Determining Personhood or Being Meaningfully Human

[Beechwell]

Precisely that we can look at a fertilized egg implanted in a woman and say with relative certainty: "this will become a human being unless we interfere with it."

actually, we still need to interfere with it a whole lot for it to become a human being. at least the mother does. and that does not only include feeding it, but also providing environmental information the cells need to eventually form a human being.

We cannot do this with an unfertilized egg or with an isolated sperm. Teenage girls don't fear getting pregnant every month if they're not having sex. Teenage boys aren't afraid that their sperm will create a baby unless they're having sex.

some vertebrates actually can do this (certain lizards and also some kinds of hammerhead shark), produce an offspring only from an unfertilized egg.
I'm certain with some biological engineering this would also be principally possible for humans.

generally I think this purely biological discussion of human life is misplaced in this discussion. noone really values human life for biological reasons, but for their emotional capacity and because we are socially connected.

 

[yasic]

Precisely that we can look at a fertilized egg implanted in a woman and say with relative certainty: "this will become a human being unless we interfere with it."

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the majority (something like 80%) of implanted eggs spontaneously miscarry?

We cannot do this with an unfertilized egg or with an isolated sperm. Teenage girls don't fear getting pregnant every month if they're not having sex. Teenage boys aren't afraid that their sperm will create a baby unless they're having sex.

I can't think of a clearer way to say it. If you don't agree then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The problem is that you are not using "Something is a person if it will in the future having human experiences" but "Something is a person if the chances of it having human experiences in the future are above X, where X is an arbitrary percentage". To me this simply neither a good nor meaningful way of defining who is or who is not a person. So yeah we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[yasic]

Irrational people and insane people are still people. Newborn babies are also people.

Irrational, insane, and newborn humans all have rational thought and complex higher emotions.

 

[brightlights]

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the majority (something like 80%) of implanted eggs spontaneously miscarry?

After the heartbeat appears (usually 8 weeks after implantation) the rate of miscarriage is 5%. Before this there's something like a 30-50% chance of miscarriage.

Most people don't know they're pregnant until 8 weeks. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed after the egg is successfully implanted and the probability of it becoming a person is certain. That's why the abortion is performed.

 

[brightlights]

actually, we still need to interfere with it a whole lot for it to become a human being. at least the mother does. and that does not only include feeding it, but also providing environmental information the cells need to eventually form a human being.

"Interfere" is hardly the word I'd use here. What you're describing is "carrying on with normal life".

 

[brightlights]

The problem is that you are not using "Something is a person if it will in the future having human experiences" but "Something is a person if the chances of it having human experiences in the future are above X, where X is an arbitrary percentage". To me this simply neither a good nor meaningful way of defining who is or who is not a person. So yeah we will have to agree to disagree.

Marquis' argument is not seeking to define personhood, but to claim that abortion is immoral because the fetus in question has future human experiences.

 

[yasic]

Marquis' argument is not seeking to define personhood, but to claim that abortion is immoral because the fetus in question has future human experiences.

My argument is that having a sustenance have an X% chance of having future human experiences does not make it valuable.

Water that we drink has a close to 100% chance of having a future human experience as it will become part of us. I still gladly boil water.

 

[brightlights]

My argument is that having a sustenance have an X% chance of having future human experiences does not make it valuable.

You're right. It just means it would be wrong to kill it. Especially if it had 100% chance of having future human experiences.

 

[yasic]

You're right. It just means it would be wrong to kill it. Especially if it had 100% chance of having future human experiences.

I disagree, I don't see inherent value in future human experiences except to those that already have some to begin with.

Instead I see value in protecting those who have experienced humanity, namely love, remorse, joy and pain. I see value in protecting those with memories to have more of them.

 

[brightlights]

I disagree, I don't see inherent value in future human experiences except to those that already have some to begin with.

Instead I see value in protecting those who have experienced humanity, namely love, remorse, joy and pain. I see value in protecting those with memories to have more of them.

I suppose you don't have a problem with infanticide, then?

 

[quilbilly]

I suppose you don't have a problem with infanticide, then?

An infant has life experience from the first breath. I suppose you do have a problem with that

 

[brightlights]

An infant has life experience from the first breath. I suppose you do have a problem with that

Ok well what about aborting the baby right before the mother goes into labor. Is that ok?

 

[quilbilly]

Ok well what about aborting the baby right before the mother goes into labor. Is that ok?

No I don't think that is "ok".

 

[yasic]

Sorry, I misread the post, please ignore this one.

 

[brightlights]

No I don't think that is "ok".

Neither do I!

 

[quilbilly]

Neither do I!

But I'm only a man so I don't have any say in the matter. Course if I was the doctor and the baby was one of those horrible deformed crack babies I might get to busy caring for the mother and forget to help the baby draw that first breath

 

[brightlights]

But I'm only a man so I don't have any say in the matter.

Moral truths, if they are true, aren't gender dependent.

 

[quatona]

My only advantage is that my definition makes sense! If you want to argue with it then show me why it doesn't work.

I didn´t say it didn´t work.

For clarity: An implanted, fertilized egg can be morally distinguished from an unfertilized egg or isolated sperm because the implanted egg has future human experiences while the other things do not.

Not?

In any case, even when we point out a difference between two things, the idea that this difference is morally relevant (or here even the morally determining) needs substantiation.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't know if you knew this or not, but God is immaterial and does not breath.

The understanding of Genesis 2:7 is not limited to a material breath, but an immaterial breath.
That "breath" was a living soul.

It should also be noted that Jewish Law does not consider a human being a person until 30 days after they are born.

This law was presumably set up this way due to high infant mortality back in ancient times. However it's a bit of an eye opener for all those that say life begins at conception.

 

[brightlights]

In any case, even when we point out a difference between two things, the idea that this difference is morally relevant (or here even the morally determining) needs substantiation.

I have already fairly substantiated my claim in this thread.