Determining Personhood or Being Meaningfully Human

[Max S Cherry]

I do not know if this discussion is even possible, so this may be a wasted attempt at a discussion.

Most of us will agree that murdering people is wrong. Some of us can think of times when it would be right, so please, resist the temptation of debating the murder of infants and the like. If we try to remain focused on the fairly narrow topic, we might be able to avoid some of the arguments for or against abortion. If you think murder is okay, this discussion is not for you, so for the purpose of this thread, it is a fact that murder is wrong (for the hardheaded among you, I know that this is not a fact, but I am pretending that it is).

After spending considerable time in an abortion thread, I came to see the discussion as being ultimately pointless without some means of determining the difference between a human life that is "meaningfully human" and one that is not. I openly admit that there may be difficulties getting started, as even I am not entirely sure of the direction this discussion should take. Here are some ideas.

______________________________________________________________
1. When women are pregnant, they are pregnant with a "human life."

This says nothing about the value of this "human life." It only means only that a human female carries a human life.

2. Abortions terminate "human life."

Again, this is not the same as saying that abortions terminate "humans," "infants," or anything remotely valuable. It only says that because human females carry human life abortions in humans necessarily terminates human life.

3. Abortions are performed.

This is not questionable. It is a fact that they are performed.

4. Because abortions are performed, either the human life that is terminated in pregnancy is not "meaningfully human" or the termination of "meaningfully human" life is okay.

As stated earlier, murder is wrong, so it necessarily means that the human life terminated in pregnancy is, in fact, not "meaningfully human." Also, there are no degrees in being "meaningfully human." It is like being "equal."

5. Murder is the termination of "meaningfully human life," and abortion is the termination of human life that is not "meaningfully human."

Clearly, there is some difference in human life. It is this difference that makes murder wrong and abortion right. There must be some means of determining the difference between being "meaningfully human" and not being "meaningfully human."
_______________________________________________________________

Where does it go from there? Please point out anything that you think needs to be corrected before we try to discuss this. I am kinda winging it at this point.

So, what is the means for determining when a human life may be killed and when it may not? Easy answers are never, when the law says so, and so on, but those are not really answers to the questions. The actual *means* is what we are looking for here.

 

[brightlights]

Don Marquis' argument about the immorality of abortion is the most successful philosophical argument that I have ever seen. He takes a slightly different approach:

0. The presupposition is that it's wrong to kill a normal adult human being. If we cannot agree on this then we cannot proceed with this discussion (or any discussion).

1. The reason it's wrong to kill a normal adult human being is that killing them harms them. It harms them by robbing them of future experiences -- specifically future human experiences (which are seen as intrinsically valuable).

2. When a fetus is aborted it is also being robbed of future human experiences.

3. Therefore, if it's wrong to kill a normal adult human being, it's also wrong to abort a fetus under the usual conditions of abortion.*

*not considering cases of rape or if the fetus threatens the life of the mother. These situations are not the norm and are obviously different, so they should be evaluated separately.

 

[quatona]

______________________________________________________________
1. When women are pregnant, they are pregnant with a "human life."

It is up for discussion whether a fetus is to be considered "a human life" (i.e. a life distinct and separable from that of the pregnant woman).
We would all agree that a leg is human life but not necessarily that it is "a human life".

4. Because abortions are performed, either the human life that is terminated in pregnancy is not "meaningfully human" or the termination of "meaningfully human" life is okay.

I don´t understand the meaningful in this statement. Meaningful to whom?

As stated earlier, murder is wrong, so it necessarily means that the human life terminated in pregnancy is, in fact, not "meaningfully human."

"Murder is wrong" is tautologically true - "murder" is the word for wrong or unlawful killing".
While everyone necessarily agrees that "murder is wrong" this doesn´t mean that they agree that killing a human or a "meaningful human" is wrong.

 

[CalledOutOne]

The life of a person begins when their "body" (broad sense of the word) is united with their soul.

This includes the unborn.

 

[quilbilly]

The life of a person begins when their "body" (broad sense of the word) is united with their soul.

This includes the unborn.

Gen 2 seems to disagree with you.

 

[CalledOutOne]

Gen 2 seems to disagree with you.

Um..how so?

If anything it supports it.

 

[quilbilly]

Um..how so?

If anything it supports it.

Adam became nevesh chayyah a living soul after a breath.

 

[CalledOutOne]

Adam became nevesh chayyah a living soul after a breath.

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.

 

[essentialsaltes]

3. Abortions are performed.

This is not questionable. It is a fact that they are performed.

4. Because abortions are performed, either the human life that is terminated in pregnancy is not "meaningfully human" or the termination of "meaningfully human" life is okay.

This presupposes that abortion is morally right. Some people believe that the human life terminated in pregnancy is a person, and therefore abortion is wrong. The fact that abortion is legal has no bearing on whether it is morally right. (It does show that the human life involved is not legally a person.)

So, what is the means for determining when a human life may be killed and when it may not? Easy answers are never, when the law says so, and so on, but those are not really answers to the questions. The actual *means* is what we are looking for here.

Personally, I think personhood comes with consciousness and the capability to suffer. This, however, is not a simple thing to determine. More pragmatically, I think abortion should be allowed in all cases, before the fetus could survive essentially on its own without medical intervention. After that point, only in cases when the mother's life is in danger.

 

[quilbilly]

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.

No need to get snarky with me. My understanding is that breath was when adam came alive and had a soul. That is what is written. What makes your interpretation right?

 

[CalledOutOne]

No need to get snarky with me. My understanding is that breath was when adam came alive and had a soul. That is what is written. What makes your interpretation right?

Not trying to be snarky, I just wasn't sure if you knew.
There is a deeper meaning behind "breath of life" than meets the eye.
That is when God gave Adam a human soul.

 

[Max S Cherry]

It is up for discussion whether a fetus is to be considered "a human life" (i.e. a life distinct and separable from that of the pregnant woman).
We would all agree that a leg is human life but not necessarily that it is "a human life".

Good point. Perhaps it is different in the way that a person's leg cannot be terminated without physically altering the person. A fetus is different from that. It is more like a tumor or something. Still a "human life" in the way a leg is, but still different. I do not know.

I don´t understand the meaningful in this statement. Meaningful to whom?

Meaningful in the sense of it being wrong to kill. I am not sure how to say it to make it easier to understand. Perhaps something needs to be said about an idea of human rights, one of which would be the right to not be killed. Again, I do not know the best way to say this.

"Murder is wrong" is tautologically true - "murder" is the word for wrong or unlawful killing".
While everyone necessarily agrees that "murder is wrong" this doesn´t mean that they agree that killing a human or a "meaningful human" is wrong.

Another good point. I was afraid that this discussion might prove difficult.

What if we go with the idea of there being this *thing* called "human rights," and we say that it is wrong to kill a being possessing "human rights." We might then say that a being possessing these rights is "meaningfully human." Nah, that will not help, because it would still depend on a person's agreement that there are human rights and that killing is related to them.

You know...I am really starting to think that abortion is absolutely impossible to discuss sensibly. I have no idea how to proceed.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Don Marquis' argument about the immorality of abortion is the most successful philosophical argument that I have ever seen. He takes a slightly different approach:

0. The presupposition is that it's wrong to kill a normal adult human being. If we cannot agree on this then we cannot proceed with this discussion (or any discussion).

1. The reason it's wrong to kill a normal adult human being is that killing them harms them. It harms them by robbing them of future experiences -- specifically future human experiences (which are seen as intrinsically valuable).

2. When a fetus is aborted it is also being robbed of future human experiences.

3. Therefore, if it's wrong to kill a normal adult human being, it's also wrong to abort a fetus under the usual conditions of abortion.*

*not considering cases of rape or if the fetus threatens the life of the mother. These situations are not the norm and are obviously different, so they should be evaluated separately.

This argument would mean that abortion is murder, I think. It would put the *means* of determination at conception. Is that what you are saying, or did I get that wrong?

 

[Max S Cherry]

The life of a person begins when their "body" (broad sense of the word) is united with their soul.

This includes the unborn.

Perhaps, but you have not suggested a *means* through which we can know when the union occurs.

 

[TomZzyzx]

I do not know if this discussion is even possible, so this may be a wasted attempt at a discussion.

Most of us will agree that murdering people is wrong. Some of us can think of times when it would be right, so please, resist the temptation of debating the murder of infants and the like. If we try to remain focused on the fairly narrow topic, we might be able to avoid some of the arguments for or against abortion. If you think murder is okay, this discussion is not for you, so for the purpose of this thread, it is a fact that murder is wrong (for the hardheaded among you, I know that this is not a fact, but I am pretending that it is).

After spending considerable time in an abortion thread, I came to see the discussion as being ultimately pointless without some means of determining the difference between a human life that is "meaningfully human" and one that is not. I openly admit that there may be difficulties getting started, as even I am not entirely sure of the direction this discussion should take. Here are some ideas.

______________________________________________________________
1. When women are pregnant, they are pregnant with a "human life."

This says nothing about the value of this "human life." It only means only that a human female carries a human life.

2. Abortions terminate "human life."

Again, this is not the same as saying that abortions terminate "humans," "infants," or anything remotely valuable. It only says that because human females carry human life abortions in humans necessarily terminates human life.

3. Abortions are performed.

This is not questionable. It is a fact that they are performed.

4. Because abortions are performed, either the human life that is terminated in pregnancy is not "meaningfully human" or the termination of "meaningfully human" life is okay.

As stated earlier, murder is wrong, so it necessarily means that the human life terminated in pregnancy is, in fact, not "meaningfully human." Also, there are no degrees in being "meaningfully human." It is like being "equal."

5. Murder is the termination of "meaningfully human life," and abortion is the termination of human life that is not "meaningfully human."

Clearly, there is some difference in human life. It is this difference that makes murder wrong and abortion right. There must be some means of determining the difference between being "meaningfully human" and not being "meaningfully human."
_______________________________________________________________

Where does it go from there? Please point out anything that you think needs to be corrected before we try to discuss this. I am kinda winging it at this point.

So, what is the means for determining when a human life may be killed and when it may not? Easy answers are never, when the law says so, and so on, but those are not really answers to the questions. The actual *means* is what we are looking for here.

There is a difference between "human life" and "a human life". "A human life" = a human being. Human cells are human life but they are not a human life.

Murder is the killing of an innocent human being, not a meaningful human being. All human beings are meaningful. It is never right to murder a human being.

To kill someone is not the same as to murder someone.

Killing a human being is right when protecting human beings from being murdered.

Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.

Therefore abortion is murder.

 

[brightlights]

This argument would mean that abortion is murder, I think. It would put the *means* of determination at conception. Is that what you are saying, or did I get that wrong?

More or less. Maybe not immediately at conception, but soon after (within a few weeks).

 

[Max S Cherry]

This presupposes that abortion is morally right. Some people believe that the human life terminated in pregnancy is a person, and therefore abortion is wrong. The fact that abortion is legal has no bearing on whether it is morally right. (It does show that the human life involved is not legally a person.)

You are right, but foolishly, I was hoping to avoid morality. I wanted to go with the idea that abortion is right/okay and see if I could gain an understanding as to how someone would go about determining when abortion switches to murder. I have no trouble admitting that I was at a loss as to how to begin the discussion, which is apparent since I did a shoddy job!

Personally, I think personhood comes with consciousness and the capability to suffer. This, however, is not a simple thing to determine.

This is one of the ideas that I have toyed with. I also ran into trouble when attempting to establish a means for distinguishing between a being with consciousness and one without.

More pragmatically, I think abortion should be allowed in all cases, before the fetus could survive essentially on its own without medical intervention.

I have heard others suggest things along this line. To me, it makes it seem that there is nothing wrong with letting sick people die. I am not opposing that here. I am just saying that it seems to be something that goes along with the position.

After that point, only in cases when the mother's life is in danger.

This one to me seems to say that the mother's life is, in some way, more valuable than a valuable life; otherwise, it would make no difference whether the mother's life was in danger. I can be understanding that wrong though.

 

[TomZzyzx]

It is up for discussion whether a fetus is to be considered "a human life" (i.e. a life distinct and separable from that of the pregnant woman).
We would all agree that a leg is human life but not necessarily that it is "a human life".

I don´t understand the meaningful in this statement. Meaningful to whom?

"Murder is wrong" is tautologically true - "murder" is the word for wrong or unlawful killing".
While everyone necessarily agrees that "murder is wrong" this doesn´t mean that they agree that killing a human or a "meaningful human" is wrong.

Let's not confuse parts with wholes. A leg is only a part of a human being. The unborn is a whole human being. The unborn is definitely distinct from it's mother and also separable from it's mother at the time of it's birth. Since "a human life" is the same as "a human being" then the unborn is a whole human life from conception.

 

[TomZzyzx]

This presupposes that abortion is morally right. Some people believe that the human life terminated in pregnancy is a person, and therefore abortion is wrong. The fact that abortion is legal has no bearing on whether it is morally right. (It does show that the human life involved is not legally a person.)

Personally, I think personhood comes with consciousness and the capability to suffer. This, however, is not a simple thing to determine. More pragmatically, I think abortion should be allowed in all cases, before the fetus could survive essentially on its own without medical intervention. After that point, only in cases when the mother's life is in danger.

The isn't a definitive definition for "person" or "personhood" since it is not a scientific term.

Personally I believe all human beings, from conception to death, are persons. And since the unborn are persons, abortion is wrong except in the case of harm to the mother.

 

[quatona]

Good point. Perhaps it is different in the way that a person's leg cannot be terminated without physically altering the person. A fetus is different from that. It is more like a tumor or something. Still a "human life" in the way a leg is, but still different. I do not know.

I did not mean to equate a fetus to a leg - I just meant to illustrate the difference between "human" and "a human".

Meaningful in the sense of it being wrong to kill.

Wouldn´t that render your entire approach circular?

I am not sure how to say it to make it easier to understand.
Perhaps something needs to be said about an idea of human rights, one of which would be the right to not be killed. Again, I do not know the best way to say this.

I´d recommend to start talking about your feelings. Seriously.

Another good point. I was afraid that this discussion might prove difficult.

What if we go with the idea of there being this *thing* called "human rights," and we say that it is wrong to kill a being possessing "human rights." We might then say that a being possessing these rights is "meaningfully human." Nah, that will not help, because it would still depend on a person's agreement that there are human rights and that killing is related to them.

Plus: Even if everyone agreed, this wouldn´t mean any process. Just another way of saying the same by different words. People who think that killing X is wrong are likely to state that this is because they have "human rights" that makes them "meaningfully human". While the person who thinks that killing X is ok will deny they possess "human rights" and are "meaningfully human".

You know...I am really starting to think that abortion is absolutely impossible to discuss sensibly. I have no idea how to proceed.

I have come to this conclusion a long time ago. All arguments I have seen for or against have proven to be post-hoc rationalizations of the feelings of the person making the argument.

That´s why I´d recommend talking about feelings and empathically listening when the persons opposite talk about their feelings.