Abortion and the Bald Man Paradox

[Dittohead not!]

You know some times there are two people/human beings created from one set of DNA - Identical Twins - Facts About Identical Twins - Frequently Asked Questions About Identical Twins , and sometimes one person/human being is created from two sets of DNA - Chimera (genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Identical twins are not one in the same person/human being, Chimeras are not two people/human beings in one body. Knowing this, how can you not see the difference between human life (DNA) and person/human being?

One of the opinions of when a human life begins is that it happens after the zygote can no longer split into two individuals, as you describe above.
Another is that it happens when the heart starts to beat.
Another is that it is when there begin to be detectable brain waves.
Another is that it is at the moment of birth.
Still another is that it is at the moment of conception. This is the only opinion so strongly held that the opinionaters claim that science has determined beyond question that their opinion is the correct one.

In my opinion, it is when the brain waves start.
After all, life ends when there are is no longer any brain activity, so it seems logical that it starts when brain activity begins.

But, that's still just an opinion.

 

[Dezaad]

In another thread there is a discussion about a doctor facing the death penalty for, among other things, performing abortions too late in the pregnancy.

This reminded me of a paradox first put forward by an ancient Greek philosopher, called the Bald Man Paradox:
"A man with a full head of hair is obviously not bald. Now the removal of a single hair will not turn a non-bald man into a bald one. And yet it is obvious that a continuation of that process must eventually result in baldness."

Similarly, killing a fetus is against the law until a certain point, after which point it is potentially murder to perform the same action. Does this not seem utterly absurd?

Setting the point of criminality at the time of conception is more arbitrary than attempting to set it at the moment of personhood. And, it is far more harmful.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Setting the point of criminality at the time of conception is more arbitrary than attempting to set it at the moment of personhood. And, it is far more harmful.

Personhood is an interesting philosophical concept. Peter Singer, for instance, has argued that personhood does not begin until around the age of three to five, and therefore infanticide should be legal. Your line of thinking raises some very unsettling consequences.

I have to wonder how the highly abstract and slippery notion of personhood is less arbitrary than a simple proscription against the killing of any genetic human.

 

[sweet]

One of the opinions of when a human life begins is that it happens after the zygote can no longer split into two individuals, as you describe above.
Another is that it happens when the heart starts to beat.
Another is that it is when there begin to be detectable brain waves.
Another is that it is at the moment of birth.
Still another is that it is at the moment of conception. This is the only opinion so strongly held that the opinionaters claim that science has determined beyond question that their opinion is the correct one.

In my opinion, it is when the brain waves start.
After all, life ends when there are is no longer any brain activity, so it seems logical that it starts when brain activity begins.

But, that's still just an opinion.

Agreed, but my reply was to one who stated:

"There's nothing subjective about human life. A unique set of living human DNA is a biological fact at conception. Sadly though, the debate has shifted away from scientific fact and into the highly subjective arena of "personhood" or "being". Having unique human DNA isn't enough anymore. Now other subjective qualifiers need to be met to become a "being". Can someone please tell me how the DNA of a child at conception is different than the DNA at viability or at birth or at 50 years old? Of all the scientific fact used to support abortion, why is this one irrelevant"

I was simply pointing out there must be something more to human beings/persons than a unique set of living human DNA because two unique sets of living human DNA can create one person/human being and one unique set of living human DNA can create two human beings/people.

Knowing this I have a hard time understanding how others cannot see the difference between a unique set of living human DNA and a unique person/human being

 

[Aunt Spiker]

In another thread there is a discussion about a doctor facing the death penalty for, among other things, performing abortions too late in the pregnancy.

This reminded me of a paradox first put forward by an ancient Greek philosopher, called the Bald Man Paradox:
"A man with a full head of hair is obviously not bald. Now the removal of a single hair will not turn a non-bald man into a bald one. And yet it is obvious that a continuation of that process must eventually result in baldness."

Similarly, killing a fetus is against the law until a certain point, after which point it is potentially murder to perform the same action. Does this not seem utterly absurd?

When said infant can survive outside the womb without requiring extreme measures of support.

But I draw the line sooner, actually.

 

[minnie616]

....
1) Smokeandmirrors, scrabaholic, minnie, choiceone, etc. All of them believe that late term elective abortions are just fine, because it's not a human being until it is born. I will not be spending an hour going through month old posts in order to quote here. You've been around the abortion threads long enough to know that it's true.


.

I have never said an elective post viable abortion is just fine.
I have always stated that I fully agree that late term abortions should only be performed in extreme medical cases such as:

The cases where the woman's life or irrparable damage to a major bodily function will take place if the pregnancy were allowed to continue, where the fetus has died a natural death in the womb, where it will be stillborn or will only live a few hours or minutes.

Those are extreme cases.

 

[sangha]

Personhood is an interesting philosophical concept. Peter Singer, for instance, has argued that personhood does not begin until around the age of three to five, and therefore infanticide should be legal. Your line of thinking raises some very unsettling consequences.

I have to wonder how the highly abstract and slippery notion of personhood is less arbitrary than a simple proscription against the killing of any genetic human.

And I'd like to know how the highly abstract notion about a moment of conception is any less arbitrary than any other

I'd also like to see how this moment of conception is defined

 

[Guy Incognito]

And I'd like to know how the highly abstract notion about a moment of conception is any less arbitrary than any other

I'd also like to see how this moment of conception is defined

The moment of conception is not abstract, it is a biological fact.

 

[sangha]

The moment of conception is not abstract, it is a biological fact.

Yet, you haven't defined it.

Nor have you explained how it is any less arbitrary than the moment of birth.

IOW, you completely dodged my questions by quibbling over one word of my post

 

[Guy Incognito]

Yet, you haven't defined it.

Nor have you explained how it is any less arbitrary than the moment of birth.

IOW, you completely dodged my questions by quibbling over one word of my post

Please allow me to explain how severely mistaken you. "personhood" is an abstract concept, not a scientific one. You cannot tell what has personhood in a lab. "the moment of conception" is an objective fact, scientifically verifiable.

 

[sangha]

Please allow me to explain how severely mistaken you. "personhood" is an abstract concept, not a scientific one. You cannot tell what has personhood in a lab. "the moment of conception" is an objective fact, scientifically verifiable.

And still, you continue to dodge my questions

 

[Guy Incognito]

And still, you continue to dodge my questions

Your question was fundamentally flawed and thus rendered moot by my correction. The moment of conception is not an abstraction, ergo the difference between the moment of conception (a biological fact) vs "personhood" (an abstraction without a readily agreed upon definition) is an apples to oranges comparison.

There is no dodging, only cleaning up your sloppiness.

 

[sangha]

Your question was fundamentally flawed and thus rendered moot by my correction. The moment of conception is not an abstraction, ergo the difference between the moment of conception (a biological fact) vs "personhood" (an abstraction without a readily agreed upon definition) is an apples to oranges comparison.

There is no dodging, only cleaning up your sloppiness.

Still dodging I see

How is the moment of conception defined, and how is it any less arbitrary that any other moment?

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Still dodging I see

How is the moment of conception defined, and how is it any less arbitrary that any other moment?

No pro lifer on this forum since I joined, has not came forth with a philosophical case yet.

They will need a philosophical case if they want personhood for the unborn and if it's a good one, then abortion will be made illegal and if it's rejected, abortion will stay legal.

As evident from abortion being legal in the majority of developed nations, they haven't came forth with a convincing one yet.

I would even agree and say that personhood is completely arbitrary as it's someone's own unverifiable assumptions about this world.

What would define a person/people has nothing to do with science either this is why they need a philosophical case.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

1) Smokeandmirrors, scrabaholic, minnie, choiceone, etc. All of them believe that late term elective abortions are just fine, because it's not a human being until it is born. I will not be spending an hour going through month old posts in order to quote here. You've been around the abortion threads long enough to know that it's true.

Let's be accurate, here. I never said it is or isn't a human being. What I said is that it doesn't matter whether it is or not.

Also, I'm pretty sure at least minnie doesn't support elective late-term, and I'm not sure about the other two either.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Still dodging I see

How is the moment of conception defined, and how is it any less arbitrary that any other moment?

I am no biologist, but I believe the moment of conception is defined as the moment the sperm joins with the egg. We're you not aware of this well known fact?

 

[sangha]

I am no biologist, but I believe the moment of conception is defined as the moment the sperm joins with the egg. We're you not aware of this well known fact?

So this moment happens *before* the sperm and the egg split their DNA and share it to form a new and unique set of human DNA!

It sounds like your defining "moment" is just as arbitrary as any other.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

That doesn't make any sense either. There is no rational reason to say that rights just flip on when you are born.

Plenty of rational reason to argue that a human being living entirely within another human being can't have rights, though.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

So this moment happens *before* the sperm and the egg split their DNA and share it to form a new and unique set of human DNA!

It sounds like your defining "moment" is just as arbitrary as any other.

Then it needs to be explain from the lifer on why personhood should be based on having human DNA/ being gentically human.

What about extraterristial life?

I guess then any being that has the sense of self can be killed unless it has human DNA

Even if a human person changed so much as to no longer be considered a member of the human species (by whatever standard is used to determine that). For example, how much of a human can be replaced by artificial parts before personhood is lost, if ever? If having a mind is the reason a human can be considered a person, then if the brain and all its thought patterns, memories and other attributes could also in future be transposed faithfully into some form of artificial device (for example to avoid illness such as brain cancer) would the patient still be considered a person after the operation?

But hey since he/she doesn't have human DNA/ isn't genetically human lets kill him!!!!

 

[AGENT J]

Plenty of rational reason to argue that a human being living entirely within another human being can't have rights, though.

this reality is often ignored by many and its why i always laugh when people compare abortion to killing a 5 year old or their neighbor or murder.

all of those things are not parallel to abortion because the 5 year old, neighbor and murdering somebody are not within your body and they are illegal :shrug:

its terrible intellectually dishonest and irrational to compare them

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Plenty of rational reason to argue that a human being living entirely within another human being can't have rights, though.

Yup it is a simple concept

Inside body= No Right to Life

Outside body= Right to Life

Some need to understand that as a whole humans can decide what counts and what doesn't.

There are those who want to bind humans down to some sort of ''natural'' or ''inalienable'' laws which are nothing but an abstraction of the imagination.

For me I support the concept of the ''Right To Life'' as a legal right not a hand me down one

 

[Guy Incognito]

So this moment happens *before* the sperm and the egg split their DNA and share it to form a new and unique set of human DNA!

It sounds like your defining "moment" is just as arbitrary as any other.

Like I said, I'm not a biologist. But there is a point when a sperm and an egg join together tha constitutes conception. It is definable and not arbitrary, because it is a point in time before which there were two things and after which there is one thing. This remains true despite an intermediate transition process, for the same reason there is a point whem a caterpillar is no long a caterpillar and becomes a butterfly, even though it spends some time in a cocoon. Conception may be a period of time rather than a moment, like the coccon, but as for when that period of tome or moment is, that question is best left to a trained biologist. But it has a clear answer, which is different from "personhood," a philosophical abstraction without a basis in biology.

 

[Henrin]

Plenty of rational reason to argue that a human being living entirely within another human being can't have rights, though.

Which I have already shown your arguments towards those ends as not rational in other threads.

 

[Henrin]

Yup it is a simple concept

Inside body= No Right to Life

Outside body= Right to Life

Some need to understand that as a whole humans can decide what counts and what doesn't.

There are those who want to bind humans down to some sort of ''natural'' or ''inalienable'' laws which are nothing but an abstraction of the imagination.

For me I support the concept of the ''Right To Life'' as a legal right not a hand me down one

The fact of the matter is any sort of rational look at rights would lead to understand that protecting the right to life simply not call for you to only protect the born, but from the beginning of that unique life. Anything else is just illogical gibberish. This claim that people only deserve protection once born really makes no sense.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Which I have already shown your arguments towards those ends as not rational in other threads.

That is a laughable characterization of our interactions. Denying the existence of the nose on your face makes it no less obvious.