When is it a person?

Tsunami · Dec 8, 2009

lizzie said:
I don't think a person is not considered legally alive just because he/she is brain dead. He is rather considered no longer cognizant, and therefore not aware of his personhood. The problem I have with deeming fetuses not people because they are not aware of personhood, is because this concept also applies to babies for quite some time after birth. If I remember my childhood development correctly, babies first become aware of themselves as separate entities from their mothers at around 9 months of age. This is when we first start seeing signs of separation anxiety in babies. They still are not aware of "personhood" until long after that point, though, because they don't have the ability to reason yet.

I didn't say they had to be aware of their own personhood, I said they had to have brain function. Someone in a coma may not be aware of themselves or their surroundings, but if the brain is still able to function we consider them alive. If the brain is unable to function we consider them dead.

Goobieman said:
Well... an unborn baby is human, and alive, so... human life.

Well, I didn't think you were going to go there, but.. I said a human (noun), not life that is human (adjective) in origin. A wart is "human life". Skin cancer is "human life". If all it takes is to be human and alive there are a lot of things that we kill that are human life. Let's get this conversation back to talking about the noun form of "human" rather than using this cop-out.

This is a meaningless standard -- 'seperate', as in 'distinct from another' is not determined by independent survivability. You're discussing dependence, which is not the same thing.

What is your criteria for 'distinction' if it isn't a physical separation? Are conjoined twins separate, distinct humans or are they a single person? What makes them distinct if they have identical DNA and share most of a body?

lizzie · Dec 8, 2009

Tsunami said:
I didn't say they had to be aware of their own personhood, I said they had to have brain function. Someone in a coma may not be aware of themselves or their surroundings, but if the brain is still able to function we consider them alive. If the brain is unable to function we consider them dead.

It depends on which part of the brain doesn't function. If it's brainstem damage, then they won't likely survive without mechanical support.

Goobieman · Dec 8, 2009

Tsunami said:
Well, I didn't think you were going to go there, but.. I said a human (noun), not life that is human (adjective) in origin.

A human life -is- a human. It's not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, not a Klingon, but a living human, and thus, human.

A wart is "human life". Skin cancer is "human life".

Speaking of cop-outs...
No. These are body parts, just like arms and legs and hair and skin and bones. They are PARTS of a human, not human lives unto themselves.

And so, my argument stands.

What is your criteria for 'distinction' if it isn't a physical separation?

You weren't discussing distinctiveness and seperateness, you were talking about independent viablity, which is irrelevant when determining those things.

A tapeworm inside a gut is distinct and seperate from its host, even though it is inside the host, in that -inside- the host is not (necessarily) -part of- the host. Same with an unborn child. In each case, there are -two- life forms, each with their own distinct bodies, DNA, etc. Nothing about 'seperate' or 'distinct' precludes one from being within the other.

Tsunami · Dec 8, 2009

Goobieman said:
A human life -is- a human. It's not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, not a Klingon, but a living human.

Speaking of cop-outs...
No. These are body parts, just like arms and legs and hair and skin and bones. They are PARTS of a human, not human lives unto themselves.

And so, my argument stands.

A human is human life, but not all human life is a human. Body parts are human life. Sperm cells are human life. Brain dead bodies are human life. Zygotes are human life. What criteria makes only one of these things "a human unto itself"?

You weren't discussing physical seperation, you were talking about independent viablity, which is irrelevant when determining distinctness.

A tapeworm inside a gut is distinct and seperate from its host, even though it is inside the host, in that -inside- the host is not (necessarily) -part of- the host. Same with an unborn child. In each case, there are -two- life forms, each with their own distinct bodies, DNA, etc. Nothing about 'seperate' or 'distinct' precludes one from being within the other.

I was discussing physical separation. If you physically remove a zygote from a uterus without killing it and wait (a matter of seconds) for it to starve to death does it deserve a burial? Was it a full human being? Obviously not. If this was true then every fertilized egg that ever failed to implant deserves a funeral. And the majority of fertilized eggs do fail to implant.

So I ask again:

Tsunami said:
What is your criteria for 'distinction' if it isn't a physical separation? Are conjoined twins separate, distinct humans or are they a single person? What makes them distinct if they have identical DNA and share most of a body?

Seer Travis Truman · Dec 8, 2009

Tsunami said:
It is not only applied to humans. There are laws against killing pets.

To argue due to law is a logical fallacy and is irrational. Its called a "appeal to authority". Here is what is wrong with doing so :

1. You quote the law, but the law can be wrong/immoral/changing.
2. You say "here is the answer", yet dont actually give the answer. You defer it to the law (i.e. The law says so...they must have a good reason.)

But we are human, it is natural and logical to want to protect one's own species. And it is tradition.

Appeal to traditions are illogical and fallacious.

Seer Travis Truman · Dec 8, 2009

Tsunami said:
How is it a separate life if it cannot be separated and remain alive?

No, you already admitted that. I beat you on that one already. You are just flame-baiting / trolling. You know that argument is false, I proved it false, and you accepted it.

Seer Travis Truman · Dec 8, 2009

Tsunami said:
But being brain dead is enough to end your legal rights as a person. Once you are brain dead you are no longer legally alive and you can be removed from life support, or have your organs harvested, etc. It doesn't matter which other organs still function, the brain is the person. Why isn't the same true for an embryo?

Another problem is that brain-dead vegatables have been waking up. In gact a drug is being shown to be highly effective at this. SO we also have the future to consider, but so do we with the fetus.

And dont go saying "oh, he had consciousness before that" - so does a dead body.

TheHat · Dec 8, 2009

Tsunami said:
We have been over this point earlier in the thread. A fertilized egg can be many things. It can be one person, it can be two people, it can be three or more people, but the most likely thing it becomes is a miscarriage.

No, it cant be many things. It can be only 1 thing: A human being. Whether or not it is 2 humans, 3, or 4 humans, the fact remains, it is a human being. The only thing left to ponder, is how many human beings/people will it be?

Seer Travis Truman · Dec 8, 2009

Tsunami said:
I didn't say they had to be aware of their own personhood, I said they had to have brain function.

But the whole brain-function argument is due to so-called personhood awareness.

Well, I didn't think you were going to go there, but.. I said a human (noun), not life that is human (adjective) in origin. A wart is "human life". Skin cancer is "human life". If all it takes is to be human and alive there are a lot of things that we kill that are human life. Let's get this conversation back to talking about the noun form of "human" rather than using this cop-out.

Troll. You already lost this argument to Me and admitted it earlier in the thread. These things are NOT human organisms, they just have human DNA. You know your argument to be false.

hazlnut · Dec 8, 2009

Tsunami said:
It is not only applied to humans. There are laws against killing pets. There are other laws against killing certain endangered species. And most places there are laws against killing certain wildlife outside of a specific hunting season or area.

But we are human, it is natural and logical to want to protect one's own species. And it is tradition. At one point in time our survival depended upon being able to kill the other animals.

And, morally if not exactly legally, it is based upon intelligence. The smarter the animal (or, the more of a personality we perceive) the more we feel sympathy for it and try to protect it. If space aliens or artificial intelligences show up, you can bet that a lot of people will want to protect them. Your average dog has more intelligence than a mosquito, or even a human embryo that has yet to develop a brain.

Good answer.

Seer Travis Truman · Dec 8, 2009

Tsunami said:
A human is human life, but not all human life is a human. Body parts are human life. Sperm cells are human life. Brain dead bodies are human life. Zygotes are human life. What criteria makes only one of these things "a human unto itself"?

Again, that was already won, and you conceeded. Bodyparts are NOT human beings. Human = to have human DNA. Human being = a human organism. Sperms, fingers etc are body PARTS, not SOMEbody.

I was discussing physical separation. If you physically remove a zygote from a uterus without killing it and wait (a matter of seconds) for it to starve to death does it deserve a burial? Was it a full human being? Obviously not. If this was true then every fertilized egg that ever failed to implant deserves a funeral. And the majority of fertilized eggs do fail to implant.

1. Appeal to tradition logical fallacy.
2. Circular reasoning : Perhaps the reason why they did not get a burail was because the mother beleived that it did not deserve one, because it was not a human being. But then she only thinks that beause it did not get a burial.

Pathetic.

Seer Travis Truman · Dec 8, 2009

TheHat said:
No, it cant be many things. It can be only 1 thing: A human being. Whether or not it is 2 humans, 3, or 4 humans, the fact remains, it is a human being. The only thing left to ponder, is how many human beings/people will it be?

Perfectly logical.

Seer Travis Truman · Dec 8, 2009

hazlnut said:
Good answer.

That was a shoddy answer, because intelligence can be suspended (like in a coma). We already know whats wrong wit a definition that includes comas.

Tsunami · Dec 8, 2009

Seer Travis Truman said:
To argue due to law is a logical fallacy and is irrational. Its called a "appeal to authority". Here is what is wrong with doing so :

1. You quote the law, but the law can be wrong/immoral/changing.
2. You say "here is the answer", yet dont actually give the answer. You defer it to the law (i.e. The law says so...they must have a good reason.)

Appeal to traditions are illogical and fallacious.

The question was why we treat animals differently. Point of law shows that we do recognize the sanctity of life in non-human species. Traditions answer the reason why. Reasons don't have to be logical.

TheHat said:
No, it cant be many things. It can be only 1 thing: A human being. Whether or not it is 2 humans, 3, or 4 humans, the fact remains, it is a human being. The only thing left to ponder, is how many human beings/people will it be?

It can be a human being, or it can be two human beings, or it can simply miscarry. If it is already a human being, when does the second one start? It isn't at conception, because it doesn't exist at conception.

Seer Travis Truman said:
But the whole brain-function argument is due to so-called personhood awareness.

Troll. You already lost this argument to Me and admitted it earlier in the thread. These things are NOT human organisms, they just have human DNA. You know your argument to be false.

I'm trying to find out Goobieman's opinion. I have yet to see either of you post a criteria for a human that stands up to scrutiny. The reason to make this point is to differentiate between "a human" and "human life". I have never claimed that an embryo is part of the mother. But to call it "human life" doesn't make it a full human being.

hazlnut · Dec 8, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
You missed my point: We already went down this road. But if you want to wax philosophical about the definition of a word we already tried to define once before, be my guest.

Missed again.

I will talk more slowly...

You said:

EpicDude86 said:
You must have missed this part of the debate, when we tried to define what a person is and why. :lol:

I never mentioned defining a person. We all know the difference between a human and a chicken. I simply asked why do we make this choice when considering the value of one life over another.

I also pointed out that we use different words to describe the same thing. A child killed in the womb is an "abortion". A child killed in a bombing raid is collateral damage.

And eggs with cheese and ham make an omelet.

TheHat · Dec 8, 2009

Tsunami said:
It can be a human being, or it can be two human beings, or it can simply miscarry. If it is already a human being, when does the second one start? It isn't at conception, because it doesn't exist at conception.

No, it is a human being. It can be nothing else but a human being. It is 100% impossible for it to be anything else.

The rest of your statement doesnt even make sense. The simple fact is, that if a baby is conceived, then it exists.

I really dont understand what is so hard to understand about this.

misterman · Dec 8, 2009

TheHat said:
No, it is a human being. It can be nothing else but a human being. It is 100% impossible for it to be anything else.

The rest of your statement doesnt even make sense. The simple fact is, that if a baby is conceived, then it exists.

I really dont understand what is so hard to understand about this.

No it's not.

There, just offered as much substance as you did.

TheHat · Dec 8, 2009

misterman said:
No it's not.

There, just offered as much substance as you did.

Your trolling is pointless.

TheHat · Dec 8, 2009

hazlnut said:
Missed again.

I will talk more slowly...

You said:

I never mentioned defining a person. We all know the difference between a human and a chicken. I simply asked why do we make this choice when considering the value of one life over another.

I also pointed out that we use different words to describe the same thing. A child killed in the womb is an "abortion". A child killed in a bombing raid is collateral damage.

And eggs with cheese and ham make an omelet.

So when do you plan on breatfeeding your chicken?
Do you tuck your chickens into their beds at night and sing to them?
How about brushing their teeth?
Wiping their ass?
Changing diapers?
Teaching them to read, write, and speak?
Do you spank your chicken for crossing the road?:mrgreen:

Dumbest comparison I ever read. Honestly, I am stupider for having read it.:doh

misterman · Dec 8, 2009

TheHat said:
Your trolling is pointless.

Yes, precisely. You get it.

reefedjib · Dec 8, 2009

TheHat said:
Do you spank your chicken...

:shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:

EpicDude86 · Dec 8, 2009

This thread is going places, and fast!

reefedjib · Dec 8, 2009

TheHat said:
No, it is a human being. It can be nothing else but a human being. It is 100% impossible for it to be anything else.

The rest of your statement doesnt even make sense. The simple fact is, that if a baby is conceived, then it exists.

I really dont understand what is so hard to understand about this.

When you say that a creature is a human being, or a person, what you should say is that it's species is homo sapiens sapiens, but it's developmental stage is one of

zygote
embryo
fetus
baby
toddler
child
preteen
teenager
adult
elderly

A human being, or person, is only one of

baby
toddler
child
preteen
teenager
adult
elderly

i.e. after birth with consciousness.

A pre-born has the potential to be a human being, but is not and it is one of

zygote
embryo
fetus

The human life cycle is similar to that of other placental mammals. The zygote divides inside the female's uterus to become an embryo, which over a period of thirty-eight weeks (9 months) of gestation becomes a human fetus. After this span of time, the fully grown fetus is birthed from the woman's body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend various levels of personhood earlier to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus.

Seer Travis Truman · Dec 8, 2009

Tsunami said:
The question was why we treat animals differently. Point of law shows that we do recognize the sanctity of life in non-human species. Traditions answer the reason why.

The law shows nothing.

They may attempt to answer why, but they most certainly do not explain why.

Reasons don't have to be logical.

THAT is your answer? LOL !!! Words fail Me.

It can be a human being, or it can be two human beings, or it can simply miscarry. If it is already a human being, when does the second one start? It isn't at conception, because it doesn't exist at conception.

Life begins at conception. If it splits into two after conception, one has a different conception date to the other. When any particular life began does not change the fact that it is still a human being, and IS alive.

Before a mis-carry, it was a human being. A miscarry is NOT "something else", it is a process/event that HAPPENED to the human being.

I'm trying to find out Goobieman's opinion. I have yet to see either of you post a criteria for a human that stands up to scrutiny.

WE are not trying to post that criteria. Our criteria is human being - which is a scientifically based and objective definition.

The reason to make this point is to differentiate between "a human" and "human life". I have never claimed that an embryo is part of the mother. But to call it "human life" doesn't make it a full human being.

Thats one and the same thing. A body-part is human, not a human being (organism). A organism is a human being, and is not a body part.

Seer Travis Truman · Dec 8, 2009

reefedjib said:
When you say that a creature is a human being, or a person, what you should say is that it's species is homo sapiens sapiens, but it's developmental stage is one of

A human being, or person, is only one of LIST 2

So say you, against the evidence. Your list means nothing, I could just contruct a different set of lists.

i.e. after birth with consciousness.

Toddlers, comatose patients, hospital patients and vegitables are human beings, and may not be conscius or have consciousness.

Dont try "but they did before", because so does a dead body.

PS whats with the arbitrary list ???

When is it a person?

Tsunami

Puer Aeternus

lizzie

Goobieman

Tsunami

Puer Aeternus

Seer Travis Truman

Seer Travis Truman

Seer Travis Truman

TheHat

Well-known member

Seer Travis Truman

hazlnut

Seer Travis Truman

Seer Travis Truman

Seer Travis Truman

Tsunami

Puer Aeternus

hazlnut

TheHat

Well-known member

misterman

TheHat

Well-known member

TheHat

Well-known member

misterman

reefedjib

EpicDude86

reefedjib

Seer Travis Truman

Seer Travis Truman

When is it a person?

Puer Aeternus

Puer Aeternus

Well-known member

Puer Aeternus

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency