Godwin's Law Irrelevant in Rational Abortion Debate

[FutureIncoming]

{continued from prior message}

Felicity quoted: "If two philosophies are compared to facts, and one is a better "fit" than the other, should the one that doesn't fit be tossed out?"

--and wrote: "Sure--and "scientifically," mine is a better "fit" because mine is rooted in the biological FACT of the identifiable DNA of the species and yours is rooted in the arbitrary VALUE of a particular LEVEL of function of that biological entity."

FALSE, TWICE, because we are discussing personhood which is NOT rooted in the DNA, and IS a.consequence of an entity's manifested abilities. Also, there is NOTHING arbitrary about MEASUREMENTS of has-ability or hasn't-ability.


Felicity also wrote: "Mine is either you are a member of a species that has a nature that can be classed as persons--or you are not--the DNA reveals the evidence.

YOURS IS FUNDAMENTALLY ILLOGICAL, as described above. Species CANNOT be measured.



Felicity also wrote: "Yours must rely on arbitrarily determining the level of functioning that demonstrates what is or is not a person--and all you have to determine that level is your own subjective judgment."

Well, in one sense ALL classifications are abitrary/subjective, simply because certain measurments are always arbitrarily/subjectively chosen to specify a classification. However, "arbitrary" is bad only when there is disagreement about what the measurements should be. But in the case of IDENTIFYING whether or not personhood is part of a random newly-encountered organism, WE ARE AGREED on the things to seek/measure, like a "rational will". That is the essence of a STANDARD, not arbitrariness. Let us be careful about using "arbitrary", therefore. What you wrote is WRONG because we WON'T "arbitrarily determine the level of functioning"; we will be making measurements relative to and in light of that STANDARD. Which is why I wrote above, "there is nothing arbitrary about measurements of has-ability or hasn't-ability".


Felicity also wrote: "Mine is a better fit because it can be consistently tested and determined through observation."

It is true that DNA can be consistently tested and observed. You have an excellent method for identifying humans, but NOT for identifying persons. Especially not for identifying nonhuman persons.



Felicity also wrote: "Yours allows for myriad interpretation that can shift due to circumstances and whim and personal agenda."

FALSE. The measureable characteristics that allow individuals to be classed as persons MUST BE MINIMAL, TO DISTINGUISH PERSONS FROM ORDINARY ANIMALS. ***EXACTLY*** like the characteristics that classify humans must also be minimal. Then they cannot be changed easily at all! If the Nazis had tried to do THAT to the Jews ("you have to have six-fingered hands to be human"), the Nazis ALSO would have then failed the classification! It is only when a long list of traits is required, for something to fit into a particular classification, that what you wrote is possible. I have no reason to do such a thing for personhood, and neither do you (especially since you are trying to include more individuals as persons than I!). I dare say we actually have pretty much the same list, EXCEPT for the measurement-of-individuals thing. And our debate there has already been detailed above, including why individuals MUST be measured; THERE IS NO AVOIDING MEASURING INDIVIDUALS. Why do you even try?




Felicity quoted: "[Aristotle's philosophy] has no explanation for 50,000+ years of human history in which no trace of personhood's symbol-abstraction can be detected."

--and wrote: "Assuming those facts are true...it negates NOTHING."

I was talking about a "better fit", not a negation.

--and wrote: "Perhaps humans weren't people until a certain point in time..."

That is a logical possibility. But the thing I was getting at, that you seemed to have missed, is that we are talking about ANATOMICALLY MODERN humans. That means their DNA was essentially the same as ours. You put great store in associating DNA with personhood, but this data BREAKS that association. Remember the "feral child" argument that you dismissed? THE DATA is that ALL humans were feral for 50,000+ years, simply because none were exposed to person-development situations! Or, none were exposed ENOUGH. It could simply be that about 50,000 years ago, enough complexity in human interactions had finally ACCUMULATED in tribal groups over the generations (an evolutionary sort of thing), that some of the youngest generation began crossing the threshhold from feral to person. Why not?



Felicity also wrote: "okay...we are NOW!"

Yup, human interactions have become even more complex in those last 50,000 years, plenty to stimulate feral children (I hear that "The Terrible Twos" is the technically/politically correct description into achieving personhood. DNA is NOT the key; developed mental ability is the key. PERIOD.


Felicity also wrote: "And ALL of us are now because our species has within its capacity a rational will."

NOT. As already explained, all individuals of a species do not suddenly acquire something that some individuals are measured to possess.


Felicity also wrote: "(However...science revises it's findings on the origin of man regularly as new information surfaces)"

True. But in this case I think you will find that archeologists have LOOKED for earlier and earlier evidence of symbol-abstraction. Remember that we know anatomically modern humans have been walking around for 100,000+ years because we found places where humans inhabited, that long ago. They left lots of simple Stone Age artifacts. But none of those sites, older than roughly 50,000 years, includes any artifacts indicative of symbol-abstraction. It could be that they will find an "oldest" site where symbols were used, and it may push back the start-date a few thousand years. But it can practically be PROVED that they won't ever find something a lot older. Remember MODERN history, in which waves of humanity spread across vast stretches of the globe at walking speed? Symbol-abstraction gives a major advantage to human tribes that have it over those that don't. THEY would have conquered the world 100,000 years ago, if they had existed that long ago. And their artifacts would have existed, too (100,000 years is nothing to an incised fired-clay bowl). The Evidence is that they conquered the world about 50,000 years ago, and not much earlier than that.

 

[Felicity]

FI:

Is the human species a bipedal creature?

Is the human species mammilian?

Are humans primates?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity did not quote: "YOU only THINK you can link the measured characteristics of individuals to the whole species, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK IN ACTUAL FACT, for the plain and simple and OBVIOUS (except to Felicity) reason that not all individuals of the species will suddenly match those measurements."

I should apologize for leaving out an important word, "all". That first sentence should have had the phrase "link all the measured characteristics". By definition of "species" SOME particular characteristics will be measureable in any/every individual member. That "some" will be the minimum list needed to distinguish that species from any other.



Felicity wrote: "Is the human species a bipedal creature?"

You are mixing plural with singluar again. A species is NOT a creature (unless talking about last surviving member, with extinction imminent). "Species" is a classifier that designates a group of organisms, ALL having certain features in common (and generally also cannot interbreed with any other species). Regarding humans, some are born legless. As for most of the rest, do you recall the wording of the classic Riddle of the Sphinx? ("What walks on 4 legs in the morning, 2 at midday, and 3 in the evening?" --where a human lifespan is referenced like a single day.) Yes, I do understand that bipedalism is generally considered to be one of the key distinguishing traits of humans (and if all severely deformed humans were aborted --that is not a recommendation-- then bipedalism could almost be guaranteed as a distinguishing characteristic). The way things are these days, with pollutants interfering with how DNA gets expressed during growth, about the only reliable human-identifier is the DNA itself. Well, we also have the HABIT of using a multitude of non-universal characteristics, like opposable thumbs and scarcity of body hair and a flat muzzle, to distinguish humans from other apes. Enough such traits, and even if an individual doesn't have all of them, having most of them still lets that individual be classed as "human". It works, but it is not scientific (too imprecise!). BUT EVEN THIS DOESN'T MAKE PERSONS OF ALL HUMANS. It merely still allows human-ness to be identified when personhood is missing (and when appropriate, of course; an sufficiently immature fictional "classic Martian" would have neither personhood nor human-ness .



Felicity also wrote: "Is the human species mammilian? Are humans primates?"

Again you ignore the FACT that you have to measure INDIVIDUALS before you can reach conclusions about what data distinguishes one species from another (or one biological Kingdom, phylum, etc., from another). Yes, I know that many of the measurements were originally done a century or two ago, when the biological classification system was devised. You STILL have to measure individuals today (even if only with a glance that lets you distinguish a bird from a rodent), to decide some of how they fit into that classification system. AND I note you are now referencing MINIMAL characteristics, things that all humans can be measured to have in common, things that RELIABLY help to distinguish humans from other organisms (I can't say "species" instead of "organisms" here, because you have selected characteristics that are too broad. Howler monkeys and baboons are both also in the mammal and primate classifications.)

 

[jallman]

Steen puts people on ignore when he finds himself backed up against walls.......he never says anything of substance...never presents facts ........refers to moles in every sentence he makes........

As I said before the pro-death crowd will never get it.........never..........they see abortion, the willfull killing of the unborn as a badge of courage. Facts means nothing to them because they don't have what it takes to get it. They are devoid of emotion. It wouldn't matter what was presented and who presented it, they still wouldn't get it. Why? Because somehow the idea of the dismemberment doesn't get to them, it does the opposite. It turns them on, (and I do not mean sexually here) it empowers them.

The pro-abortion's movements goal to keep the truth from reaching people is the only way they can win. They have used lies from the beginning and they continue to promote abortion with lies.
The good news is this, the more the American people learn about abortion and the truth surrounding it, the more pro-life they become. That is where we fit in. We need to spread that truth. Truth doesn't kill but abortion does.

The truth???? With 46 chromosomes we are not talking about animals here, not cows or pigs or rats or monkeys. We are talking about the lives of HUMAN UNBORN BABIES. That is a truth they deny.

When there are no moral truths to stand on, anything goes.......as seen with the pro-death side. They don't have morals, not really... not in the real sense of the word. Truth for them is whatever they want it to be and they do not need facts.

You can go on and on Felicity but it won't do one bit of good. There is no such thing as truth to this crowd. They don't get it. Nothing about abortion bothers them. Nothing. It doesn't bother them that abortion is legal beyond the point where medical science has proven that the unborn child feels pain. They don't care. It doesn't matter if the fetus feels pain, that is not the issue for them. The woman has the right in their eyes to inflict this pain on the fetus, that is all that matters. How cold and callous is this?

It doesn't matter that today we see the unborn child in the womb being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even being operated on.
It isn't the mother the doctor does the procedure on its the child. The child is the patient. The child is not a part of the womans body. It has its own genetic code, sex, blood type and immune system. It is a completely separate human being. They don't see this !!!! And if they do, they don't care because in their eyes the woman has the right to kill it anyway.

If we use the absence of brain waves to determine that a persons life has ended, why shouldn't we use the presence of brain waves to determine when someones life has begun? This crowd would answer.......it DOESN'T MATTER IF THE CHILD DOES HAVE BRAIN WAVES.......the woman has the right to suck its brains out and kill it. That is the mentality we are dealing with here.
It's not about whether its a baby, or fetus, clump of cells, unborn, to them.... it's about the right to kill whatever is in the womb even if it is alive. And irregardless of what it is called in the womb this group says its alright to kill it to dismember it for whatever reason and by whatever methods needed.

This groups minds are made up Felicity. We need to tailor our message to those in the middle. Those who are willing to look at the facts, those whose hearts are not so hardened that the facts presented might just change their minds.
We have the truth and all the facts to back it up-that is why the other sides strongest and most used tactic is to try to get us off the subject of killing babies.

I believe that "with God all things are possible". And that includes overcoming the hurdle of groups like we have here to stop the horrors of abortion. We are in a spiritual battle Felicity and we should expect to be attacked. Satan doesn't have to be worried about the people who aren't making a difference. And those here aren't making a difference.... we are and Satan doesnt like it.

Remember win or lose votes in the legislature and at the ballot box CAN ALWAYS BE REVERSED. That is why the pro-death camps are so worried.
We must focus, and never give up until the vote of the American public has been taken. And this scares the hell out of our opponents.

I don't know Felicity where you live but in my area we are having a pro-life march and rally Sunday, marking the Roe v Wade decision. "Silent No More" is heading it.
I hope they are having one in your area. Go to their website and check it out. We have a senator and many politicians coming to speak. I can't wait.

God Bless.

:applaud You certainly didnt pull any punches there, did you? Every pro oppressionist trick in the book was in that post...the villification, erroneously calling pro-choice pro-abortionist, emotional pleas, moral soapboxing, and even the religious rhetoric that marks the whole pro-lie camp...anything to deflect from the science and the disregard for fact. No wonder you people havent been able to convince a court to change its decisions in... how many years has it been now? No...we certainly dont have anything to fear from you. :rofl

 

[jallman]

You mean hang with the pro-death crowd don’t ya? The BIG KILLA DOGS? You mean hang with the heartless?…..the ones devoid of those characteristics that make humans different than animals. Pro-choice group is no different. Oh you are dogs thats for sure...........

Watch yourself there, missy...we wouldnt want to undermine all that piety you showed in your earlier post...I mean, tossing insults and calling your opponents dogs in that fashion must go against that same God you were just blessing felicity with...and I know lying is against the very foundation of the soapbox you were just on, so kindly refrain from calling me pro-death when I am simply pro-choice....dont want you to have your religious wingnut membership card revoked now do we?

 

[jallman]

WEll tomorrow I will be marching to the steps of the capital, then to the rally. I will be holding a sign that reads, "I regret the abortion I had."

So now we come to the crux of it...and it is just as I said...an emotional appeal based on YOUR own personal experience. YOU had an abortion that YOU now feel guilty about. YOU believe that YOUR inability to deal with a decision that YOU made should be the basis for legislating away the rights of other women. Now, to shut out the guilt of a bad decision on YOUR part...a decision that YOU didnt consider deeply enough before making, YOU are on a crusade to stop other women from having the freedom to make their own decisions. Yeah, the choice was okay when YOU needed to make it, but be damned if other women should have the same reproductive rights now that those rights have lived out their usefulness to YOU. I think we just figured this all out...YOUR pro-life zeal isnt really about the so-called unborn or the potential problems facing other women...when you take away all the emotion and the strip the lies down to their core, YOUR pro-life fervor is really all about YOU.

 

[FutureIncoming]

About doughgirl, jallman wrote: "You certainly didnt pull any punches there, did you? Every pro oppressionist trick in the book was in that post..."

Don't worry too much about her. She tried that on me and got nowhere (she failed to reply to Message #177). Feel free (you and all other pro-choicers) to use any of the data I've posted, in your own refutations of their nonsense. The more we pro-choicers share factual information and good logic, the sooner the opposition, everywhere will finally start to realize their arguments really are based on faulty data and/or reasoning. It's a tough generational cycle that must be broken, much like child-abuse, but it CAN be done. (That is, when they've been told from birth that such-and-such is true, and were given no choice about it, it logically follows that they are predisposed to want to in-turn reduce the choices of others....)

 

[Felicity]

Species" is a classifier that designates a group of organisms, ALL having certain features in common (and generally also cannot interbreed with any other species). Regarding humans, some are born legless.

So what are those features that ALL humans have in common? ALL humans, mind you.

Yes, I do understand that bipedalism is generally considered to be one of the key distinguishing traits of humans ....Enough such traits, and even if an individual doesn't have all of them, having most of them still lets that individual be classed as "human".

Would you please provide the scientific classification source for this claim that there must be some number of UNIVERSALLY common traits (note you didn't specify what number, nor what quality, or what level of functionality--and I say UNIVERSALLY since you require that the individual demonstrate the traits to qualify).

It works, but it is not scientific (too imprecise!).

So provide your source with references--otherwise, it's OBVIOUSLY your arbitrary and subjective judgment.

BUT EVEN THIS DOESN'T MAKE PERSONS OF ALL HUMANS. It merely still allows human-ness to be identified when personhood is missing

Personhood CAN'T be missing--it is not a "function" or a "trait"--it is a classification. Here, I'll explain it (again) with the "mammalian" question....

Felicity also wrote: "Is the human species mammalian? Are humans primates?"

Again you ignore the FACT that you have to measure INDIVIDUALS before you can reach conclusions about what data distinguishes one species from another

Individual humans DO express the traits inherent to the classification "person"...That's how we arrived at the conclusion that these traits are what make us different from animals. How is that ignored?

You STILL have to measure individuals today ...to decide some of how they fit into that classification system.

And there are humans today with rational wills.

AND I note you are now referencing MINIMAL characteristics, things that all humans can be measured to have in common, things that RELIABLY help to distinguish humans from other organisms

No. Are all humans "mammalian"--Is a characteristic of the human species that it is a "mammal?" YES....but what are those characteristics that make an INDIVIDUAL a mammal?

Mammals are called "mammal" because the root of the word is "milk producing"...
Hmmmm....Not all mammals produce milk....only females of the species produce milk--and then, it's only reproducing females that make milk.

Does that mean all males aren't mammals since they don't function and cannot function as a food source for their young? No. That non-milk producing 50% of the species are still mammals even though they are not functioning as such. They are still classed as "mammals" of whatever species they are because they are of a species classed as mammals.

Persons are persons even though any one individual of the species that has within its capacity those traits that indicate personhood may not function as such.


Mammals give live birth....
All I have to say is Duckbilled Platypus and spiny anteater....

Oh...and some non-mammals also give live birth--like hammerhead sharks and guppies...


Mammals also supposedly have "hair" or "fur"...

Whales and dolphins?
Insects have hair....


Mammals have a fairly constant body temperature, don't they?

Well--hibernation and birds maintain their body heat.

Mammals are terrestrial....

...well...and aquatic and semi-aquatic...and at least one species flies!


And yet........with all these variations and functions and non-functions...still all mammals are still considered "mammals" even if they are not functioning with 100% of the traits of mammals. Why???--because they are of a species that is classed as mammalian.



You asked in your challenge for the criteria for classing pre-born humans as "persons"--I answered long ago and it is as accurate as any of the scientific classifications such as mammalian or bipedal.


No "classification" fits 100% of the individuals within a species when you specifically look at the traits required for that classification--there are myriad variations--but it doesn't change the classifications of the species.


If you disagree--then tell me...
What are the characteristics that 100% of the individuals of the human species possess? And how many of them must be present to consider that individual a "person?"

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: "Species" is a classifier that designates a group of organisms, ALL having certain features in common (and generally also cannot interbreed with any other species)."

--and wrote: "So what are those features that ALL humans have in common? ALL humans, mind you."

I'm not expert enough to answer that question. I can recommend, though, asking this question of the folks working in the Human Genome Project. They can provide a GENERAL list, as opposed to a specific list, of genes that all humans have in common. Since genes mutate, see, the important thing is the PRESENCE of the gene, and not its exact structure. Occasionally humans have missing genes, and so the "general list" would have to exclude those. You might find yourself having to answer this question, "If a particular CRUCIAL gene is missing, such that its lack always leads to death/miscarriage, then why should any fetus lacking it be considered human?" Then YOUR subjectivity becomes the issue! Next, a zoologist like Desmond Morris (author of "The Naked Ape", a book I've mentioned before) may also have some insights in this matter (but what would you say if the zoologist answered, "zero features"?).



Felicity quoted: "bipedalism is generally considered to be one of the key distinguishing traits of humans ... .Enough such traits, and even if an individual doesn't have all of them, having most of them still lets that individual be classed as "human"." It works, but it is not scientific (too imprecise!).

--and wrote: "So provide your source with references--otherwise, it's OBVIOUSLY your arbitrary and subjective judgment."

What's OBVIOUS is (1) that you failed to pay attention to that phrase "generally considered", and (2) that you deliberately excluded this relevant text from what you quoted (you substituted ellipses):
+++
...about the only reliable human-identifier is the DNA itself. Well, we also have the HABIT of using a multitude of non-universal characteristics, like opposable thumbs and scarcity of body hair and a flat muzzle, to distinguish humans from other apes.
+++
SO. Phrases like "generally considered" and "we have the habit" are references to average thinking. The typical human can recognize another human by observing a set of external macroscopic physical characteristics. We also know that there are limits; xenophobia kicks in if the candidate-for-being-recognized-as-human is too different. You perhaps have heard the tale of "The Elephant Man"? This is fact and NOT my arbitrary/subjective judgement. It is ALSO a fact that different humans have different amounts of xenophobia. I once read about an experiment in which a monkey was taken from a cageful of monkeys, given a pink body-hair-dye job, and put back in the cage. All the other monkeys immediately attacked -- and the ONLY difference was hair color! (Experiment I'd like to see: blindfold and dye ALL the monkeys pink, then put them back together before removing blindfolds. You know full well the extent humans have used minor differences as an excuse to ignore or discount the human-ness of other humans, over the millenia. It is a significant accomplishment that today we even THINK to try to use Science to define the essence of the human species, ignoring subjectivity. But I'm not sure it actually has been DONE, other than by referencing DNA. Unfortunately for the paleontologists, who usually only have a few fossilized bones and zero DNA with which to make their identifications. THAT'S why they are still forced to use macroscopic physical traits like bipedalism, to identify humans from other animals. And because they DO work at the macroscopic level, with which everyone is familiar, that is probably where much of the general perception/definition of "human" comes from today, also. (But keep in mind that the paleontologists seldom have to deal with fossils of severely deformed humans; that many years ago such humans AS INFANTS had to bear the full brunt of tribal xenophobia and superstition.)



Felicity quoted: BUT EVEN THIS DOESN'T MAKE PERSONS OF ALL HUMANS. It merely still allows human-ness to be identified when personhood is missing"

--and wrote: "Personhood CAN'T be missing--it is not a "function" or a "trait"--it is a classification."

It is a classification derived from a set of characteristics that must exist. IF THE SET OF CHARACTERISTICS DOES NOT EXIST FOR AN INDIVIDUAL, THEN NEITHER CAN THE CLASSIFICATION. How DO you plan of being able to identify/classify persons on some alien planet, without referencing that set of characteristics? THEREFORE, if a human does not possess the set of characteristics of personhood, that human fails to qualify for personhood and can indeed be said to be "missing" personhood.


Felicity also wrote: "Here, I'll explain it (again) with the "mammalian" question...."

--and quoted Felicity: "Is the human species mammalian? Are humans primates?"

--and quoted FutureIncoming: "Again you ignore the FACT that you have to measure INDIVIDUALS before you can reach conclusions about what data distinguishes one species from another."

--and wrote (continuing from above): "Individual humans DO express the traits inherent to the classification "person"...That's how we arrived at the conclusion that these traits are what make us different from animals. How is that ignored?"

You appear to be mixing apples and oranges. Humans qualify as a mammals because they reproduce in a particular way. Yet roughly 1/7 of all human couples are incapable of reproduction (even before sterilization became popular for birth control). Do we declare them to be non-mammals? No, because ALL WHO ARE HERE ARE A RESULT of the mammalian reproduction process. In the future, even when artificial wombs are used, the mammalian ancestry of humans will still exist. In this vein it is relevant point out the differences between juveniles and adults. Juveniles have only POTENTIAL ability-to-reproduce, adults may or may not fulfill that potential (roughly 1/7 fail even though trying). Next, humans qualify as primates because they have a particular additional tree-living ancestry, with relatives that include a range of animals from lemurs to apes. PERSONHOOD, however, is INDEPENDENT of ancestry. It cannot even be considered a biological phenomenon, since belief in a non-biological God precludes such a consideration (to say nothing of future Artificial Intelligences). The ONLY thing that relates human ancestry to personhood is the development of significant brainpower. The brainpower must exist before any characteristic of personhood is possible. Our ancestry bequeaths us the potential to grow the brainpower. Some humans don't fulfill that potential, including the development of personhood-characteristics (like the severely retarded and the feral), just as some don't fulfill the potential to be reproduction-capable adults (besides the 1/7, I saw a special case of that on TV once, a human born with NO gonads, destined to spend whole life as a biological juvenile). For YET ANOTHER anology, compare "instinctive behavior" with "learned behavior". The mammalian-ness and primate-ness of humans is equivalent to "instinctive", while the person-ness of humans is equivalent to "learned" (remember 50,000+ years of ferals!).



Felicity quoted: " You STILL have to measure individuals today ...to decide some of how they fit into that classification system."

--and wrote: "And there are humans today with rational wills."

And so THOSE humans can be classed as persons. And their existence implies that other humans can be classed as persons, too. It does NOT give infant and unborn humans the instant ability to meet the requirements for that classification. Because personhood is not an ancestry-dependent phenomenon.




Felicity wrote a bunch of stuff about how mammals can defy their own definition, and concluded: "And yet........with all these variations and functions and non-functions...still all mammals are still considered "mammals" even if they are not functioning with 100% of the traits of mammals. Why???--because they are of a species that is classed as mammalian."

I think I said it better above. ALL MAMMALS THAT EXIST are decended through the mammalian reproductive process. Then the only exceptions are the egg-layers like the platypus. (And you DO know that arguments go on, about whether to give them a different classification? The fossil record includes a group called "mammal-like reptiles" that coexisted with the early dinosaurs; maybe these are survivors of that group.




Felicity wrote: "No "classification" fits 100% of the individuals within a species when you specifically look at the traits required for that classification--there are myriad variations--but it doesn't change the classifications of the species."

Which is why ONE of the requirements for a species is that it be unable to interbreed with a different species. This allows all those variants, because as long as they can breed at all, they can breed within their species. And yes, I know that the boudaries of "species" are tested every time a horse is bred with a donkey. We can invoke Evolution to cover those situations (the populations of horses and donkeys have not quite stayed separated long enough for full differentiation of species to occur).



Felicity wrote: "If you disagree--then tell me...
What are the characteristics that 100% of the individuals of the human species possess? And how many of them must be present to consider that individual a "person?""

Heh, you already asked that first question; see the start of this Message. But the answer to the second question is easy/simple: ZERO. Because persons don't have to be human at all! They only have to have appropriately developed/stimulated brainpower-equivalent, such that the characteristics that define personhood are present.

 

[Felicity]

I'm waiting for a pro-lifer ...

That's me!

to successfully take up this challenge:

Well "originally" the word 'successfully" wasn't in your challenge...and anyway...YOU are the SUBJECTIVE judge of what is "successful" or not--so I can have no affect on this particular part of your challenge...

"Define "person"

Did that...you (seem to) agree with the definition.

to be Universally accurate,

Did that--if the species--ANY SPECIES--and any INDIVIDUAL specimen of the species demonstrates the CAPACITY for what was defined as the qualities of "personhood."

regardless of physical nature,

yup...a toad or a giant squid "could" be "persons" if the species demonstrated the capacities at some point....

to distinguish people from mere animals,

ummmhmmm...

anywhere.

bottom of the ocean--furthest reaches of space--HELL--even other dimensions...

For example, if God exists, is non-biological, and is a person, then God is a person because {--put definitive criteria here--}.

Yeah...long time ago explained how God is a person...

After that, please explain how unborn humans are so different from mere animals that they should be classed as persons, too.

Yup...demonstrated how "classification" generalizes demonstrable traits of individuals within a species group.

Good Luck!

Didn't need "luck", but thanks...


Maybe you need to edit your "challenge" again--what is it...third or fourth time?


To your post...

I can recommend, though, asking this question of the folks working in the Human Genome Project.

~ So the answer IS in the genes...Isn't that what you have been DENYING all along?

"If a particular CRUCIAL gene is missing, such that its lack always leads to death/miscarriage, then why should any fetus lacking it be considered human?"

Ummm...it would be dead....and the point of abortion would be moot. However--if it "lived" briefly...it was briefly a human being. If you're suggesting that immanent or eventual death defines what makes a human a "person" or not--none of us are people, only immortal beings could be people.

Felicity quoted: BUT EVEN THIS DOESN'T MAKE PERSONS OF ALL HUMANS. It merely still allows human-ness to be identified when personhood is missing"

--and wrote: "Personhood CAN'T be missing--it is not a "function" or a "trait"--it is a classification."

It is a classification derived from a set of characteristics that must exist. IF THE SET OF CHARACTERISTICS DOES NOT EXIST FOR AN INDIVIDUAL, THEN NEITHER CAN THE CLASSIFICATION. How DO you plan of being able to identify/classify persons on some alien planet, without referencing that set of characteristics? THEREFORE, if a human does not possess the set of characteristics of personhood, that human fails to qualify for personhood and can indeed be said to be "missing" personhood.

GENES--YOU SAID SO YOURSELF! The human has human genes--therefore = PERSON! If we could identify a gene that allows for a rational will would you then be satisfied?

As for your aliens--their genes (or whatever governs their distinct traits) would have to be analyzed to find the common element that is "universal for their particular organism.

You appear to be mixing apples and oranges. Humans qualify as a mammals because they reproduce in a particular way. Yet roughly 1/7 of all human couples ....

You do recognize that this particular part of your post only serves to establish that indeed "classification" is something that is generalized to a group despite individual expression of the traits that indicate that classification...???... Thanks.

And so THOSE humans can be classed as persons. And their existence implies that other humans can be classed as persons, too. It does NOT give infant and unborn humans the instant ability to meet the requirements for that classification.

Are infants and unborns "human" entities? Why can you generalize to non-reproducing teens and infertile people and profoundly retarded people, but not to very immature humans? What's the difference--they are all "humans not expressing the full capacity of "human-ness."

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: " After that, please explain how unborn humans are so different from mere animals that they should be classed as persons, too."

--and wrote: "Yup...demonstrated how "classification" generalizes demonstrable traits of individuals within a species group."

No, you only THINK you have done this part of the challenge, but I have repeatedly explained how your logic is faulty. The human species is not a person, and the POTENTIAL of the species, for individual humans to be persons, does not automatically make all humans persons. EXACTLY as the potential of the species, for individual humans to have AIDS-resistance, does not automatically make all humans AIDS-resistant. Simple logic, but you refuse to follow it. Tsk, tsk. Instead, you keep spouting nonsense like this:
+++
The human has human genes--therefore = PERSON!
+++
THERE IS NO "THEREFORE" THERE, because you are using INVALID logic. You are ASSUMING that human always equals "person" IN SPITE OF YOURSELF KNOWING THEY HAVE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS. Humans are defined by PHYSICAL traits controlled by their genes; persons are defined by MENTAL traits such as rational will and symbol-abstraction. How can they POSSIBLY be arbitrarily declared always equal to each other?



Felicity quoted: "I can recommend, though, asking this question of the folks working in the Human Genome Project."

--and wrote: "So the answer IS in the genes...Isn't that what you have been DENYING all along?"

I have not at all denied that humans have various genes in common with each other. Why somewhere around here I probably said something to the effect that humans have about 98% of genes in common with chimpanzees. That would imply, don't you think, that humans have at least 98% genes in common. Except that I'm pretty sure I also read somewhere that humans have something like a 4% variance in genes! Obviously WHICH genes can vary, is important to deciding whether a 2%+ variance devolves us into chimps or not. Anyway, the thing I have been denying is that genes are DIRECTLY responsible for the personhood of humans. The fact is, they are only directly responsible for brain-growth and, to some extent, brain-organization. Faults in either can easily lead to dysfunctional brains (and an early death in the wilds; it's a jungle out there, remember). A normally-functioning human brain STILL needs the proper stimulus to develop the traits of personhood. And the evidence for that is BOTH the rare wild-reared feral child, and 50,000+ years of symbol-less human history. I see your post asks about a "gene for rational will", but you won't find one. You will find genes that make rational will POSSIBLE, the same genes that control brain-construction. But those genes do not cause rational will to exist as a consequence of a constructed brain. Didn't I mention elsewhere the playfulness of youthful mammals, and how that may be related to Free Will? Well, do remember that I have stressed that humans MOSTLY JUST HAVE MORE of the mental traits found in ordinary animals. OUR Free Will can be rational because we have much more rationality than ordinary animals; we have the brainpower that allows rational thought. Genes and physical growth gives us the physical brain; stimulation and mental growth gives us the rational will of personhood.





Felicity quoted: "If a particular CRUCIAL gene is missing, such that its lack always leads to death/miscarriage, then why should any fetus lacking it be considered human?"

--and wrote: "Ummm...it would be dead....and the point of abortion would be moot. However--if it "lived" briefly...it was briefly a human being. If you're suggesting that immanent or eventual death defines what makes a human a "person" or not--none of us are people, only immortal beings could be people."

Heh, heh, heh. That last could indeed be the case, if all persons are actually souls, eh? I also see that you see the "slippery slope", regarding just how tough it really is, to offer a precise definition of "human". Remember how humans evolved from single-celled animals? If **YOU** say that an important/missing gene is not enough to say that the temporarily-alive fetus failed to qualify as human, then **I** could say, "take out MOST of the genes, leaving fundamental eukarote stuff, and whatever is left, if it lives for a few minutes, then it must have been human. Even if it is only a single cell, and continues to live only as a single cell!" ISN'T that the logical extension of assuming an initially human zygote is still human if it remains alive after many key genes are-removed-before-fertilization/were-never-part-of-it? Where do you draw the line? Any why isn't ANY such line just an arbitrary declaration?




Felicity wrote: "As for your aliens--their genes (or whatever governs their distinct traits) would have to be analyzed to find the common element that is "universal for their particular organism."

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! No, all you have to do is analyze some individual aliens, to see if they exhibit the characteristics of personhood. Then (1) you know that those particular aliens are persons, and (2) you can assume that their species' characteristics will offer chances for more of those alien persons to exist. It wouldn't hurt to ask them what THEY think about their own personhood, just to promote inter-species friendliness, and reduce the chances for misinterpretations. Of course, if the aliens are nonbiological, like God or AIs, then you have to modify step (2) to deal with some classification other than "species". It is all very simple; you just make it more complicated than necessary, because you are deliberately using faulty logic to reach a preconceived conclusion.





Felicity quoted: "You appear to be mixing apples and oranges. Humans qualify as a mammals because they reproduce in a particular way. Yet roughly 1/7 of all human couples ...."

--and wrote: "You do recognize that this particular part of your post only serves to establish that indeed "classification" is something that is generalized to a group despite individual expression of the traits that indicate that classification...???... Thanks."

You seem to be misinterpreting that paragraph. EVEN IN THE NONSCIENTIFIC WORLD, classifications that are generalized do not include COMPLETE exceptions. A born-limbless human can still be human because the body that was born still more closely resembles human than any other organism. (And the ancient Romans would have still put it out to die of exposure.) A human born limbless, blind, deaf, with anosmia and severe retardation, befurred, gonadless, and had Neurofibromatosis, Congenital Insensitivity to Pain with Anhidrosis, and Bubble Boy Syndrome ... might be considered even by some pro-lifers to be better off dead. Moving on, from the human class to the person class, HAVING NOTED that an organism can be classed as human even when lacking a number of "normal" human traits, it should be noted that only a small number of mental characteristics suffice to define membership in the person class. Why should an organism having NONE of those traits be given membership in that class?



Felicity quoted: "THOSE humans can be classed as persons. And their existence implies that other humans can be classed as persons, too. It does NOT give infant and unborn humans the instant ability to meet the requirements for that classification."

--and wrote: "Are infants and unborns "human" entities? Why can you generalize to non-reproducing teens and infertile people and profoundly retarded people, but not to very immature humans?"

I'm quite sure I'm on record as saying even the zygote can qualify as "human". It just doesn't/CAN'T-POSSIBLY qualify as "person".

--and wrote: "What's the difference--they are all "humans not expressing the full capacity of "human-ness."

WHICH IS A THING ENTIRELY DISTINCT FROM PERSON-NESS. Simple fact; simple logic.

 

[Felicity]

FI: You contradict your own logic methodology.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "FI: You contradict your own logic methodology."

Tsk, tsk, a bald claim with no supporting data. Surely you can do better than that! WITHOUT trying to twist the meaning of the word "classed". IF a particular classification expects members of the class to normally have a list of 5 traits, but members MIGHT be allowed that have only 1 or 2 of those traits, THEN how can you possibly think that candidates having NONE of the 5 traits somehow don't DESERVE exclusion from that class? How can that "class" even BE a "class" if candidates are allowed in that have none of the specified characteristics of the class????

Sure, I know that you keep trying to link "person" with "species", but that link is doomed to fail. "Species" will simply not apply to Artificial Intelligences, which means that concept of "person" IS INDEPENDENT of the concept of "species". PERIOD. Not to mention....consider Genetic Engineering. One of the notions bandied about in Science Fiction is that we might manipulate the genetics of various ordinary animals, like chimps or dolphins, to let them grow the right kind/magnitude of brainpower for personhood to be possible. Note that G.E. will be able to ensure that the modified animals can still breed with unmodified animals, and that G.E. could even ensure that the modifications are genetically dominant, so that all offspring will have the potential to grow person-class brainpower. WELL, IN THIS SITUATION THE MODIFIED ANIMALS ARE THE SAME SPECIES AS UNMODIFIED ANIMALS. **YOUR** linking of "person" and "species" would automatically grant "person" status to all the UNmodified animals!!! Which is one more reason why your notion is fundamentally flawed.

 

[jfuh]

Questoin for Doughgirl and felicity. Alright clearly you are steadfast in your opposition to abortion and remain unswaying in your concept of it. So here's anoter side of the spectrum, do you then support or oppose birth control. ie over the counter dispencing of the morning after pill, and other proven forms of contraception aside from absenence?

 

[Felicity]

Questoin for Doughgirl and felicity. Alright clearly you are steadfast in your opposition to abortion and remain unswaying in your concept of it. So here's anoter side of the spectrum, do you then support or oppose birth control. ie over the counter dispencing of the morning after pill, and other proven forms of contraception aside from absenence?

I don't "support" any sort of birth control. I believe life begins at conception and so those BC types that work in such a way as to intentionally prevent the newly formed human from implanting are (when you look at the morality of the issue) effectively inducing an extremely early abortion and I have personal convictions that lead me to conclude that barrier methods are not "good" either. However--I understand where others can view implantation as the point of the start of the pregnancy and therefore view that point as the beginning of life. I disagree since the tiny human is a whole entity unto himself before implantation...but I also understand how before implantation, there is no tangible reality of a possible future for that tiny human...

Barrier methods--in the area of "abortion" I have no issue with. My reasoning for not supporting barrier methods has to do with the marriage covenant and has nothing at all to do with the prevention of the transmission of life. That also goes for sterilization--except I also consider sterilization a form of mutilation of a healthy body.

Anyway...I choose not to fight about contraception...I don't think it's healthy to medicate or alter an otherwise healthy body when it is not necessary, but what I ultimately want is people to stop consciously and intentionally having a procedure done that has the sole PURPOSE of killing a human in the womb.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "I believe life begins at conception"

I agree, but that doesn't mean that that life MATTERS one whit more than a fly's life. You have YET to offer any rationale to support the notion that JUST BECAUSE a mindless animal human life happens to exist, it should continue to exist. Or why that rationale doesn't apply to anthrax bacteria, malaria parasites, and so on. Even YOU have agreed that potentials don't need to be fulfilled.



Felicity wrote: "(... look at the morality of the issue)"

So? Since morals are arbitrary and differ across cultures, why are YOUR morals superior to those of cannibals?



Felicity wrote: "what I ultimately want is people to stop consciously and intentionally having a procedure done that has the sole PURPOSE of killing a human in the womb."

And other humans want other things, including freedom from slavery to mindless biology. Why is what YOU want more important than what others want (and do keep in mind that unborn humans, especially the ones of the age where abortion typically occurs, haven't got mind enough to have any "wants" at all).

 

[Felicity]

Felicity wrote: "I believe life begins at conception"

I agree, but that doesn't mean that that life MATTERS one whit more than a fly's life. You have YET to offer any rationale to support the notion that JUST BECAUSE a mindless animal human life happens to exist, it should continue to exist. Or why that rationale doesn't apply to anthrax bacteria, malaria parasites, and so on. Even YOU have agreed that potentials don't need to be fulfilled.

relates to your next question.

Felicity wrote: "(... look at the morality of the issue)"

So? Since morals are arbitrary and differ across cultures, why are YOUR morals superior to those of cannibals?

Objective reality...Morality is not "relative."

Felicity wrote: "what I ultimately want is people to stop consciously and intentionally having a procedure done that has the sole PURPOSE of killing a human in the womb."

And other humans want other things,

Yes...and one must FIRST be alive to have any desires whatsoever...

including freedom from slavery to mindless biology.

That is only found in DEATH and the incongruity of that FACT should be OBVIOUS.

Why is what YOU want more important than what others want (and do keep in mind that unborn humans, especially the ones of the age where abortion typically occurs, haven't got mind enough to have any "wants" at all).

They are human beings and the FACT of their existence should entitle them to the benefit of a sufficient amount of deference to their life to allow them to express their desire.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Godwin's Law Irrelevant in Rational Abortion Debate Felicity wrote: "(... look at

Felicity wrote: "(... look at the morality of the issue)"

FutureIncoming replied: "So? Since morals are arbitrary and differ across cultures, why are YOUR morals superior to those of cannibals?"

Felicity responded: "Objective reality...Morality is not "relative.""

PROVE IT. Do remember that various religions prohibit eating pork as a moral issue, while others say it is OK. OBVIOUSLY SUCH CLAIMS CANNOT BOTH BE ABSOLUTE AND THEREFORE ARE ARBITRARY. So far as I've discerned in my studies, all the OTHER things CALLED "moral" are equally arbitrary. So, where is your EVIDENCE to support your claim?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "what I ultimately want is people to stop consciously and intentionally having a procedure done that has the sole PURPOSE of killing a human in the womb."

FutureIncoming replied: "And other humans want other things,"

Felicity responded: "Yes...and one must FIRST be alive to have any desires whatsoever..."

Actually, one must be more than merely alive, one must have the brainpower to want stuff. The so-called "wants" of simple life-forms are anthropormorphized; actually those life-forms are nothing more than stimulus/response biomachines.




Felicity quoted: "including freedom from slavery to mindless biology."

--and wrote: "That is only found in DEATH and the incongruity of that FACT should be OBVIOUS."

It is both obvious AND COMPLETELY NATURAL. Remember, just by LIVING your body is keeping itself free of enslavement to diseases by KILLING the perpetrators (you DO know how viruses hijack celluar machinery to reproduce, right? --and bacteria are even more demanding of your resources). So, since slavery is slavery, why should the type of enslaving organism matter?




Felicity quoted: "Why is what YOU want more important than what others want (and do keep in mind that unborn humans, especially the ones of the age where abortion typically occurs, haven't got mind enough to have any "wants" at all)."

--and wrote: "They are human beings"

They are existing human organisms, certainly. Please do NOT try to imply they are more than that, by using the word "being".

--and wrote: "and the FACT of their existence should entitle them to the benefit"

WHY, EXACTLY? Haven't you realized yet that this UNFOUNDED PREJUDICE is at the foundation of all your fundamentally flawed data and reasoning?

--and wrote: "of a sufficient amount of deference to their life to allow them to express their desire."

AH, but NOW you are placing POTENTIAL wants on an equal footing with EXISTING wants. Tsk, tsk. You KNOW that potentials need not be fulfilled!!!

 

[Felicity]

Re: Godwin's Law Irrelevant in Rational Abortion Debate Felicity wrote: "(... look at

Felicity wrote: "(... look at the morality of the issue)"

FutureIncoming replied: "So? Since morals are arbitrary and differ across cultures, why are YOUR morals superior to those of cannibals?"

Felicity responded: "Objective reality...Morality is not "relative.""

PROVE IT. Do remember that various religions prohibit eating pork as a moral issue, while others say it is OK. OBVIOUSLY SUCH CLAIMS CANNOT BOTH BE ABSOLUTE AND THEREFORE ARE ARBITRARY. So far as I've discerned in my studies, all the OTHER things CALLED "moral" are equally arbitrary. So, where is your EVIDENCE to support your claim?

I am sooooooooo tired of having to explain "objective reality" to you a ga-jillion times over. I'm not doing it again. "I" may not know the objective reality fully--but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Felicity]

"
Actually, one must be more than merely alive, one must have the brainpower to want stuff.

re-read what I said and think this time...what does "FIRST" mean?

Felicity quoted: "including freedom from slavery to mindless biology."

--and wrote: "That is only found in DEATH and the incongruity of that FACT should be OBVIOUS."

It is both obvious AND COMPLETELY NATURAL.

Spontaneous abortion is natural--not ELECTIVE abortion.

Remember, just by LIVING your body is keeping itself free of enslavement to diseases by KILLING the perpetrators

Way to mangle normal speech paterns to try and make your point....:doh ...natural reproduction processes in NO WAY are disease--in fact, it demonstrates a HEALTHY mature system.

So, since slavery is slavery, why should the type of enslaving organism matter?

The slave crap is so tiresome--who is at the mercy of whom? DUH.

They are existing human organisms, certainly. Please do NOT try to imply they are more than that, by using the word "being".

What the hell does "being" mean? You have a problem with stating that the thing is a live being, but you admit it is a live organism? Get a CLUE FI....!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "Objective reality...Morality is not "relative.""

FutureIncoming replied: "PROVE IT."

Felicity responded: "I am sooooooooo tired of having to explain "objective reality" to you a ga-jillion times over. I'm not doing it again. "I" may not know the objective reality fully--but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

Of COURSE "objective reality" exists. This is the exact same Reality that wipes out thousands of humans every year with phenomena ranging from lightning to earthquakes, and will eventually also shoot the whole world with a giant meteor, just like it did the dinosaurs. The subject of objective reality has NOTHING to do with "morals", however, except in your CLAIMS. THAT'S what I'm requesting you to prove. And, if you ACTUALLY had successfully done that before, all you have to do is indicate a prior posting.

 

[Felicity]

successfully .

Isn't that what it's all about....YOUR conclusion if something is successful or not. I'm satisfied--My completely wiping the floor with your foolish "challenge"--not once, but SEVERAL times over, is apparent. I am satisfied you CHOOSE to continue to consider my explanation unsuccessful...okay. I am a tenacious bugger, but the futile expectation of your reasonableness has reached the zenith of my tolerance.

Bye-bye:2wave:

 

[jallman]

Isn't that what it's all about....YOUR conclusion if something is successful or not. I'm satisfied--My completely wiping the floor with your foolish "challenge"--not once, but SEVERAL times over, is apparent. I am satisfied you CHOOSE to continue to consider my explanation unsuccessful...okay. I am a tenacious bugger, but the futile expectation of your reasonableness has reached the zenith of my tolerance.

Bye-bye:2wave:

Translation: Fact and logic finally ran Felicity off for good. :2wave:

 

[Felicity]

Translation: Fact and logic finally ran Felicity off for good. :2wave:

Your lack of relevant comment speaks volumes of your own inanity.