Pronounced dead once heart stops and brain activity....

[PhantomFlyer]

How does this definition fit your argument? Doesn't this definition omit fetuses, severely handicapped and people in comas too?

No

"Why is one able to perform personal acts under proper conditions? Only because one is a person. One grows into the ability to perform personal acts only because one already is the kind of thing that grows into the ability to perform personal acts, i.e., a person."

 

[PhantomFlyer]

When did you fall off the wagon?

slieb, How's it going? Still preaching the diversity is king propaganda? Keep on fighting the good fight, my friend.

 

[slieb85]

slieb, How's it going? Still preaching the diversity is king propaganda? Keep on fighting the good fight, my friend.

Lol. Things are good, pal. Just spent the last two weeks in the Ozarks and Denver. Vacation is sweet. Let's a guy forget that people like you still exist.

 

[theIowaHawk]

is gone. But liberals don't pronounce a human being alive when the heart and brain activity starts?

Libs,...natures favorite joke.

Where is your line?

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Lol. Things are good, pal. Just spent the last two weeks in the Ozarks and Denver. Vacation is sweet. Let's a guy forget that people like you still exist.

Be honest, it's those things that remind you of me. Have fun in school this year, hopefully you actually learn something this year.

BTW, what's happened to Tiger? Looks like I was right.... again.... when I said Tiger was finished and you were droning on about him being the best golfer in the world and all those future Majors he was going to win. My friend, if you just listened to me you'd finally get some things right.

 

[naturalmwa]

No

"Why is one able to perform personal acts under proper conditions? Only because one is a person. One grows into the ability to perform personal acts only because one already is the kind of thing that grows into the ability to perform personal acts, i.e., a person."

Right, I get that. So when an entity is no longer the kind of thing able to perform personal acts, it should hold they are not a person by your logic. BTW I've seen a dog perform personal acts.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Right, I get that. So when an entity is no longer the kind of thing able to perform personal acts, it should hold they are not a person by your logic. BTW I've seen a dog perform personal acts.

No, again, you are not comprehending the definition. "A person is one with a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts.

You want to define personhood based on some function. Therefore you need to answer the following:

"Which features count as proof of personhood? Why? How do we decide? Who decides? What gives them that right? And how much of each feature is necessary for personhood? And who decides that, and why? Also, all the performance-qualifications adduced for personhood are difficult to measure objectively and with certainty. To use the unclear, not-universally-accepted, hard-to-measure functionalist concept of personhood to decide the sharply controversial issue of who is a person and who may be killed, is to try to clarify the obscure by the more obscure, obscuram per obscurius."

 

[naturalmwa]

No, again, you are not comprehending the definition. "A person is one with a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts.

You want to define personhood based on some function. Therefore you need to answer the following:
"

This reads like you are the one making a functionalist argument in this thread. You are expressing the idea that personhood depends on a functional ability to perform personal acts. Having argued this topic with you before, I'm fairly certain this isn't your real view. If that's not what you mean, you should find a new way to express yourself.

I might also clarify that while I'm comfortable with some functionalism, my main point on abortion is personal autonomy.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

This reads like you are the one making a functionalist argument in this thread. You are expressing the idea that personhood depends on a functional ability to perform personal acts. Having argued this topic with you before, I'm fairly certain this isn't your real view. If that's not what you mean, you should find a new way to express yourself.

I might also clarify that while I'm comfortable with some functionalism, my main point on abortion is personal autonomy.

Nope, you are misunderstanding, which is why I highlighted the key words for you. This is why a fetus is a person even though it can't reason, etc.

Personal autonomy would also apply to the fetus. Your personal autonomy argument is flawed for several reasons, including the fact we have several laws against that now (drug use, prostitution, selling organs, etc). However, your reasoning would justify infanticide. Actually the functionalist argument does this also.

You still need to answer the questions above as uncomfortable as they might make you feel. You can't get around it. IF the fetus is a person the women has no right to murder that person. Carrying the baby might be an inconvenience to the mother but tough sh*t, that doesn't justify murder. Maybe if we are talking about the life of the mother being at stake, but not for convenience. Personal autonomy doesn't allow a mother to abandon a child and leave it to starve or freeze to death, nor would it allow a mother to murder her unborn child. IF the fetus isn't a person, then you could make your personal autonomy argument.

 

[HallofFame]

Dang I read this thread finally thinking we had solved the abortion issue. Thought someone finally convinced everyone who disagreed with them via a meme what was the true answere. Maybe tomorrow hrot.

 

[KennyPowers_96]

So I only skimmed this thread, but I think everyone agrees that fetuses, brain/heart dead, coma patients, toddlers and possibly Aegon are all open season for abortion. Did I miss anything?

 

[curt26]

Nice of you to go from point to point telling me what my position is. It would be even nicer if you could get it right more than once in a blue moon. Not much point in setting you straight again. But for those who may not know, I am perfectly comfortable not terminating toddlers or even late stage fetuses - even though there's no evidence that the are persons. I prefer to err on the side of caution.

What you and people who get similarly hysterical when faced with a rational viewpoint apparently don't understand is that just because there isn't a person there doesn't mean we can or should willy-nilly kill it. It's still living. We don't just kill pets without a care. Why would we do that with a human, even if there is no one home cognitively?

It's a simple principle. A being that has not yet achieved conscious self-awareness isn't a person. A being that had previously achieved personhood but has lost it and has no likelihood of recovering it isn't a person. We let doctors and scientists and moral philosophers weigh in on those things and we try to err on the side of caution.

That seems like a reasonable approach to most who aren't superstitious or letting their emotions trump their reason.

So when, in your opinion, does a fetus/baby achieve a level of consciousness and self-awareness to be considered a person?... scientifically speaking. I apologize if you answered this already and I missed it.

 

[naturalmwa]

Nope, you are misunderstanding, which is why I highlighted the key words for you. This is why a fetus is a person even though it can't reason, etc.

Personal autonomy would also apply to the fetus. Your personal autonomy argument is flawed for several reasons, including the fact we have several laws against that now (drug use, prostitution, selling organs, etc). However, your reasoning would justify infanticide. Actually the functionalist argument does this also.

You still need to answer the questions above as uncomfortable as they might make you feel. You can't get around it. IF the fetus is a person the women has no right to murder that person. Carrying the baby might be an inconvenience to the mother but tough sh*t, that doesn't justify murder. Maybe if we are talking about the life of the mother being at stake, but not for convenience. Personal autonomy doesn't allow a mother to abandon a child and leave it to starve or freeze to death, nor would it allow a mother to murder her unborn child. IF the fetus isn't a person, then you could make your personal autonomy argument.

I'm still not seeing where you aren't making a functionalist argument. You are defining personhood based on the function of the ability to perform personal acts. Fetuses do not have this "natural, inherent capacity". This "natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts" is something most every creature on earth has after birth however. I'd suggest you find a new definition as this one doesn't fit your views even plausibly well.

You can't have personal autonomy until you have the ability to perform personal tasks (see your problem?). This also means it would not cover infanticide as infants, unlike fetuses have the ability to perform personal tasks. The fact that personal autonomy hasn't been valued by lawmakers in the past doesn't mean I can't value it and prize it above other concerns. I'm arguing for what I think should be, not what is. We have covered this ground before.

I don't need to answer your personhood question. But if you insist I'll accept your definition and define them as a thing with personal autonomy able to perform personal tasks. Until it can do that, it is not a person. An invading person can be justifiably killed, so can an invading fetus without regard to the personhood question.

 

[curt26]

So when, in your opinion, does a fetus/baby achieve a level of consciousness and self-awareness to be considered a person?... scientifically speaking. I apologize if you answered this already and I missed it.

bump b/c I'm genuinely interested in your answer

 

[fredjr82]

So when, in your opinion, does a fetus/baby achieve a level of consciousness and self-awareness to be considered a person?... scientifically speaking. I apologize if you answered this already and I missed it.

I would say that the moment that they can live without their "host" is the earliest they should be considered a person. I believe the youngest baby to ever be born was just 21 weeks old and weighed just over a pound. I've always been someone who thinks there should be boundary on abortions. I think there should be a term limit. If you can't make a decision in 20 weeks, you keep the child (unless health reasons deem it to risky or rape). I think most sane people would agree with that compromise.

We know Phantom won't because every decision he makes is scripture based.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

I'm still not seeing where you aren't making a functionalist argument. You are defining personhood based on the function of the ability to perform personal acts. Fetuses do not have this "natural, inherent capacity". This "natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts" is something most every creature on earth has after birth however. I'd suggest you find a new definition as this one doesn't fit your views even plausibly well.

You can't have personal autonomy until you have the ability to perform personal tasks (see your problem?). This also means it would not cover infanticide as infants, unlike fetuses have the ability to perform personal tasks. The fact that personal autonomy hasn't been valued by lawmakers in the past doesn't mean I can't value it and prize it above other concerns. I'm arguing for what I think should be, not what is. We have covered this ground before.

I don't need to answer your personhood question. But if you insist I'll accept your definition and define them as a thing with personal autonomy able to perform personal tasks. Until it can do that, it is not a person. An invading person can be justifiably killed, so can an invading fetus without regard to the personhood question.

The first part is flat wrong. You misunderstand what functionalism is. It is defining a person by his or her behavior. . Having a natural, inherent capacity is not a function. A fetus doesn't have the ability to reason but it does have the natural, inherent capacity to reason (personal acts). There's a distinction. And no, you are incorrect, no other creature on earth has this capacity.

One cannot function as a person without being a person, but one can surely be a person without functioning as a person. In deep sleep, in coma, and in early infancy, nearly everyone will admit there are persons, but there are no specifically human functions such as reasoning, choice, or language. Functioning as a person is a sign and an effect of being a person.

LOL. You are all over the place in the 2nd point. You are absolutely incorrect, your view is a free pass to infanticide.

"Personal autonomy is the capacity to decide for oneself and pursue a course of action in one's life, often regardless of any particular moral content. "

Using your definition, a newborn doesn't have the ability to decide for oneself and pursue a course of action, hence, it's perfectly fine for the mother to kill the newborn. So, yes, your position wholeheartedly embraces with open arms infanticide on demand. Bravo.

Your third paragraph is confusing since you seem to be saying two different things, and contradicts your 2nd paragraph. How does a "thing" have personal autonomy. That is totally illogical. If it has personal autonomy it is a PERSON. That is basic logic. It may have "thing" autonomy but it can't have personal autonomy.

Again, your problem is your position justifies infanticide, and you'll likely resist this point, but it's the logical conclusion based on your definition.

Tell you what. You've refused to answer the questions regarding personhood, so let's substitute "personal autonomy" and the same questions need to be answered. Have at it.

"Which features count as proof of personal autonomy? Why? How do we decide? Who decides? What gives them that right? And how much of each feature is necessary for personal autonomy? And who decides that, and why? Also, all the performance-qualifications adduced for personal autonomy are difficult to measure objectively and with certainty. To use the unclear, not-universally-accepted, hard-to-measure functionalist concept of personal autonomy to decide the sharply controversial issue of who has personal autonomy and who may be killed, is to try to clarify the obscure by the more obscure, obscuram per obscurius."

 

[PhantomFlyer]

I would say that the moment that they can live without their "host" is the earliest they should be considered a person. I believe the youngest baby to ever be born was just 21 weeks old and weighed just over a pound. I've always been someone who thinks there should be boundary on abortions. I think there should be a term limit. If you can't make a decision in 20 weeks, you keep the child (unless health reasons deem it to risky or rape). I think most sane people would agree with that compromise.

We know Phantom won't because every decision he makes is scripture based.

LOL. I haven't mentioned religion or scripture in this thread (never have regarding abortion threads) yet the people who support abortions keep bringing it up. Interesting. I guess you're scared to deal with science or confronted with reason.

So, you want to take a crack at answering the following questions?

"Which features count as proof of personhood? Why? How do we decide? Who decides? What gives them that right? And how much of each feature is necessary for personhood? And who decides that, and why? Also, all the performance-qualifications adduced for personhood are difficult to measure objectively and with certainty. To use the unclear, not-universally-accepted, hard-to-measure functionalist concept of personhood to decide the sharply controversial issue of who is a person and who may be killed, is to try to clarify the obscure by the more obscure, obscuram per obscurius."

 

[naturalmwa]

The first part is flat wrong. You misunderstand what functionalism is. It is defining a person by his or her behavior. . Having a natural, inherent capacity is not a function. A fetus doesn't have the ability to reason but it does have the natural, inherent capacity to reason (personal acts). There's a distinction. And no, you are incorrect, no other creature on earth has this capacity.

One cannot function as a person without being a person, but one can surely be a person without functioning as a person. In deep sleep, in coma, and in early infancy, nearly everyone will admit there are persons, but there are no specifically human functions such as reasoning, choice, or language. Functioning as a person is a sign and an effect of being a person.

LOL. You are all over the place in the 2nd point. You are absolutely incorrect, your view is a free pass to infanticide.

"Personal autonomy is the capacity to decide for oneself and pursue a course of action in one's life, often regardless of any particular moral content. "

Using your definition, a newborn doesn't have the ability to decide for oneself and pursue a course of action, hence, it's perfectly fine for the mother to kill the newborn. So, yes, your position wholeheartedly embraces with open arms infanticide on demand. Bravo.

Your third paragraph is confusing since you seem to be saying two different things, and contradicts your 2nd paragraph. How does a "thing" have personal autonomy. That is totally illogical. If it has personal autonomy it is a PERSON. That is basic logic. It may have "thing" autonomy but it can't have personal autonomy.

Again, your problem is your position justifies infanticide, and you'll likely resist this point, but it's the logical conclusion based on your definition.

Tell you what. You've refused to answer the questions regarding personhood, so let's substitute "personal autonomy" and the same questions need to be answered. Have at it.

"Which features count as proof of personal autonomy? Why? How do we decide? Who decides? What gives them that right? And how much of each feature is necessary for personal autonomy? And who decides that, and why? Also, all the performance-qualifications adduced for personal autonomy are difficult to measure objectively and with certainty. To use the unclear, not-universally-accepted, hard-to-measure functionalist concept of personal autonomy to decide the sharply controversial issue of who has personal autonomy and who may be killed, is to try to clarify the obscure by the more obscure, obscuram per obscurius."

Let's deal with this first bit. How is "having a natural, inherent capacity" not a function? If a sponge has a capacity to hold water, it can be said that it can function to hold water or that it behaves as a water holder. The terms function and capacity mean the same thing.

A fetus does not have the "natural, inherent capacity to reason". A fetus will never reason. And it certainly will never act personally. A dog will act personally however. A dog will reason its needs and devise solutions for meeting them. You need new material, this one is a loser for your side, but I rather like it.

Personal autonomy is your right to decide what you do in your own life or body in this case, not others. Personal autonomy makes it acceptable to leave a child out of the womb, not kill it. It would make it OK to remove a foreign body invading your own even if it meant that foreign body's destruction, but it says nothing about another personally autonomous individual that isn't violating your space. That's the whole point.

A person is a type of thing. I use thing because you correctly pointed out in another post that personhood isn't limited to humans. I'm being magnanimous and giving you ground. I did answer your personhood question, quite well with your own definition. Personal autonomy is pretty easy too. When you are a personal entity. A fetus achieves that around the moment the umbilical cord is cut, maybe when it draws first breath or passes from the womb, but that's all close enough and I'm willing to give you 16 weeks of erring on the side of caution to make you happy.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Let's deal with this first bit. How is "having a natural, inherent capacity" not a function? If a sponge has a capacity to hold water, it can be said that it can function to hold water or that it behaves as a water holder. The terms function and capacity mean the same thing.

A fetus does not have the "natural, inherent capacity to reason". A fetus will never reason. And it certainly will never act personally. A dog will act personally however. A dog will reason its needs and devise solutions for meeting them. You need new material, this one is a loser for your side, but I rather like it. BTW, your dog argument is a silly one. You should drop it because it's just highlighting that you don't understand the terms involved. Try another avenue.

Personal autonomy is your right to decide what you do in your own life or body in this case, not others. Personal autonomy makes it acceptable to leave a child out of the womb, not kill it. It would make it OK to remove a foreign body invading your own even if it meant that foreign body's destruction, but it says nothing about another personally autonomous individual that isn't violating your space. That's the whole point.

A person is a type of thing. I use thing because you correctly pointed out in another post that personhood isn't limited to humans. I'm being magnanimous and giving you ground. I did answer your personhood question, quite well with your own definition. Personal autonomy is pretty easy too. When you are a personal entity. A fetus achieves that around the moment the umbilical cord is cut, maybe when it draws first breath or passes from the womb, but that's all close enough and I'm willing to give you 16 weeks of erring on the side of caution to make you happy.

Uh, no. You are misrepresenting the meaning of terms. Functionalism is defining a person by his or her functioning or behavior.

"Functionalism is a theory about the nature of mental states. According to functionalism, mental states are identified by what they do rather than by what they are made of.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/functism/

Yes, a fetus DOES have the "natural, inherent capacity to reason". "The zygote has no brain, true, but it does have what will grow into a brain, just as an infant does not have speech but he has what will grow into speech. Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, from sex and aging to eye color and aversion to spinach." A dog doesn't reason. A dog acts on instinct. You are changing the meaning of words to fit your argument because you are finding it difficult to defeat my argument. The only loser in this debate is you which is why you have to misstate the meaning of terms.

Why wouldn't it be acceptable to kill the child outside of the womb? It doesn't have personal autonomy because it's a thing, it's not a person. So, again, you are justifying infanticide. Nice position you hold there. Yes or no, does the fetus have personal autonomy? If the answer is yes, then a women can't abort the child, that's murder. If the answer is no then why wouldn't she have the right to kill the baby outside of the womb? You've dug yourself a tangled web or a house of horrors, I'd hate to try and extricate myself from.

You didn't answer any of the questions I asked above and it's understandable why. You try to dodge and weave, and throw out poorly reasoned arguments. Come on, rise to the challenge, don't chicken out. Answer each of the questions. Please tell me the vague, subjective answers you've provided above aren't the best you got. I'd be sorely disappointed if this was all you have to support your personal autonomy argument. Honestly, I don't think you know what you are arguing. You are misdefining terms to fit a concept you've conjured up to support your position on abortion.

"Which features count as proof of personal autonomy? Why? How do we decide? Who decides? What gives them that right? And how much of each feature is necessary for personal autonomy? And who decides that, and why? Also, all the performance-qualifications adduced for personal autonomy are difficult to measure objectively and with certainty. To use the unclear, not-universally-accepted, hard-to-measure functionalist concept of personal autonomy to decide the sharply controversial issue of who has personal autonomy and who may be killed, is to try to clarify the obscure by the more obscure, obscuram per obscurius."

 

[naturalmwa]

Uh, no. You are misrepresenting the meaning of terms. Functionalism is defining a person by his or her functioning or behavior.

"Functionalism is a theory about the nature of mental states. According to functionalism, mental states are identified by what they do rather than by what they are made of.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/functism/

Yes, a fetus DOES have the "natural, inherent capacity to reason". "The zygote has no brain, true, but it does have what will grow into a brain, just as an infant does not have speech but he has what will grow into speech. Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, from sex and aging to eye color and aversion to spinach." A dog doesn't reason. A dog acts on instinct. You are changing the meaning of words to fit your argument because you are finding it difficult to defeat my argument. The only loser in this debate is you which is why you have to misstate the meaning of terms.

Why wouldn't it be acceptable to kill the child outside of the womb? It doesn't have personal autonomy because it's a thing, it's not a person. So, again, you are justifying infanticide. Nice position you hold there. Yes or no, does the fetus have personal autonomy? If the answer is yes, then a women can't abort the child, that's murder. If the answer is no then why wouldn't she have the right to kill the baby outside of the womb? You've dug yourself a tangled web or a house of horrors, I'd hate to try and extricate myself from.

You didn't answer any of the questions I asked above and it's understandable why. You try to dodge and weave, and throw out poorly reasoned arguments. Come on, rise to the challenge, don't chicken out. Answer each of the questions. Please tell me the vague, subjective answers you've provided above aren't the best you got. I'd be sorely disappointed if this was all you have to support your personal autonomy argument. Honestly, I don't think you know what you are arguing. You are misdefining terms to fit a concept you've conjured up to support your position on abortion.

"Which features count as proof of personal autonomy? Why? How do we decide? Who decides? What gives them that right? And how much of each feature is necessary for personal autonomy? And who decides that, and why? Also, all the performance-qualifications adduced for personal autonomy are difficult to measure objectively and with certainty. To use the unclear, not-universally-accepted, hard-to-measure functionalist concept of personal autonomy to decide the sharply controversial issue of who has personal autonomy and who may be killed, is to try to clarify the obscure by the more obscure, obscuram per obscurius."

Go read my prior post. I already answered all your points. If you're just intent on repeating yourself just to have the last word, consider it my gift to you.

Rhetorically I'm perfectly happy with your definition of personhood. But morally I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that your logic here really does legitimize infanticide and euthanasia. Now unlike you, I won't claim that's your actual view because that's just desperate, dishonest, debate flummadiddle. But if you persist with this notion that personhood is defined by "a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts," prepare to ridiculed often.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Go read my prior post. I already answered all your points. If you're just intent on repeating yourself just to have the last word, consider it my gift to you.

Rhetorically I'm perfectly happy with your definition of personhood. But morally I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that your logic here really does legitimize infanticide and euthanasia. Now unlike you, I won't claim that's your actual view because that's just desperate, dishonest, debate flummadiddle. But if you persist with this notion that personhood is defined by "a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts," prepare to ridiculed often.

No you didn't . You didn't answer the highlighted questions above. You might have answered one or two in a vague, general way. I'll take your refusal to answer them as an inability to answer them,

The only one who should be ridiculed is you. Words have meaning. You obviously don't understand the meaning of the words being discussed. You've tipped your hand earlier. You said you didn't need to define person because you rely on the argument on personal autonomy argument. Hello!! You do realize person is the root of the word personal. Seriously, you are waaaaay out there. You don't know what you are arguing which is why you've been unable to produce a coherent, rational argument defining person or defending your personal autonomy. I'm amazed you can't see the glaring errors in your reasoning. Which is obviously why you don't want to answer the highlighted questions. I empathize with your dilemma. .

My reasoning doesn't legitimize infanticide and euthanasia but I'm not surprised you think this because you don't understand the meaning of these terms. Look at your comparing dog tricks to personal acts. Your out of your depth here natural. You need to rethink your position. You might want to start by looking up the definition of the word 'inherent' and then studying the definition I've provided you for some of the other terms. You are very confused, thinking personal acts equal tricks and instinct equals reasoning.

"Personal autonomy is pretty easy too. When you are a personal entity. A fetus achieves that around the moment the umbilical cord is cut, maybe when it draws first breath or passes from the womb, but that's all close enough and I'm willing to give you 16 weeks of erring on the side of caution to make you happy."

Define personal entity? Why wouldn't a fetus, or a zygote, be a personal entity? You are just picking an arbitrary time based on location.

Let's see if we can get you to answer the questions this time: You can substitute "personal autonomy" for "personhood" if you like since you need the latter to define the former.

1) "Which features count as proof of personhood? Based your statement above I'll go with "When you are a personal entity. "

2) Why? You have not answered

3) How do we decide? You have not specifically answered this except providing varying things that could decide.

4) Who decides? You have not answered

5) What gives them that right? You have not answered

6) And how much of each feature is necessary for personhood? You have not answered

7) And who decides that, and why? You have not answered

Also, all the performance-qualifications adduced for personhood are difficult to measure objectively and with certainty. This is not even arguable which is why you say "it could be the cutting of umbilical cord, or it could be first breath, etc". Why not pain or brain activity? Why draw the line where you drew it.

"To use the unclear, not-universally-accepted, hard-to-measure functionalist concept of personhood to decide the sharply controversial issue of who is a person and who may be killed, is to try to clarify the obscure by the more obscure, obscuram per obscurius."

You are arguing the cart before the horse. You want to argue personal autonomy but not define what a person is even though that is critical, in fact, a must before talking about personal autonomy. I get you think a woman should be able to do to her body whatever she wants. The problem is it's not 'just her body'. There's another body/human being/person living inside her body. If it is a person, to abort it would be murder.