wether you consider a fetus human or not, you are taking away a human life.

[Felicity]

I think this is the proper structure. It has been a long time since I studied logic.


1. Modus Ponens Format: Typically, Modus Ponens affirms the antecedent, thus affirming the consequent. In an if only if then statement, however, it is valid to negate the antecedent to negate the consequent. The consequent is valid if and only if the antecedent is valid.

IE. If and only if I eat apples, do I go to the park. I do not eat apples, therefore, I don't go to the park. Y can ONLY exist if X exists.

X------Y,
Not X
Ergo, not Y

If and only if the nature of a species is present, then the member is a person. Refined, this means, if and only if a member of a species has, rationality, self-awareness, and abstract conceptualization, then it is a Person. How does this relate to our problem? This is an if/only/if then statement in the form of Modus Ponens. In this case, the antecedent is not met in mindless blobs of flesh, ergo, those mindles blobs of flesh are not persons. Not X = Not Y, because of the "only" qualifer.


Someone please correct me on this, but I checked it up on the if and only if then statements, and it seems correct:

http://richardbowles.tripod.com/gmat/cr/logic.htm#mp

I guess I don't understand the relevence of this equasion. If the species itself is the determiner of the teleological view of "person" or "personhood"--by definition if it is the member of a species, it has the "nature" of said species.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I mentioned why, I think, on the other thread. Its confusing going back/forth sometimes. Essentially, I want to be specific. An entire species does not have said characteristics, only individuals do. A species is a population of individuals, not an individual of populations. It is important to me what the individuals are like, because people have value individually. THis is why we do not feel that the life of a braindead individual is as good as the life of a fully functional one. If and only if we thought that PVS individuals were worth as much as normal people (who are aware), then we would feel no qualms about the situtation.

If you do feel qualms about the situation, then the antecedent must obviously not be true.

 

[Felicity]

I mentioned why, I think, on the other thread. Its confusing going back/forth sometimes. Essentially, I want to be specific. An entire species does not have said characteristics, only individuals do. A species is a population of individuals, not an individual of populations. It is important to me what the individuals are like, because people have value individually. THis is why we do not feel that the life of a braindead individual is as good as the life of a fully functional one. If and only if we thought that PVS individuals were worth as much as normal people (who are aware), then we would feel no qualms about the situtation.

If you do feel qualms about the situation, then the antecedent must obviously not be true.

I agree it can get confusing--let's stick to the topic here...this is what I said on the other thread to your spina bifida comment: ""Worth" and "value" of human existence is different from "ideal conditions" of human existence. The "ideal conditions" do not have to exist for a human to be considered as valuable as the next. "Ideal conditions" can range from the obvious to the arbitrary."


I do not agree that "THis is why we do not feel that the life of a braindead individual is as good as the life of a fully functional one." In fact--I vehemently DISagree. The "life" is of the same worth--the experience of the individual may not be "ideal conditions."

 

[Felicity]

I don't agree. Worth and value is tied to the conditions that need to be met.

Explain why, please.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I feel that the worth and value of a subject is tied to the conditions, because if and only if said conditions don't exist, then the thing of value also doesn't exist. The thing we are talking about is a person. If and only if X exists, then does Y exist. If X doesn't exist, neither does Y.

Characteristics are largely spread among a population, so we cannot say generically, "species has it" because that would be a false biological statement.
Not all individuals are persons, because not all individuals meet the criteria. Someone who is completely braindead, for example, is a member of Homo Sapien, yet has zero Personhood characteristics. I cannot attribute characteristics to a dead person. If someone is dead mentally and therefore has no personhood, I cannot attribute rights to someone who doesn't even exist yet mentally. Not existing is the same prior to birth and after death.
It's all non-existence. ONe isn't more or less nonexisting than the other. Both are biologically alive, yet mentally gone.

Individuals are important when looking at characteristics, because individuals either posess the characteristics or they don't. Ethics in this situation is dealign with how to treat individuals. If you want to know how to treat an individual, you have to look to see if said individual exists.

If you give personhood to a fetus with no mind, then you have to give personhood to dead people, because both are part of HOmo Sapien. YOu don't cease to be a HUmn when you die.

 

[Felicity]

Not all individuals are persons, because not all individuals meet the criteria.

And your criteria was “thinking” correct? As you said on the other thread... “rational Autonomy, sapience, and suffering are important ethical constructs, because that's what makes humans humans.”

Someone who is completely braindead, for example, is a member of Homo Sapien, yet has zero Personhood characteristics. I cannot attribute characteristics to a dead person. If someone is dead mentally and therefore has no personhood, I cannot attribute rights to someone who doesn't even exist yet mentally. Not existing is the same prior to birth and after death.
It's all non-existence. ONe isn't more or less nonexisting than the other. Both are biologically alive, yet mentally gone.

One who physically exists, but is “mentally gone” does not cease to exist..they still exist, but are not functioning to “ideal conditions.” Same for the embryo. It exists...but is not functioning to ideal conditions.

I do not accept the criteria you put forth and so I cannot agree with the conclusions you draw from them. Convince me that your criteria are correct. I don’t think those criteria a rational.

If you give personhood to a fetus with no mind, then you have to give personhood to dead people, because both are part of HOmo Sapien. YOu don't cease to be a HUmn when you die.

Yeah...they are called dead “people”—we treat human remains with respect and reverence because the species is due respect and reverence. There is dignity in the nature of the species. Death is a circumstance of the existence of the human person.

 

[tecoyah]

Explain why, please.

In order for "personhood" to come into play , one must be a person. The situations displayed above, ie: physical/mental failure in a human , have no bearing on the thread topic. I was under the assumption we were discussing a fetus, which is not defined as a human bieng, instead falling under the term...uh....fetus.
I would agree that we must deal with the inflicted adult/child differently than an undeveloped fetus in the womb, as they are very far from the same thing. One has experiences and a functional brain. The other does not, and in my mind cannot be defined as a human bieng.

 

[Felicity]

I was under the assumption we were discussing a fetus, which is not defined as a human bieng, instead falling under the term...uh....fetus.

Huh???:thinking What's a fetal pig, a fetal kitten, a fetal ....human??? What are you talking about?

I would agree that we must deal with the inflicted adult/child differently than an undeveloped fetus in the womb, as they are very far from the same thing.

Like how?

One has experiences and a functional brain. The other does not, and in my mind cannot be defined as a human bieng.

Um...maybe you mean embryos...fetus' certainly do have experiences and functional brains. Even so...it's irrelevant.

 

[tecoyah]

Huh???:thinking What's a fetal pig, a fetal kitten, a fetal ....human??? What are you talking about?




Like how?

Um...maybe you mean embryos...fetus' certainly do have experiences and functional brains. Even so...it's irrelevant.

It seems painfully obvious the likelyhood of any worthwhile debate with you is slim....but thanks for trying. You are right in you mind....and that will do nicely.

 

[Felicity]

It seems painfully obvious the likelyhood of any worthwhile debate with you is slim....but thanks for trying. You are right in you mind....and that will do nicely.

I see...you have no answer...I should have known that at the "fetus" comment.

 

[tecoyah]

Huh???:thinking What's a fetal pig, a fetal kitten, a fetal ....human??? What are you talking about?




Like how?

Um...maybe you mean embryos...fetus' certainly do have experiences and functional brains. Even so...it's irrelevant.

You are correct....I did indeed mean embryo, My mistake.

My descision to avoid debate with you has far more to do with the personality you project, than the intellect you do not. Some people are simply not worth the effort.

 

[Felicity]

You are correct....I did indeed mean embryo, My mistake.

My descision to avoid debate with you has far more to do with the personality you project, than the intellect you do not. Some people are simply not worth the effort.

Whatever you say....

 

[steen]

Um...maybe you mean embryos...fetus' certainly do have experiences and functional brains.

Not unless you are talking about approximately 3rd trimester fetuses.

So when you are discussing fetuses here, you obviously do not have relevance to the abortion issue.