person.

In point 2 you say the brain dead human body is totally incapable of recovery, but that's not the case with a human fetus. Therefore your argument is invalid. It would be more comparable to consider whether it's ok to kill someone who's had an injuring causing them to be brain dead, but will most likely recover(like a human fetus will most likely develop a brain).

The answer is an obvious no.

 

[SPF]

In point 2 you say the brain dead human body is totally incapable of recovery, but that's not the case with a human fetus. Therefore your argument is invalid. It would be more comparable to consider whether it's ok to kill someone who's had an injuring causing them to be brain dead, but will most likely recover(like a human fetus will most likely develop a brain).

The answer is an obvious no.

This is spot on. The entire foundation of the argument that InterestedAtheist uses is based upon the fallacy known as a categorical mistake.

A brain-dead human is a dead human. Dead humans are not comparable to living and growing humans in the way that InterestedAtheist is attempting to do.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

In point 2 you say the brain dead human body is totally incapable of recovery, but that's not the case with a human fetus. Therefore your argument is invalid. It would be more comparable to consider whether it's ok to kill someone who's had an injuring causing them to be brain dead, but will most likely recover(like a human fetus will most likely develop a brain).

The answer is an obvious no.

I quite agree with you. But in that case, if a person can return, then obviously we should do everything we can to help them to. If a person can be recovered, then they never stopped existing, just like an unconscious person does not become a non-person.
A fetus, on the other hand not only is not a person, but has never been one. Therefore, abortion is merely preventing a potential person from becoming an actual person, and no more of crime than doing the same thing by using contraception, or by deciding not to have sex in order to keep egg and sperm from creating a person.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

This is spot on. The entire foundation of the argument that InterestedAtheist uses is based upon the fallacy known as a categorical mistake.

A brain-dead human is a dead human. Dead humans are not comparable to living and growing humans in the way that InterestedAtheist is attempting to do.

You make a good point, SPF, but that's not the foundation of the argument. The foundation is that everything that makes us a person is the ability to think. If not, then where in your body does your personhood reside? Considering that you can survive the loss of any part of your body except your brain, the answer is obviously in a working brain. Which a fetus does not have. Therefore, it is nothing but a 'meat puppet ', waiting for the person to grow inside it.

 

[SPF]

A fetus, on the other hand not only is not a person, but has never been one. Therefore, abortion is merely preventing a potential person from becoming an actual person

This of course is a textbook illustration of the fallacy known as "Begging the Question"

InterestedAtheist is assuming there actually is a difference between a human being and a human person. But the very point is that there is no such thing and that the distinction is a fabricated and subjective idea.

 

[Chriliman]

I quite agree with you. But in that case, if a person can return, then obviously we should do everything we can to help them to. If a person can be recovered, then they never stopped existing, just like an unconscious person does not become a non-person.

I don't think comparing a brain dead person to a fetus is the way to go, since the former is basically a dead person with virtually no potential of human life again, while the latter is a living human being with potential of full human life.

A fetus, on the other hand not only is not a person, but has never been one. Therefore, abortion is merely preventing a potential person from becoming an actual person, and no more of crime than doing the same thing by using contraception, or by deciding not to have sex in order to keep egg and sperm from creating a person.

I agree that if you don't want a fetus/baby, the best thing to do is try to avoid making one. But avoiding making one is certainly not the same as destroying one. I think we should try to be very forgiving of those who do this, while urging everyone to be responsible with the power they have in their reproductive organs!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

This of course is a textbook illustration of the fallacy known as "Begging the Question"

InterestedAtheist is assuming there actually is a difference between a human being and a human person. But the very point is that there is no such thing and that the distinction is a fabricated and subjective idea.

This is, of course, incorrect. I'm not assuming that there is a difference between a human being and a human person. I'm explaining what that difference is. And all you are doing is saying "No, you're wrong; human being = human person". The unfounded assertion is on your side. If you can't back up your argument, then mine stands.

To state it again:
Is there any part of your body which will lead to a loss of personhood if it is removed? Your arm? Your heart? Your bone marrow? If any of these are transplanted, do you become a different person? No? In that case, where does your personhood reside?
If your answer is not "your personhood resides solely in your functioning brain," then explain to me how you would not be a different person if your brain was replaced by that of a different person's.
This isn't the first time you've been asked this question, and you've avoided it by either ignoring it or by claiming it doesn't count, as it is "science fiction". But in fact, it is simply the logical consequence of the proposition, and if you want to deny it, you must explain how it does not logically follow.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

To borrow an argument from this source, which sets out the proposition neatly:

"First, it is commonly held that a person's personality is contained in the brain. For example, nobody seriously thinks that one somehow would retain their personality if their brain were removed or somehow wiped clean.
Furthermore, if one considered a situation with two people (Jeff and Clara) and a transplant surgery that moved Jeff's brain to Clara's body, nobody seriously believes that Clara's body retains Clara's personality. Indeed, it is obvious that the situation would be that Jeff's personality has moved to Clara's body. In fact, it would be more accurate to refer to the entity that inhabits Clara's body as "Jeff" and to consider that person to BE Jeff, but simply in a different "container." Similarly, if Jeff's brain and conscious were somehow recorded into a computer where he retained communicative capabilities, we would consider the computer to be Jeff."
You may say this is just "science fiction", but in fact it is a logical consequence of the argument, and you will have to deal with it if you want to show how the argument is incorrect.

The argument shows that it is the brain that constitutes the person, and therefore a fetus, lacking a working brain, is not yet a person:
"Until the capability for conscious thought exists, a fetus cannot have the same moral status as a person. Doubtless, the fetus is a potential person. But potentiality is not the same as actuality, and a person who only potentially exists cannot claim moral rights which match or supercede the rights of an actual, living, conscious person. (The language is imprecise here; in truth, a person who only potentially exists does not exist, and a non-existent person cannot claim anything. There is no one to make the claim.) Therefore, no harm is done when a woman aborts a pregnancy before this point. There is no person for harm to be done to."

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I don't think comparing a brain dead person to a fetus is the way to go, since the former is basically a dead person with virtually no potential of human life again, while the latter is a living human being with potential of full human life.

But those aren't relevant differences to our discussion. The point is that we recognise that, no matter what signs of life remain, personhood vanishes with the brain. A beating heart, breathing lungs, coursing blood - these things do not constitute personhood. Only a working brain does (is the argument), and a fetus does not have one.

I agree that if you don't want a fetus/baby, the best thing to do is try to avoid making one. But avoiding making one is certainly not the same as destroying one.

If you argue that a fetus is not a person, then an abortion is no more morally consequential than any other means of contraception.

I think we should try to be very forgiving of those who do this, while urging everyone to be responsible with the power they have in their reproductive organs!

While this attitude does you credit, I have to ask: do you believe that women who have an abortion are murderers - or, at best, accessories to murder?
That is the logical conclusion that "life (and personhood) begins at conception" inevitably leads to, and yet few pro-lifers would seem to support it. Logically, a woman who has an abortion should be put on trial, found guilty of murder, and punished accordingly. And yet few pro-lifers seem to be calling for this.

 

[Chriliman]

But those aren't relevant differences to our discussion. The point is that we recognise that, no matter what signs of life remain, personhood vanishes with the brain. A beating heart, breathing lungs, coursing blood - these things do not constitute personhood. Only a working brain does (is the argument), and a fetus does not have one.

Ok, but with a fetus were talking about something that has started the process of developing a human brain and whether it’s ok to terminate that process. I think in the majority of cases we’d say it’s not ok, but there are cases where it may be necessary. IOW, an abortion should be an absolute last resort and not something we should ever consider as trivial or as just another form of contraception.

I dont necessarily think the woman who have abortions are murderers in the normal sense of the word, but I do call into question the humanity/morality of those who unflinchingly terminate unborn human life. Normally, we consider unborn babies as precious gifts, something which should be preserved and allowed to grow and flourish. Unfortunately, mistakes happen and what’s normally considered a precious gift gets rejected as garbage.

Abortions should be avoided as much as possible and that means more responsible use of reproductive organs.

 

[SPF]

InterestedAtheist said: A fetus, on the other hand not only is not a person, but has never been one. Therefore, abortion is merely preventing a potential person from becoming an actual person

I then pointed out that this is a textbook case of "begging the question" because we see IA making an unsupported assertion that a fetus is not a person. His conclusion is therefore that abortion is preventing a non-person from becoming a person.

Despite his inability to see it, this is indeed exactly what begging the question looks like. He has made essentially a naked assertion with no support and then provided a conclusion based upon his unsupported assertion.

You'll see this tactic a lot from him.

human being = human person". The unfounded assertion is on your side. If you can't back up your argument, then mine stands.

He then goes on to say this. Again, it is worth pointing out that scientifically there is no sort of distinction to be found between a human being and a human person. The distinction is subjective, it's arbitrarily determined by the person making the argument that a distinction should exist. The burden of proof then rests with the person making the claim.

I'm on the side of science on this one, which is that a new and unique individual comes into existence and begins a 25 year developmental period at fertilization. They are a human being at all stages of development. This notion that there exists a distinction between a human being and a human person is the claim that needs to be supported and defended. IA has failed to satisfactorily do this.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I have to point out that you haven't yet answered my questions, and I'd like you to.
I suspect that the reason you continually avoid them is because they exposes the flaw in your logic, and you are unable to address it.
So:

To state it again:
Is there any part of your body which will lead to a loss of personhood if it is removed? Your arm? Your heart? Your bone marrow? If any of these are transplanted, do you become a different person? No? In that case, where does your personhood reside?
If your answer is not "your personhood resides solely in your functioning brain," then explain to me how you would not be a different person if your brain was replaced by that of a different person's.
This isn't the first time you've been asked this question, and you've avoided it by either ignoring it or by claiming it doesn't count, as it is "science fiction". But in fact, it is simply the logical consequence of the proposition, and if you want to deny it, you must explain how it does not logically follow.

 

[SPF]

There's no need to post the exact same reply in multiple threads.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

There's no need to post the exact same reply in multiple threads.

I'm getting tired of asking questions and not getting answers.