Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[Coyote]

According to the law, a human being is a person and science is crystal clear on when we become human beings. The offspring of two human beings can be nothing but a human being no matter how old or young he or she is.



The legal dictionary defines a "person" as a "human being".

Nowhere does our law define a blastocyst as a "human being".

In fact, according to the legal dictionary http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=human+being&type=1&submit1.x=0&submit1.y=0&submit1=Look+up

there is no legal definition for human, human being, or blastocyst.

[palerider]

Death is not a different thing from life. Your second sentance here is weak - a distortion of what was said and little more than a strawman trying to deflect from the statement:

There is a weak argument here, but it is not mine. I am not flitting from subject to subject trying to find something, anyting that will stick.

The other is that if the loss of a pattern of brain activity defines the death of a person, then its acquisition could be used to define the life of a person. The unborn doesn't acquire an EEG until around th 22'nd week.

Loss of a pattern of brain activity. The key word here is loss. Tell me, when do the unborns lose any pattern of brain activity. Again, you are trying to equate the effects of serious injury or disease to a perfectly healthy human being.

If the absence of something has traditionally defined the absence of life (ie - death) for a human - why can't it's presence be used to define the presence of life for a human?

Ansence is not the same as loss. You are trying to equate the absence of brain activity which the new human being has not yet matured enough to have to the loss of a thing which a more mature human being has and loses if diseased or injured badly enough.

Medical science is perfecly clear that when your brain is no longer active, you are dead but I don't find any such caveat when the human being in question has not yet matured enought to have brain activity. Once again, you are trying to equate perfectly healthy humans to diseased and dying humans.

If you have a good argument, go ahead and present it. We are covering ground that you already lost earlier in the thread. It is clear that you will reject all credible science in favor of your articles of faith, and only care to hear the untestable ideas of your high priests, the necromancers and gypsys.

[palerider]

I disagree. It is not a sense of my own mortality. It is the knowledge that what I mourn is gone forever. A sense of mortality yes - but not necessarily mine.

And without a concept of your own mortality, how exactly do you understand that what you mourn is gone forever?

How do we know what some of the higher species sense about mortality? I know for sure dogs and cats live in the here and now. But dolphins, whales, elephants, the great apes, ravens?

Feel free to provide some credible research that says that they do. I have looked and I can't find any at all.

[palerider]

Necromancers and gypsies, sorry but you are one of the ones who believes in God aren't you? Something which involves believeing in demons, angles, spirits, a devil, a person that is three and yet one, a man who can rise from the dead etc.

I don't need God to tell me that the offspring of two human beings is a human being no matter how old he or she might be. That is simple common sense and anyone who even attempts to argue that the result of two human beings procreating is something other than a human being is arguing out of their ass and simply can't concoct a rational argument. The idea that the offspring of two humans is sometimes not a human being is magican thinking.

[palerider]

The legal dictionary defines a "person" as a "human being".

Nowhere does our law define a blastocyst as a "human being".

Since it has become painfully obvious that you can't provide any credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anyting but a human being, even when that human is no mature than a blastocyst, you have lost this point and it has become irrelavent. It is magical thinking to believe that the offspring of two human beings is ever anyting but a human being.

there is no legal definition for human, human being, or blastocyst.

Because even the law isn't silly enough to try and argue that the offspring of two human beings is ever something other than a human being. We all know that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. Science is crystal clear on the issue. Those of you who resort to magical explanations and hold your position on faith are what you are.

[ArmChair General]

According to the law, a human being is a person and science is crystal clear on when we become human beings. The offspring of two human beings can be nothing but a human being no matter how old or young he or she is.

NO its not. Science is not crystal clear on when a human life becomes a person.

For the simple reason that the offspring of two human beings can be nothing but a human being. No matter how old you get, you will always be a human being for you can, and never could be anything else. It is you who has failed to offer up what the offspring of two human beings is if not a human being.

Its a group of cells that has the potential to become a human being. It has to meet certain requirements before it becomes a human being.

Explain how the ability to asexually produce prior to day 14 disqualifies one from being a human being. I don't remember anything in anyone's definition of what is a human being that made being an individual a requisite for being a human being.


A human being or person, must have a soul. Explain how One soul can split into two souls.

Death is a different thing from life. Trying to compare perfectly healthy human beings to the dead, diseased, and dying or trees, etc., highlights the weakness of your arguments.

I think your missing the point. Even though the human being is not a person anymore, the cells and organs that make up the person are still living. Which is why we harvest organs from dead people. Its the same with the blastocyst, its human life, but its not a human being until certain requirements are met.


There you have it. You want your postion and will disregard any amount of science that you can't argue against in order to have it. You have described yourself perfectly to me. A stone wall that will ignore truth in any form to maintain your postion of faith.


Well thats honesty for ya, i wasnt expecting to get insulted by someone whos already had their argument defeated several times. You have failed to explain why anyone should give moral consideration to a blastocyst. Not even the law backs you up.

[vyo476]

NO its not. Science is not crystal clear on when a human life becomes a person.

Is it conception? Is it a point during gestation? Is it birth?
Is it prior to conception? Is the usage of contraceptives (condoms, etc.) killing innocent children?


Its a group of cells that has the potential to become a human being. It has to meet certain requirements before it becomes a human being.

Cogito ergo sum.


A human being or person, must have a soul. Explain how One soul can split into two souls.

Pshaw. I don't have a soul.


Well thats honesty for ya, i wasnt expecting to get insulted by someone whos already had their argument defeated several times. You have failed to explain why anyone should give moral consideration to a blastocyst. Not even the law backs you up.

GW would.

[Coyote]

There is a weak argument here, but it is not mine. I am not flitting from subject to subject trying to find something, anyting that will stick.

You appear to be exactly what you accuse Armchair General of: There you have it. You want your postion and will disregard any amount of science that you can't argue against in order to have it. You have described yourself perfectly to me. A stone wall that will ignore truth in any form to maintain your postion of faith.

What you call "flitting" is what I call evaluating new data. Every debater on this thread brings in something different. Are you saying it should be disregarded? You appear to have a set position from which you do not deviate - in fact, you conducted this same argument on another forum.

I am sticking to the same general subject: what is and when is something a living human being and what makes it so special? Though I admit - I got sidetracked on tangents such as other animals.


Loss of a pattern of brain activity. The key word here is loss. Tell me, when do the unborns lose any pattern of brain activity. Again, you are trying to equate the effects of serious injury or disease to a perfectly healthy human being.


IS it the key word or is "brain activity" the key word with loss or presence defining human life? Your second sentance - again, comes down to the following argument: Is a blastocyst a "perfectly healthy human being"? Scientists themselves have admitted they don't quite know when someting becomes a "human being" as opposed to simply a species that is little different then a thousand other species.


Ansence is not the same as loss. You are trying to equate the absence of brain activity which the new human being has not yet matured enough to have to the loss of a thing which a more mature human being has and loses if diseased or injured badly enough.

Absence does not have to be the same as loss, if presence defines a living human being. You could extend the same logic to defining an egg or a sperm as a human being - so it lacks half of the necessary chromosomes - an absence, not a loss and eventually, it may have them.


Medical science is perfecly clear that when your brain is no longer active, you are dead but I don't find any such caveat when the human being in question has not yet matured enought to have brain activity. Once again, you are trying to equate perfectly healthy humans to diseased and dying humans.


Why does there have to be a caveat in defining a human life?


If you have a good argument, go ahead and present it. We are covering ground that you already lost earlier in the thread. It is clear that you will reject all credible science in favor of your articles of faith, and only care to hear the untestable ideas of your high priests, the necromancers and gypsys.

Credible science....here is the crux. You seem to ignore credible science that is in oppositon to your own views.

Medical science is not at all "perfectly clear" on when "personhood" begins - that is what seperates us from other species and makes human beings special. It is what differentiates homosapiens the species from homosapiens the human being.

Clifford Grobstein asserted that from a biologist's perspective, personhood was not achieved at conception and that it was beyond the realm of biology to determine the point at which it is established. A "person" is in part biological, and in part something else and it is that something else that makes it worth protecting - not the fact that is has the correct biology. Being a "person" entails subjective awareness, sense of self, personality, consciencenous - all of which are present in a newborn and even a later term fetus - but not in a blastocyst.

Do you have any credible science that determines that a blastocyst is a person?

[Coyote]

And without a concept of your own mortality, how exactly do you understand that what you mourn is gone forever?



Feel free to provide some credible research that says that they do. I have looked and I can't find any at all.

Is there any credible research that says they don't?

[Coyote]

Since it has become painfully obvious that you can't provide any credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anyting but a human being, even when that human is no mature than a blastocyst, you have lost this point and it has become irrelavent. It is magical thinking to believe that the offspring of two human beings is ever anyting but a human being.

Interesting. YOU brought up legal definitions in the first place - to bolster your own credability. Yet, if I bring it up - you ignore it, and go back to your "credible science" argument.

If all that matters to you, is that something is of the species homosapiens - what is it that makes it worthy of protecting or saving?


Because even the law isn't silly enough to try and argue that the offspring of two human beings is ever something other than a human being. We all know that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. Science is crystal clear on the issue. Those of you who resort to magical explanations and hold your position on faith are what you are.

You quote the law to suit yourself, and then try to derail the debate with talk about "magical explanations", necromancers, and gypsies. Intersting.

[palerider]

NO its not. Science is not crystal clear on when a human life becomes a person. [/quote]

I have asked repeatedly for some credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. So far, no one has stepped up. How about you?

Its a group of cells that has the potential to become a human being. It has to meet certain requirements before it becomes a human being.

Sorry guy. Sperm and eggs represent potential human beings. Once fertilization is complete, however, that potential has been realized. From that time on, you have potential judges, and doctors, and winos, but not potential human beings.

A human being or person, must have a soul. Explain how One soul can split into two souls.

Show me that in the law, or any credible science.

I think your missing the point. Even though the human being is not a person anymore, the cells and organs that make up the person are still living. Which is why we harvest organs from dead people. Its the same with the blastocyst, its human life, but its not a human being until certain requirements are met.

According to the law, a person is a human being. Show me some credible science that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

Well thats honesty for ya, i wasnt expecting to get insulted by someone whos already had their argument defeated several times. You have failed to explain why anyone should give moral consideration to a blastocyst. Not even the law backs you up.

More magical thinking on your part general. Wishing that the offspring of two human beings weren't always a human being doesn't make it any more true than wishing that someone had defeated my arguments.

As to the law. The law has been wrong often. Care to see a supreme court case declaring that blacks aren't human beings? Just because the law says a thing, doesn't make it so.

[palerider]

You appear to be exactly what you accuse Armchair General of: There you have it. You want your postion and will disregard any amount of science that you can't argue against in order to have it. You have described yourself perfectly to me. A stone wall that will ignore truth in any form to maintain your postion of faith.

I am still waiting for some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anyting but a human being. You have admitted that you can't provide it. You have no basis for your argument beyond what a philosopher may say.

IS it the key word or is "brain activity" the key word with loss or presence defining human life? Your second sentance - again, comes down to the following argument: Is a blastocyst a "perfectly healthy human being"? Scientists themselves have admitted they don't quite know when someting becomes a "human being" as opposed to simply a species that is little different then a thousand other species.

The key word is that the offspring of two human beings can not possibly ever be anyting but a human being.

Absence does not have to be the same as loss, if presence defines a living human being. You could extend the same logic to defining an egg or a sperm as a human being - so it lacks half of the necessary chromosomes - an absence, not a loss and eventually, it may have them.

Sperm and eggs only have half a compliment of chromosomes each. A sperm will never have a full compliment. The same is true for an egg. By definition, neither of them can have a full compliment of chromosomes as they would no longer be sperm or egg.

Why does there have to be a caveat in defining a human life?

You tell me. Your whole argument is one caveat after another that are obviously designed to allow you to ignore credible science in favor of your political postion.

Credible science....here is the crux. You seem to ignore credible science that is in oppositon to your own views.

Show me some in oppostion to my views. Topics for discussion don't constitute credible science as much as you might wish otherwise.

Medical science is not at all "perfectly clear" on when "personhood" begins - that is what seperates us from other species and makes human beings special. It is what differentiates homosapiens the species from homosapiens the human being.

Medical science is perfectly clear on when we become human beings. The law says that persons are no more, and no less than human beings. Play with the words all you like but you can't get around the fact that words mean what they mean.

Clifford Grobstein asserted that from a biologist's perspective, personhood was not achieved at conception and that it was beyond the realm of biology to determine the point at which it is established. A "person" is in part biological, and in part something else and it is that something else that makes it worth protecting - not the fact that is has the correct biology. Being a "person" entails subjective awareness, sense of self, personality, consciencenous - all of which are present in a newborn and even a later term fetus - but not in a blastocyst.

Personhood is not a scientific concept. Personhood is a philosophical concept designed by necromancers and gypsys in an effort to get around biological fact. We are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. The law says that persons are human beings. Zygotes are what is left after fertilization is complete. Science says that they are human beings. The law says that human beings (without qualification) are persons. Do the math.

Do you have any credible science that determines that a blastocyst is a person?


Yeah. I already provided it. We are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. The law says that persons are human beings. In order to prove that unborns are not persons, you must provide evidence that they are not human beings since being a human being is the only qualification that one need meet in order to be a person.

[palerider]

Is there any credible research that says they don't?

Does this, in any way, address the fact that the offspring of two human beings can be nothing but a human being?

[palerider]

Interesting. YOU brought up legal definitions in the first place - to bolster your own credability. Yet, if I bring it up - you ignore it, and go back to your "credible science" argument.

According to the law, in order to be a person, one need only be a human being. Since you can't prove in even the smallest way that unborns are not human beings, it stands to reason that they are persons. You need to get the law to write a different definition for person.

If all that matters to you, is that something is of the species homosapiens - what is it that makes it worthy of protecting or saving?

Our constitution protects the right of human beings to live. Rewrite the constitution if you don't like it. The law is being miscarried in this case in exactly the same way it was miscarried when it didn't protect the right of blacks to live. Claiming that a human being is not a human being doesn't make it true, even if you can convince a panel of judges.

[ArmChair General]

I have asked repeatedly for some credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. So far, no one has stepped up. How about you?

Its been provided several times. Every time someone provides it, you ignore it.

Sorry guy. Sperm and eggs represent potential human beings. Once fertilization is complete, however, that potential has been realized. From that time on, you have potential judges, and doctors, and winos, but not potential human beings.

Sorry. But your wrong. Its not a Human Being.

Show me that in the law, or any credible science.

Its been provided, you just ignore it.

According to the law, a person is a human being. Show me some credible science that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.


According to the definition of a human being, a blastocyst is not a human being.

Perhaps you should be lobbying to change the law and the definition of a human being?


More magical thinking on your part general. Wishing that the offspring of two human beings weren't always a human being doesn't make it any more true than wishing that someone had defeated my arguments.

Thats not wishing, thats reality. You should get with it.

As to the law. The law has been wrong often. Care to see a supreme court case declaring that blacks aren't human beings? Just because the law says a thing, doesn't make it so.

Then why aren't you trying to get the law changed to match your emotional wishful thinking that a blastocyst is a human being?

[palerider]

Its been provided several times. Every time someone provides it, you ignore it.

Then bring it forward and slap me down with it. Or stop making the dishonest claim. Do one or the other.

Sorry. But your wrong. Its not a Human Being.

Still waiting on the evidence. Everyone but you has admitted that it doesn't exist. Put up or shut up.

Its been provided, you just ignore it.

Still waiting....

According to the definition of a human being, a blastocyst is not a human being.

Whose definition. Those of the necromancers and gypsys?

Perhaps you should be lobbying to change the law and the definition of a human being?

No need. Science is perfectly clear. The offspring of two human beings can be nothing but a human being. If you have credible scientific evidence to the contrary, by all means bring it forward


Then why aren't you trying to get the law changed to match your emotional wishful thinking that a blastocyst is a human being?

No need. The offspring of two human beings can be nothing but a human being. It is magical thinking to believe that two human beings could produce something that isn't a human being.

[ArmChair General]

No need. The offspring of two human beings can be nothing but a human being. It is magical thinking to believe that two human beings could produce something that isn't a human being.

Its a human life and potential human being, its not a person until certain requirements are met.

Re-read through the thread again and you'll find the science that contradicts yours.

Though its quite telling that you can't explain why anyone should give the same moral consideration to a blastocyst that we would to an adult human being.

And there certainly is a need if what your basing this on, is off the law. Which has already been shown to contradict you. You are losing and you dont even realize it. how funny.

[Coyote]

Yeah. I already provided it. We are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. The law says that persons are human beings. In order to prove that unborns are not persons, you must provide evidence that they are not human beings since being a human being is the only qualification that one need meet in order to be a person.

So how does the law define a "human being"?

Actually...the law gets weird....according to the he 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon:

PERSON - Corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals. 1 USC (note: this term, when used in the legal context, can be confusing since whether it refersto entities other than natural persons is often dependent on context and official interpretation.

It doesn't even mention "human being".


According USlegal.com definitions:

A person, for legal purposes, is generally more broadly defined to refer other than just a natural person. A person may also include a corporation, company, partnership, firm, association or society. For example, when a company incorporates, it has standing as a legal person to sue and be sued in courts of law. The precise definition of a person may vary by state and applicable laws.

[palerider]

Its a human life and potential human being, its not a person until certain requirements are met.

Any evidence to support this idea is sorely lacking. Your uncorroborated opinion carries little weight in the face of credible science.

Re-read through the thread again and you'll find the science that contradicts yours.

Yeah right. I re-read the thread looking for evidence and that is why I challenged you directly to bring it here and slap me down with it. I note that you did not bring it here because it doesn't exist.

Though its quite telling that you can't explain why anyone should give the same moral consideration to a blastocyst that we would to an adult human being.

Because I am not making a moral argument. You are the one caught up in morals and souls and magical thinking if theyserves your purposes and in denial of them if they do not.

And there certainly is a need if what your basing this on, is off the law. Which has already been shown to contradict you. You are losing and you dont even realize it. how funny.

As I have already shown, legal precedent has already been established for the personhood of the unborn. People are in jail right now for both manslaughter and murder for killing unborns. You can be sentenced for neither unless you kill a person. The law is slow to change, but it is changing and the character of the supreme court is very different that it has been for the past 50 years or so. Prescedent is relentless. You have already lost and still believe in victory.

[palerider]

So how does the law define a "human being"?

The law doesn't define a human being. Taxonomy is the realm of science. The law simply states that all human beings are persons.

Actually...the law gets weird....according to the he 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon:

PERSON - Corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals. 1 USC (note: this term, when used in the legal context, can be confusing since whether it refersto entities other than natural persons is often dependent on context and official interpretation.

Are you arguing now that unborns are corporate entities? Corporate entities also are entitled to their day in court before they are terminated.

According USlegal.com definitions:

A person, for legal purposes, is generally more broadly defined to refer other than just a natural person. A person may also include a corporation, company, partnership, firm, association or society. For example, when a company incorporates, it has standing as a legal person to sue and be sued in courts of law. The precise definition of a person may vary by state and applicable laws.

Once again, are you arguing that unborns are corporate entities. If you aren't, why bring that strawman here if not to divert the conversation off topic again?

[Coyote]

The law doesn't define a human being. Taxonomy is the realm of science. The law simply states that all human beings are persons.



Are you arguing now that unborns are corporate entities? Corporate entities also are entitled to their day in court before they are terminated.



Once again, are you arguing that unborns are corporate entities. If you aren't, why bring that strawman here if not to divert the conversation off topic again?


Damn...5am...yer nuts to be up on the internet that early:p


Here's my take on your whole argument: 4 points only


The product of two human beings is always a human being.

A human being is worthy of life because the law (specifically the Constitution) states it using the term "person".

The legal definition of a "person" is a human being.

Therefore all stages of human life are constitutionally protected.


Lets examine this using cold logic.

Point number one: That is true in so far as it will never be anything but the species homosapiens, being defined by you as "human being". No argument from me there. However - going form there to "person" - and what makes a human being a "person" - is not at all clear cut scientifically nor can you present scientific evidence to support your position beyond identifying it as a species of animal. So - you jump to the law instead of science to make your point.

Point number two: Constitutional law. The word "person" was specifically used in the Constitution. What is a "person"? If we look at intent of the framers of the Constitution we see it was a fairly limited definition that excluded blacks and women for example. I think we can be fairly certain that the founders did not intend for that definition to include blastocysts. If we look at the later amendments we can see that definition was broadened. As of yet however - there is no amendment broadening it to the blastocyst. Therefore the Constitution does not yet recognize the blastocyst as a "person".

Point number three: The definition of "person". You claim it is a "human being". It is not that clear cut. In several legal references I look up there is a distinction between "person" and "natural person". A "natural person" woh's legal definition is a "human being". If you are going to use semantics to bolster your points then you have to accept this as well since you choose to interpret the Constitution literally when it says "person". Well, quite literally - nowhere in the Constitution does it state "natural person" the legal definition of a human being. Obviously the intent of the framers was that it meant a "human being" (though their definition of a "human being" did not match either mine or yours at the time). If you look at intent to bolster your argument (ie - person = human being) then you also have to look at intent in terms of what they considered human beings or persons and what subsequent amendments considered human beings or persons.

Point number four: All stages of human life are constitutionally protected. I disagree - looking at the above - they are not.

[Coyote]

Any evidence to support this idea is sorely lacking.
Because I am not making a moral argument. You are the one caught up in morals and souls and magical thinking if theyserves your purposes and in denial of them if they do not.


But you are making a moral argument once you bring law into it. Law is not based upon pure science because law, not science defines what is a person in our society.

[Coyote]

As I have already shown, legal precedent has already been established for the personhood of the unborn. People are in jail right now for both manslaughter and murder for killing unborns. You can be sentenced for neither unless you kill a person. The law is slow to change, but it is changing and the character of the supreme court is very different that it has been for the past 50 years or so. Prescedent is relentless. You have already lost and still believe in victory.

Legal precedent was set supporting segregation at one time and then overturned. Legal precedent is occuring in attempting to change the death penalty. Hard to say if it will change or not. If it does - then this debate will change in terms of law - but that hasn't happened yet.

When it does I forsee a real can of worms. For example - how will "unborns" be taxed, will the need SS numbers?

Will a mother's poor care of herself constitute child abuse during pregnancy?

Will every miscarriage be looked at as potential manslaughter - ie suspicious death?

Will miscarriages, however early be legally required to be handled under the same funeral laws as adult humans? Very expensive.

Can a child born disabled have the right to sue it's parents for poor neonatal care - wether by chance or ignorance?

Will a victim of rape be forced to carry the child to term?

Will a mother suffering life or health threatening complications (such as toxemia) be forced to continue to carry the child?

What child victims of incest or pedophilia or rape who aren't even mature enough to carry a baby to term with out serious consequences be forced to do so?

What about contraception that prevents implantation?

Would contraception itself even remain legal? After all - every egg and sperm are a potential human being too - do we have the ethical right to prevent them from meeting?


You can argue all you want Palerider - but I do not regard every homosapiens as a person. I feel there is a difference between a person and a potential person. There is no conscienceness or awareness in a blastocyst - there is only the potential for a human being. When I ask you what makes a human being so special - you answer "the law".

Well - the Constitution does not yet recognize the blastocyst as a "person" so that is a cop out.

So I'll ask you again: what makes a human being so special?

[palerider]

Do you mind if I put on the brakes here for a few minutes so we can examine where we are on this debate? Tell me if I have anything wrong with respect to your position.

1) You and I and everyone we have ever known and are likely to ever know are physical organisms?

2) That the physical organism that you are, came to be when the fertilization of your mother's egg by your father's sperm was complete and that you have simply matured from that point. That is, you did not come from a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, infant, toddler... but you were, in reality, a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, infant, toddler etc and have simply grown and matured through those various stages of your life.

3) Your position is that before you were born, (any stage) you will conceed that you were a physical human organism, but were not a person.

Am I correct with regard to your position so far?

[Coyote]

Do you mind if I put on the brakes here for a few minutes so we can examine where we are on this debate? Tell me if I have anything wrong with respect to your position.

1) You and I and everyone we have ever known and are likely to ever know are physical organisms?

2) That the physical organism that you are, came to be when the fertilization of your mother's egg by your father's sperm was complete and that you have simply matured from that point. That is, you did not come from a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, infant, toddler... but you were, in reality, a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, infant, toddler etc and have simply grown and matured through those various stages of your life.

3) Your position is that before you were born, (any stage) you will conceed that you were a physical human organism, but were not a person.

Am I correct with regard to your position so far?


[looks around suspiciously]


umh...yes.

[palerider]

OK. If you admit that you are, and always have been a physical human organism, that is a human being since you could be nothing else, but not always a person, then let me see if I can put a finger on what you are actually arguing.


Since you conceed that you always have been a human, but don't conceed that you have always been a person, then are you arguing that a person is not a physical, biological organism and as such, didn't come into existence when the physical organism came into existence. If this is your argument, are you holding the position that the "person" is not physical but some sort of spiritual being (not necessarily religious) that simply inhabits the physical human being? Or perhaps that the "person" is a series of experiences that are somehow associated with the physical human being?

In essence, are you arguing that the physical, biological being is no more than a container or vehicle for the "person"?

[Coyote]

OK. If you admit that you are, and always have been a physical human organism, that is a human being since you could be nothing else, but not always a person, then let me see if I can put a finger on what you are actually arguing.


Since you conceed that you always have been a human, but don't conceed that you have always been a person, then are you arguing that a person is not a physical, biological organism and as such, didn't come into existence when the physical organism came into existence. If this is your argument, are you holding the position that the "person" is not physical but some sort of spiritual being (not necessarily religious) that simply inhabits the physical human being? Or perhaps that the "person" is a series of experiences that are somehow associated with the physical human being?

In essence, are you arguing that the physical, biological being is no more than a container or vehicle for the "person"?

I never thought of it quite that way.

I don't know if a person is exactly a spiritual being - you can't measure or define that very well. I don't think think a "person" exists independent of the body...maybe a "person" is a conglomeration of physical things coming together to create a unique individual consciousness that transcends a physical body and this occurs at some point in the physical development of the brain and can be lost when the brain is largely destroyed. It does not exist with out the brain.

[palerider]

I never thought of it quite that way.

I don't know if a person is exactly a spiritual being - you can't measure or define that very well. I don't think think a "person" exists independent of the body...maybe a "person" is a conglomeration of physical things coming together to create a unique individual consciousness that transcends a physical body and this occurs at some point in the physical development of the brain and can be lost when the brain is largely destroyed. It does not exist with out the brain.

Rather a shaky position upon which to give the go ahead to killing embryos for medical experiments don't you think? Woud you want to see a suspected criminal executed on the basis of such a flimsy argument? I mean, you are talking about a "thing" that you can't describe which trancends the physical body and since you can't describe this "thing" how can you say when it inhabits the physical body?

It sounds like you are stating that while you once were an embryo, blastocyst, zygote, etc., you didn't become a person and have intrinsic worth until some time later in your life. You are gambling with human lives on the basis of a very unstable philosophical argument.

[Coyote]

Rather a shaky position upon which to give the go ahead to killing embryos for medical experiments don't you think? Woud you want to see a suspected criminal executed on the basis of such a flimsy argument? I mean, you are talking about a "thing" that you can't describe which trancends the physical body and since you can't describe this "thing" how can you say when it inhabits the physical body?

I would define it becoming a person once it has brainwaves. Is that concrete enough?


It sounds like you are stating that while you once were an embryo, blastocyst, zygote, etc., you didn't become a person and have intrinsic worth until some time later in your life. You are gambling with human lives on the basis of a very unstable philosophical argument.

No, I don't consider it unstable. I utterly fail to see what in a blastocyst makes it a "person"? To me...it is no different then an egg or a sperm at that point. What makes it different and worthy of preserving?

[palerider]

I would define it becoming a person once it has brainwaves. Is that concrete enough?

Does this argument harken back to brain death? According to the law, and medical science, the basis of brain death, or absence of brain activity is not that a brain dead person is a living organism, but not a person. Instead, brain death is accepted as the end of life because the "irreversable" collapse of brain function destroys the capacity for self directed function of human beings who have matured to the point that a brain is required to carry out that task. It isn't the brainwaves themselves that give the person any particular standing, but what the brainwaves represent.

After brain death, an unbroken, individual no longer exists. This argument can not apply to a very young unborn. The fact that a very young unborn has not yet developed a brain does not mean that it is not capable of self directed growth and development since it clearly is. The absence of brainwaves at the end of life only signal death because the condition is irreversable and the person whose brain has ceased to function will never recover. It isn't the brainwaves themselves that make the person intrinsically valuable, and worthy of the protection of the law, but the fact that the brainwaves signal that the human being is still capable of self directed intergal organic function and unborns at any stage are clearly experiencing self directed growth and development.

No, I don't consider it unstable. I utterly fail to see what in a blastocyst makes it a "person"? To me...it is no different then an egg or a sperm at that point. What makes it different and worthy of preserving?

If, to you, a blastocyst is no different than an egg or a sperm, then you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance since such a position completely and totally ignores even the most basic scientific truth.

What makes you worthy of preserving? Is it only your brain waves that make you worthy of preserving? Are you only valuable because your body matured to the point that you are capable of transmitting brain waves? Or are you valuable, and worthy of the protection of the law because of what the brain waves represent? That being, that you are a living organism capable of self directed growth and development?

[ArmChair General]

Does this argument harken back to brain death? According to the law, and medical science, the basis of brain death, or absence of brain activity is not that a brain dead person is a living organism, but not a person. Instead, brain death is accepted as the end of life because the "irreversable" collapse of brain function destroys the capacity for self directed function of human beings who have matured to the point that a brain is required to carry out that task. It isn't the brainwaves themselves that give the person any particular standing, but what the brainwaves represent.

After brain death, an unbroken, individual no longer exists. This argument can not apply to a very young unborn. The fact that a very young unborn has not yet developed a brain does not mean that it is not capable of self directed growth and development since it clearly is. The absence of brainwaves at the end of life only signal death because the condition is irreversable and the person whose brain has ceased to function will never recover. It isn't the brainwaves themselves that make the person intrinsically valuable, and worthy of the protection of the law, but the fact that the brainwaves signal that the human being is still capable of self directed intergal organic function and unborns at any stage are clearly experiencing self directed growth and development.



If, to you, a blastocyst is no different than an egg or a sperm, then you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance since such a position completely and totally ignores even the most basic scientific truth.

What makes you worthy of preserving? Is it only your brain waves that make you worthy of preserving? Are you only valuable because your body matured to the point that you are capable of transmitting brain waves? Or are you valuable, and worthy of the protection of the law because of what the brain waves represent? That being, that you are a living organism capable of self directed growth and development?

wow..and you still keep going..after you've been defeated already.

Just look at the mental gymnastics you have to go through to even look like you still have a point. :D

Dodge Shuck Jive! lol

[Coyote]

What makes you worthy of preserving? Is it only your brain waves that make you worthy of preserving? Are you only valuable because your body matured to the point that you are capable of transmitting brain waves? Or are you valuable, and worthy of the protection of the law because of what the brain waves represent? That being, that you are a living organism capable of self directed growth and development?

No. It's not my brainwaves, but what those brainwaves signify - that I am a person, not a kidney or a tumor or a blastocyst.

You dismiss the linking of brainwaves, the absence of life and the presence of life. You state that there is a big difference between a damaged human and a human yet to be. The only difference I see is one of potential.

Consider how death has been defined and redefined. Prior to about 1960, a person would be declared dead if both their heartbeat and breathing had ceased and could not be re-started. That was the accepted definition of death. But now - technology has made this definition invalid. Heart pacemakers can keep the heart beating indefinitely long after all other internal systems have wound down. Respirators can keep the person apparently breathing forever. So how do we define death? Death is generally defined in most U.S. states as a situation in which the brain "flat-lines" and there is no major central nervous system activity and there is no detectable electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex even though machines keep the heart beating and keep the lungs breathing.

If the point of death is defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex - why not use the same criteria to define the start of human life as a person? Why choose conception over brain activity? It's completely arbritary isn't it?

Consider the various thoughts of people as to when an 'unborn" becomes a person.

When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered:

"If we’re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that’s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn’t happen with an embryo."

According to author Richard Carrier:
"...the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event we call 'quickening.' This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human -- in contrast with animal -- brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist in at least a primitive state."

Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.'

"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado. (2002)

[9sublime]

Let me ask you something Palerider.

If they found out they could create a human out of the DNA in snot, would you stop blowing your nose as it is wasting a potential human life?

[palerider]

wow..and you still keep going..after you've been defeated already.

Just look at the mental gymnastics you have to go through to even look like you still have a point. :D

Dodge Shuck Jive! lol

I am still waiting for you to bring forward that science that you said defeated me. It must have been a figment of your imagination.

Do you have an actual argument or not? You sound like the democrats who want to declare victory in iraq and then cut and run as if declaring victory is the same as achieving victory.

[palerider]

No. It's not my brainwaves, but what those brainwaves signify - that I am a person, not a kidney or a tumor or a blastocyst.

All your brain waves signify is that you are still capable of internal self direction. No more, no less. They are electrical signals that show that your body is still directing itself. If you believe that they are magic, then say so.


You dismiss the linking of brainwaves, the absence of life and the presence of life. You state that there is a big difference between a damaged human and a human yet to be. The only difference I see is one of potential.

Hold on. We have already established, and you have agreed that the unborn is a human. Your argument now is that they are not persons.

Consider how death has been defined and redefined. Prior to about 1960, a person would be declared dead if both their heartbeat and breathing had ceased and could not be re-started. That was the accepted definition of death. But now - technology has made this definition invalid. Heart pacemakers can keep the heart beating indefinitely long after all other internal systems have wound down. Respirators can keep the person apparently breathing forever. So how do we define death? Death is generally defined in most U.S. states as a situation in which the brain "flat-lines" and there is no major central nervous system activity and there is no detectable electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex even though machines keep the heart beating and keep the lungs breathing.

Death has been redefined by philosophers looking for a way to kill unborns guilt free.

And once again, the presence of brain waves are only a signal that indicate to doctors that the person is still capable of internal self direction. That no outside help is needed for the victim to simply carry on with the internal biological functions of living. Unless you are claiming some spiritual character to the brain waves of course.

If the point of death is defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex - why not use the same criteria to define the start of human life as a person? Why choose conception over brain activity? It's completely arbritary isn't it?

The point of death is defined as the irreversable loss of brain activity. This signals that the person is no longer capable of carrying on the internal functions of living. It does not signal that the victim is no longer a person since the brain waves are not what made him or her a person. It is a signal that the person is not going to recover.

Doctors call death when they have a clear signal that the person will not recover. No more, no less. Absence of brain activity in a healthy individual who has not yet matured enough to have a brain is not a signal that the individual is no longer capable of internally directing the functions of living. Absence of brain activity in the unborn is not a signal that they will never recover.


I will have to pick this up later, I am late for an appointment and I will be away fishing all weekend. I will pop in if possible, if not, have a good holiday and we will take this up again on tuesday.

[Coyote]

Hold on. We have already established, and you have agreed that the unborn is a human. Your argument now is that they are not persons.

Agreed - I am inadvertently using human/person interchangably.

I will have to pick this up later, I am late for an appointment and I will be away fishing all weekend. I will pop in if possible, if not, have a good holiday and we will take this up again on tuesday.

Fishing? Have a great time :) I too am heading off shortly to a stockdog clinic for the weekend to work sheep and cattle.

[palerider]

Fishing? Have a great time :) I too am heading off shortly to a stockdog clinic for the weekend to work sheep and cattle.

Yeah. Tuna are in. Later.

[vyo476]

Yeah. Tuna are in. Later.

Mmm tuna. Would you believe that I was 18 years old the first time I had it? I was missing out.

[9sublime]

Tuna is disgusting. Every time I open a can for someone I almost wretch. Just look at the stuff. Why don't you just eat a smoked salmon or battered cod?

[vyo476]

Tuna is disgusting. Every time I open a can for someone I almost wretch. Just look at the stuff. Why don't you just eat a smoked salmon or battered cod?

Salmon and cod are excellent too. My favorite seafood, though, is calamari. Now there's some good stuff.

[r0beph]

Salmon and cod are excellent too. My favorite seafood, though, is calamari. Now there's some good stuff.

hmm, I really like a rare salmon steak. bout 4" thick..charred but cool in the center. good stuff.

[9sublime]

Lol, why do all our discussions end like this? Although calamari is damn good.

[palerider]

Tuna is disgusting. Every time I open a can for someone I almost wretch. Just look at the stuff. Why don't you just eat a smoked salmon or battered cod?

Comparing fresh tuna steaks to canned tuna is like comparing fresh fruit to kool aid.

Didn't catch any tuna though. Just a bunch of mahi mahi.

[palerider]

Agreed - I am inadvertently using human/person interchangably.

OK. So, are you arguing that there is something mystic about brain waves? Any med student can tell you that they are just electrical impulses that signal that an organism is capable of internal self direction. It isn't possible to effectively argue that an unborn who hasn't yet developed enough to have a brain or brain activity isn't capable of internal self direction. Even at the cellular level, electrical and chemical communication is happening. body

[Coyote]

OK. So, are you arguing that there is something mystic about brain waves? Any med student can tell you that they are just electrical impulses that signal that an organism is capable of internal self direction. It isn't possible to effectively argue that an unborn who hasn't yet developed enough to have a brain or brain activity isn't capable of internal self direction. Even at the cellular level, electrical and chemical communication is happening. body

No - I merely said I was not being careful in my wording.

Brainwaves indicate that the organism is capable of self direction yes but more then that, it indicates the beginnings of a consciencousness. That is not the same as cellular/chemical communication. That would not be self direction.

[palerider]

No - I merely said I was not being careful in my wording.

Brainwaves indicate that the organism is capable of self direction yes but more then that, it indicates the beginnings of a consciencousness. That is not the same as cellular/chemical communication. That would not be self direction.

Brain waves don't necessarily indicate consciencousness. All animals with brains have brain waves and I don't know of anyone who would argue that all animals have any consciencousness beyond survival instincts.

If unborns are not capable of self direction before they develop a brain, exactly what are you suggesting does direct their development to that point?

[Coyote]

Brain waves don't necessarily indicate consciencousness. All animals with brains have brain waves and I don't know of anyone who would argue that all animals have any consciencousness beyond survival instincts.

I disagree - I think any animal with a brain (and thus brainwaves) has some sort of conscienciousness - not the equal of humans, but something beyond simply survival instincts - some sort of self awareness. I am not sure this can be scientifically proven but then neither can it be disproven.


If unborns are not capable of self direction before they develop a brain, exactly what are you suggesting does direct their development to that point?

Their genes. It's like a machine. It's on automatic pilot.

[palerider]

I disagree - I think any animal with a brain (and thus brainwaves) has some sort of conscienciousness - not the equal of humans, but something beyond simply survival instincts - some sort of self awareness. I am not sure this can be scientifically proven but then neither can it be disproven.

There are numerous studies that suggest that any animal that can't pass the mirror test (google it) is simply not self aware and there are precious few animals that can pass it. Even among chimps, gorillas, and dolphins, not all individuals pass.


Their genes. It's like a machine. It's on automatic pilot.

And exactly what do you suppose directs the development of the brain? It is the genetics that make a human being. Not the brain waves. The brain operates like it does due to genetics, unless you are ascribing something mystical at work, beyond science.

[Coyote]

There are numerous studies that suggest that any animal that can't pass the mirror test (google it) is simply not self aware and there are precious few animals that can pass it. Even among chimps, gorillas, and dolphins, not all individuals pass.

How valid is the mirror test? For starters - it depends entirely on visual recognition systems. According to what I found, animals which have passed the test include chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, dolphins, elephants, humans and possibly pigeons. Except for Koko - gorillas have not passed the test - but scientists theorize that this is because gorillas consider eye contact an aggressive gesture and normally try to avoid looking each other in the face (another problem with this test). Human children tend to fail this test until they are at least 1.5 to 2 years old.,

According to Wikipedia:
There is some debate in the scientific community as to the value and interpretation of results of the mirror test. While this test has been extensively conducted on primates, there is also debate as to the value of the test as applied to animals who rely primarily on senses other than vision, such as dogs. As dogs have very poor visual resolution and acuity with red/green blindness, they have little chance of recognizing themselves or a dot (commonly red) in a mirror. However, dogs do recognize their own scent invariably with 40x more neurons than humans dedicated to processing smell. The key point being that the mirror test is only a measure of ability closely matching humans, not a statement of Consciousness, as is popularly believed. Additionally, as mentioned with gorillas, many animals may regard eye contact as a threatening gesture, so the application of the mirror test is unclear. Some mammalian species do not have stereoscopic vision, including rabbits and deer, which may be a factor in determining the value of the test.




And exactly what do you suppose directs the development of the brain? It is the genetics that make a human being. Not the brain waves. The brain operates like it does due to genetics, unless you are ascribing something mystical at work, beyond science.

What directs the development of the brain is not consciousness - it's genetic and cellular mechanisms. Yes - it is genetics that makes the human being but it is consciousness that makes the person.

[palerider]

How valid is the mirror test? For starters - it depends entirely on visual recognition systems. According to what I found, animals which have passed the test include chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, dolphins, elephants, humans and possibly pigeons. Except for Koko - gorillas have not passed the test - but scientists theorize that this is because gorillas consider eye contact an aggressive gesture and normally try to avoid looking each other in the face (another problem with this test). Human children tend to fail this test until they are at least 1.5 to 2 years old.,

How valid? Certainly more than your uncorroborated opinion wouldn't you say?

Also, haven't I pointed out before that tests reveal that human children have no self awareness until they are about 18 months old? That is the entire point. If you are going to argue that some sort of self awareness is necessary in order to enjoy the protection of the law, you must deny that protection to born children for almost 2 years, and almost certainly for at least 1 year.

According to Wikipedia:
[INDENT]There is some debate in the scientific community as to the value and interpretation of results of the mirror test.

Name a field of study in which there is no debate. Does that mean that no scientific study is valid until all scientists agree?

What directs the development of the brain is not consciousness - it's genetic and cellular mechanisms. Yes - it is genetics that makes the human being but it is consciousness that makes the person.

So you are saying that children who are born and enjoy the protection of the law are not really persons until they are conscious?

[9sublime]

A child between up to the age of two often doesn't recognize itself in the mirror. If they have little understand of who they are, then what chance does a foetus have of being truely human?

[Coyote]

How valid? Certainly more than your uncorroborated opinion wouldn't you say?

I haven't seen anything from you to support your "uncorroborated" opinion while I provided at least some sources indicating it may not be valid. I can certainly look for more but why go to the effort until I see something from you?


Also, haven't I pointed out before that tests reveal that human children have no self awareness until they are about 18 months old? That is the entire point.

Good point.


If you are going to argue that some sort of self awareness is necessary in order to enjoy the protection of the law, you must deny that protection to born children for almost 2 years, and almost certainly for at least 1 year.


No, I don't think selfawareness is the only thing - it's part of what makes a person. Having a functioning brain - with brainwaves is part of it. Are we people if we don't have brains? Consciousness is a function of the brain. If we don't have a brain - what makes us special, or any different then any other animal?

Name a field of study in which there is no debate. Does that mean that no scientific study is valid until all scientists agree?

You put forth the mirror test as if it were a given. I merely pointed out that it isn't.


So you are saying that children who are born and enjoy the protection of the law are not really persons until they are conscious?

No - I am saying consciousness is one of several the attributes that makes one a person. I considered it the most important one but you bring up the point of very young infants having no self awareness so I must rethink this.

However, I have not yet seen anything that convinces me a blastocyst is a "person".

[Coyote]

I'm posting this as food for thought....even though it doesn't address stemcell research I think we have wandered a bit from that already. It raises some intersting questions.


Fetus, Humanity, Personhood: When Does a Fetus Become a Human Person with Rights
From Austin Cline


Abortion is the focus of some of the most intense social, cultural, political, religious, and ethical debates in modern American society. Some regard abortion as something people should be able to choose while others say abortion is a great evil which is destroying the moral fabric of society. Many of the debates turn on the status of the fetus: Is a fetus a person? Does a fetus have moral or legal rights? How we define a person and the fetus may decide the abortion debates.

Homo Sapiens:
The simplest definition of a person may be “a member of the species homo sapiens, the human species.” The fetus obviously has the same DNA as everyone else and can’t possibly be classified as any species other than homo sapiens, so isn’t it obviously a person? Assigning rights on the basis of species, however, merely begs the question of the nature of rights and what rights mean to us. The equation of rights with the human species is simple, but perhaps too simple.

DNA vs. Environment in Shaping a Person:
One premise in the argument that homo sapiens are the same as persons with rights is the idea who we are today was all present in a fertilized ovum because all our DNA was there. This is wrong. Much of what we are, even physical traits like fingerprints, is not determined by DNA. An embryo may or may not split into twins or more. Twins, identical or fraternal, may join during development, leading to a single person with more than one set of DNA. Environment counts for much of what we are.

Brain Activity & Interests:
Maybe we should focus on the ability to have interests: if someone is going to have a claim to a right to life, shouldn’t we first require that they have an interest in living and continuing to live? An ant has no conception of self and no interest in living, so has no right to life, but an adult human does. Where on this continuum does a fetus fall? Not until the necessary brain connections and activity exist, and that’s not until several months into a pregnancy.

Independent Life:
If someone has a claim to a right to live, shouldn’t they have some sort of independent life of their own? A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman. The same isn’t true of anyone else — at most, a person’s claim might entail support and help from the community at large. It would not, however, entail being hooked up to the circulatory system of another human.

Soul:
For many religious believers, a person has rights because they are endowed by God with a soul. It is thus the soul that makes them a person and requires that they be protected. There are different opinions, though, on when a soul appears. Some say conception, some say at “quickening,” when the fetus begins to move. The state has no authority to even declare that a soul exists, however, much less pick one religious conception of the soul and decide when it enters a human body.

Legal Persons & Legal Protections for Non-Persons:
Even if the fetus isn’t a person from a scientific or religious perspective, it could still be declared a person in a legal sense. If corporations can be treated as persons under the law, why not a fetus? Even if we decided that a fetus isn’t a person, that doesn’t necessarily answer the question of whether abortion should be illegal. Many non-persons, like animals, are protected. The state could theoretically assert an interest in protecting potential human life, even if it isn’t a person.

Does it Matter if the Fetus is a Person?:
Whether the fetus is declared a person from a scientific, religious, or legal perspective, this would not necessarily mean that abortion is wrong. A woman could assert a right to control her body such that even if the fetus is a person, it has no legal claim to use it. Could an adult claim a right to being hooked up to someone’s body? No — it might not be ethical to refuse the use of one’s body to save the life of another, but it couldn’t be forced by the law.

Abortion is Not Murder:
It is assumed that if the fetus is a person, then abortion is murder. This position is incompatible with what most people believe, even most anti-choice activists. If the fetus is a person and abortion is murder, then those involved should be treated like murderers. Almost no one says that either abortion providers or the women should go to jail for murder. Making exceptions for rape, incest, and even the mother’s life are also incompatible with the idea that abortion is murder.

Religion, Science, and the Definition of Humanity:
Many may assume that a proper definition of “person” would end debates over abortion, but reality is more complex than this simplistic assumption allows. Abortion debates involve debates about the status and rights of the fetus, but they are also about far more. It is arguable that the right to an abortion is primarily a right of a woman to control what happens to her body and that the death of the fetus, person or not, is an unavoidable consequence of choosing not to remain pregnant.

It is little wonder that many people are anti-abortion in the sense of not approving of the death of a fetus, but pro-choice because they regard the right of a woman to choose what happens to her body as fundamental and necessary. For this reason, then, anti-abortion activists in America are best described as anti-choice because the ability of women to choose is the political issue.

This doesn’t mean that the status of the fetus is completely irrelevant or that debates about whether the fetus is a “person” are uninteresting. Whether we think of the fetus as a person or not will have a significant influence on whether we think of abortion is ethical (even if we think it should remain legal) and what sorts of restrictions we think should be placed on those choosing to have an abortion. If the fetus is a person, then abortion may still be justified and outlawing abortion may be unjustified, but the fetus could still deserve protections and respect of some sort.

Respect, perhaps, is the issue which deserves much more attention than it currently receives. Many of those opposed to choice have been drawn in that direction because they believe that legalized abortion cheapens human life. Much of the rhetoric of the “culture of life” has force because there is something disturbing about the idea of treating the fetus as unworthy of respect and consideration. If the two sides could come closer together on this matter, perhaps the disagreements remaining would be less rancorous.

[palerider]

I'm posting this as food for thought....even though it doesn't address stemcell research I think we have wandered a bit from that already. It raises some intersting questions.

There is only one bright line there and that is the scientific classification that unborns are without question human beings. Everything else is no more than a philosophical argument. Are you prepared to have innocent human beings killed on the basis of a philosophical argument? For that matter, would you want to see a person accused of murder sentenced and executed on the basis of a philosophical argument?

[Coyote]

There is only one bright line there and that is the scientific classification that unborns are without question human beings. Everything else is no more than a philosophical argument. Are you prepared to have innocent human beings killed on the basis of a philosophical argument? For that matter, would you want to see a person accused of murder sentenced and executed on the basis of a philosophical argument?


Maybe I am. Why denigrate philosophy as somehow inferier to hard science? Some questions - particularly concerning ethics - can't be answered adequately by science.

What makes a human distinct from all other animal life and worthy of preserving? Can science provide an answer to that?

The very issue of crime, punishment, and the death penalty is more philosophical then scientific otherwise why aren't children punished like adults?

[palerider]

Maybe I am. Why denigrate philosophy as somehow inferier to hard science? Some questions - particularly concerning ethics - can't be answered adequately by science.

What makes a human distinct from all other animal life and worthy of preserving? Can science provide an answer to that?

The very issue of crime, punishment, and the death penalty is more philosophical then scientific otherwise why aren't children punished like adults?

So you are willing to see human beings killed on the basis of a philosophical argument. Human beings that you admit are human beings but claim are not persons based on such argument. Don't forget, that the idea that a person is not the same as a human being is also based on a very flimsy philosophical argument.

[Coyote]

So you are willing to see human beings killed on the basis of a philosophical argument.

You tell me - what makes a human a human - a person worthy of preserving?


Human beings that you admit are human beings but claim are not persons based on such argument.

Human beings that are members of the species homosapiens - that's it. By genetics only and no other attribute. What makes a blastocyst a person?

Don't forget, that the idea that a person is not the same as a human being is also based on a very flimsy philosophical argument.

It's far from flimsy because it is what drives many of our laws and it is what makes us regard human life as higher than that of any other species.

[palerider]

You tell me - what makes a human a human - a person worthy of preserving?

Human beings are worthy of the protection of the law because we write the laws. It is as simple as that.

Human beings that are members of the species homosapiens - that's it. By genetics only and no other attribute. What makes a blastocyst a person?

What makes any human being a person? The concept of personhood was invented to justify killing human beings before they are born. It is philosophical sophistry.

It's far from flimsy because it is what drives many of our laws and it is what makes us regard human life as higher than that of any other species.

No. According to the law, all human beings are persons. The philosophical slight of hand that attempts to say that persons and human beings are two different things came about in the 1970's. Roe is a court case that says that unborns are not persons but acknowledges that at some point they may be considered to be persons at which time, roe collapses in upon itself. But court cases aren't law. There is no law that distinguishes between human beings and persons which is really why the abortion debate exists. Had law been written that denied the right to live of human beings that are not yet born, then "we the people" would have had our say as opposed to 9 unelected, unaccountable judges making the decision in lieu of the legislative process.

[9sublime]

A child between up to the age of two often doesn't recognize itself in the mirror. If they have little understand of who they are, then what chance does a foetus have of being truely human?

Bump (i feel so dirty after saying bump)

[palerider]

Bump (i feel so dirty after saying bump)

It will be easier next time and before you know it, bump will be part of your vernacular.

We are all human beings. No matter what stage of development we are at. We don't magically become a "person" at some stage of our lives. We are what we are and the words we use to describe whatever period of our lives we are at are for our own benefit and don't represent some sort of mystical changes going on within us. The concept of personhood is nothing more than philosophical prestidigitation designed with the express intent of dehumanizing a human being so that said human being can be killed for any or no reason. We have seen it before. Human history is rife with examples of a simple word being powerful enough (in the minds of some) to justify dehumanizing entire groups or cultures. The "personhood" gambit is just one more in a long and tragic list.

[Coyote]

Human beings are worthy of the protection of the law because we write the laws. It is as simple as that.


The laws, as written - were not written with a blastocyst in mind.


What makes any human being a person? The concept of personhood was invented to justify killing human beings before they are born. It is philosophical sophistry.

No. According to the law, all human beings are persons. The philosophical slight of hand that attempts to say that persons and human beings are two different things came about in the 1970's. Roe is a court case that says that unborns are not persons but acknowledges that at some point they may be considered to be persons at which time, roe collapses in upon itself. But court cases aren't law. There is no law that distinguishes between human beings and persons which is really why the abortion debate exists. Had law been written that denied the right to live of human beings that are not yet born, then "we the people" would have had our say as opposed to 9 unelected, unaccountable judges making the decision in lieu of the legislative process.

That is inaccurate. The concept of "personhood" far pre-dates the whole abortion of debate. For example

Halacha (Jewish law) defines when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' and in the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

The Catholic Church long held that it wasn't a "person" until the quickening.

The law was never written with embryos in mind.

[palerider]

The laws, as written - were not written with a blastocyst in mind.

To date, you haven't demonstrated that blastocysts are not human beings. The laws were written by human beings for human beings. It is philosophical slight of hand to try and make persons and human beings two different things.

That is inaccurate. The concept of "personhood" far pre-dates the whole abortion of debate. For example

Halacha (Jewish law) defines when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' and in the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

In Hebrew, the word nefesh means spirit. Are you talking spirits again and using religious law to support your position?

The Catholic Church long held that it wasn't a "person" until the quickening.

Hebrew law and catholic doctrine?

The law was never written with embryos in mind.

The nature of our law is that if a right exists, in this case, the right to live, then that right exists for all human beings. The right can be denied, but law must be written that explicitly states which right is being denied, to whom, or which group it is being denied, and for what reason it is being denied. Since embryos are human beings, they are entitled to the same protection of the law as any other human being unless law is written that excludes them. You may not like it, but that is the nature of our legal system.

[Coyote]

To date, you haven't demonstrated that blastocysts are not human beings. The laws were written by human beings for human beings. It is philosophical slight of hand to try and make persons and human beings two different things.


You haven't demonstrated that blastocysts are people. It's no sleight of hand - what determines a person is not a scientific determination no matter how hard you might try and make it one. Science only determines species. Laws were written to protect people - not all life.


In Hebrew, the word nefesh means spirit. Are you talking spirits again and using religious law to support your position?
Hebrew law and catholic doctrine?


Nope, just pointing out the error of your statement: that personhood is a modern concept revolving around abortion. It isn't.


The nature of our law is that if a right exists, in this case, the right to live, then that right exists for all human beings.

No. For all persons. And what defines a person has changed through history.


The right can be denied, but law must be written that explicitly states which right is being denied, to whom, or which group it is being denied, and for what reason it is being denied. Since embryos are human beings, they are entitled to the same protection of the law as any other human being unless law is written that excludes them. You may not like it, but that is the nature of our legal system.

However embryos are not people.

Your logic doesn't work.

You use legal definitions to support your points by saying the legal definition of a "person" is a human being - yet all legal "persons" are clearly not human beings (ie they can be corporations). So that is wrong right there.

You say all persons are human beings therefore all human beings are persons.

That's a classic logical fallacy.

[palerider]

You haven't demonstrated that blastocysts are people. It's no sleight of hand - what determines a person is not a scientific determination no matter how hard you might try and make it one. Science only determines species. Laws were written to protect people - not all life.

It is the idea that a person is different and distinct from a human being that is needing proof here coyote. We have already established that unborns are indeed human beings.

Show me some law (law is written by legislatures) that states that human beings prior to the time of their birth are denied the protection of the 14th amendment. For that matter, show me some law that differentiates between human beings and people. Or show me some law that establishes a difference between human beings and people.

Nope, just pointing out the error of your statement: that personhood is a modern concept revolving around abortion. It isn't.

Of course you are. Spirits, religious doctrine. This is what you are using to support your position. It is the only thing you have and if you are going to use religious doctrine to support your position, then it is no more valid than a red faced bible thumper who is shouting thou shall not kill.

No. For all persons. And what defines a person has changed through history.

The law defines persons as human beings. Show me some legislated law that says that all human beings are not persons.

However embryos are not people.

Declaring that a group of human beings are not people and not deserving of the constitutional rights that all human beings have is going to require some law in order to be constitutional. Kindly bring the law here and show me or drop this invalid line of argument.

You use legal definitions to support your points by saying the legal definition of a "person" is a human being - yet all legal "persons" are clearly not human beings (ie they can be corporations). So that is wrong right there.

Are you arguing that unborns are corporate entites? If you are, then you are going to need to prove that they are the sorts of corporations that may not be viewed as persons, and if you are not, then human being is the only legal definition of person that you are left with. The logic is impeccable which is why it is so frustrating to you. If it weren't, you could have sidestepped this issue long ago.

You say all persons are human beings therefore all human beings are persons.

Show me some law that states that all human beings are not persons. If you are wanting to argue law, then you need to be prepared to show some law. If you aren't arguing the law, what is your point?

[Coyote]

It is the idea that a person is different and distinct from a human being that is needing proof here coyote. We have already established that unborns are indeed human beings.

Show me some law (law is written by legislatures) that states that human beings prior to the time of their birth are denied the protection of the 14th amendment. For that matter, show me some law that differentiates between human beings and people. Or show me some law that establishes a difference between human beings and people.


The laws have always been written for "persons" - and what constitutes a "person" legally has changed throughout history. "Person" did not used to mean blacks, or women, or children or other categories of people. Do you deny that?

History, law, philosophy and cultural traditions have long seperated the idea of what "constitutes" a "person" from human being. Can you point to any laws, historical sources or traditions that label a blastocyst a person? Science itself is unable to accurately define a "person" though the consensus seems to be that there needs to be a certain level of neurological development.

Are there any laws that refer to constitutional protections for "human beings"?


Of course you are. Spirits, religious doctrine. This is what you are using to support your position. It is the only thing you have and if you are going to use religious doctrine to support your position, then it is no more valid than a red faced bible thumper who is shouting thou shall not kill.

Not at all.

You stated: "What makes any human being a person? The concept of personhood was invented to justify killing human beings before they are born. It is philosophical sophistry."

I pointed out the error in your statement - in other words, the concept of personhood had nothing to do with abortion and far pre-dates the issue. Who's practicing sophistry here?


The law defines persons as human beings. Show me some legislated law that says that all human beings are not persons.

The law also defines persons as corporations. What of it?

The law didn't used to define blacks as persons. We had to add an amendment to get that.

Maybe the use of literal legal definitions to support your position is flawed?


Declaring that a group of human beings are not people and not deserving of the constitutional rights that all human beings have is going to require some law in order to be constitutional. Kindly bring the law here and show me or drop this invalid line of argument.

Not at all. Typically, constitutional amendments are required to expand the definition of what is a "person".


Are you arguing that unborns are corporate entites? If you are, then you are going to need to prove that they are the sorts of corporations that may not be viewed as persons, and if you are not, then human being is the only legal definition of person that you are left with. The logic is impeccable which is why it is so frustrating to you. If it weren't, you could have sidestepped this issue long ago.

Not at all. I'm pointing out your flaw in relying on the legal definition of a "person".



Show me some law that states that all human beings are not persons. If you are wanting to argue law, then you need to be prepared to show some law. If you aren't arguing the law, what is your point?

It's not up to me to prove that something IS NOT - in other words, that all human beings are not persons. It's up to you - who make that argument - to prove that they are "persons".

I forget the exact quote here or the person who stated it....but it goes something to this effect.

I could state that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun. But is too small to be detectable by any instruments. The burdon of proof is not on you to show that it does not exist but rather on me to show that it does.

Your rely on biology but all biology can show is that we are all members of the same species.

You rely on a literal legal definition from a legal dictionary - but that two is flawed since it also can mean a corporation and on top of that it makes a distinction between "person" and "natural person".

From a logical viewpoint - your argument is flawed because it boils down to:

All persons are human beings
Therefore all human beings are persons.

You don't have an adequate definition of a person.

You state all human beings are persons - I state not.

[palerider]

The laws have always been written for "persons" - and what constitutes a "person" legally has changed throughout history. "Person" did not used to mean blacks, or women, or children or other categories of people. Do you deny that?

In the case of blacks, they were considered to not be human beings and thus not protected by laws written to protect human beings. Several supreme court cases stated flatly that they were not human, not that they were not persons.

Human rights denied to women and children have always had law written that identified who the right was being denied to, what right was being denied, and for what reason it was being denied.

The right to live is a human right, not a person right. Even the libs recognize basic rights as basic human rights, not basic person rights.

History, law, philosophy and cultural traditions have long seperated the idea of what "constitutes" a "person" from human being. Can you point to any laws, historical sources or traditions that label a blastocyst a person? Science itself is unable to accurately define a "person" though the consensus seems to be that there needs to be a certain level of neurological development.

The concept of person, once again, is a philosophical concept and the idea that a person and a human being are two separate things is just so much sophistry that has been used in an attempt to dehumanize human beings so that they may be done with as another group wishes.

And again, the nature of our law is such that for a right to be denied to a human being, that human being, or group of human beings must be identified, the right they are being denied must be identified, and why the right is being denied must be enumerated. Like it or not, that is the nature of our legal system.

And there is no consensus in the scientific community that neurological development is necessary to be a human being. "Personhood" is not the realm of science. Distinguishing persons from human beings is the realm of necromancers and gypsys.

Are there any laws that refer to constitutional protections for "human beings"?

Since the legal definition of "person" is "a human being" they are all written either for the protection of human beings or for human beings to follow.


I pointed out the error in your statement - in other words, the concept of personhood had nothing to do with abortion and far pre-dates the issue. Who's practicing sophistry here?

You didn't point out anything of the sort. What you brought was very old religious doctrine that expressed the belief that we aren't human beings until we have a spirit.

The law also defines persons as corporations. What of it?

Are you arguing that unborns are corporations?

The law didn't used to define blacks as persons. We had to add an amendment to get that.

The law said that blacks were not human beings, not that they were not persons. When it became undeniable that they were indeed human beings, it followed that they were persons deserving of the protection of the law. Read your history.

Maybe the use of literal legal definitions to support your position is flawed?

Using the actual definition of a word is flawed? Using words as they are meant to be used is flawed? Do you see how outrageous your argument has become. You are actually suggesting that using words incorrectly, which can't help but create flawed concepts is somehow the right way to express an idea.

Not at all. Typically, constitutional amendments are required to expand the definition of what is a "person".

Show me a constitutional amendment that describes the difference between a person and a human being.

I suppose you are referencing the 13th amendment with regard to blacks and slavery, but that amendment doesn't even contain the word person. Blacks were enslaved because the argument was made (and believed) that they were not human beings. Since they were not human beings, they could not be persons. It is simple as that.

Not at all. I'm pointing out your flaw in relying on the legal definition of a "person".

It is a flaw to rely on the legal definition when discussing the law and who the law protects?

What other definition has any merit? And would you like to see non legal definitions of words used in legal arguments to execute or imprison others besides the unborn?

It's not up to me to prove that something IS NOT - in other words, that all human beings are not persons. It's up to you - who make that argument - to prove that they are "persons".

I have. The legal definition of "person" is a human being. If you are not going to accept that, then you need to prove that they are not human beings, or prove with a valid legal argument that all human beings are not persons.

I forget the exact quote here or the person who stated it....but it goes something to this effect.

I could state that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun. But is too small to be detectable by any instruments. The burdon of proof is not on you to show that it does not exist but rather on me to show that it does.

And I have with the legal definition of "person". If you aren't going to accept that, then the onus is upon you to provide a legitimate alternative to an accepted legal definition.

You rely on a literal legal definition from a legal dictionary - but that two is flawed since it also can mean a corporation and on top of that it makes a distinction between "person" and "natural person".

Not in the eyes of the law. Both the natural person, and the corporate entity that may be viewed as a person enjoy the same legal protections. In order to deny those protections from either, specific legislation must be written to deny said protections.


You don't have an adequate definition of a person

You state all human beings are persons - I state not.


I have the accepted legal definition. What exactly do you have beyond some philosophical slight of hand?

[ArmChair General]

Whoaa...Coyote is kicking some PRider butt.

Not that thats hard to do.

[palerider]

Whoaa...Coyote is kicking some PRider butt.

Not that thats hard to do.

As if you even understand the subject matter. Do you jump in and post inanities because you fear that you will be completely forgotten if you aren't constantly saying something?

If you have something to add to the conversation, or even something that would demonstrate that you understand the subject, feel free to jump in. Otherwise, tuck your little tail between your legs and move on and live your fantasy that you will ever win a debate against me in private. Fantasizing in public is so very pathetic.

At this point, it is becoming obvious to anyone who looks that you do not engage me on any subject, but instead, pop in, hurl an impotent insult, and clear out. Your tactics speak volumes about your abilities.

[9sublime]

Armchair, that was pretty pathetic. This has turned into a one on one debate, and I'm quite enjoying it that way. However, unless you have something really good to add, after a post like that, don't say anything at all.

[Coyote]

The right to live is a human right, not a person right. Even the libs recognize basic rights as basic human rights, not basic person rights.


Where does that right come from? The law gives rights to "persons" - it defines and re-defines what it feels a "person" is.



The concept of person, once again, is a philosophical concept and the idea that a person and a human being are two separate things is just so much sophistry that has been used in an attempt to dehumanize human beings so that they may be done with as another group wishes.

A philosophical concept? Maybe - but law is grounded in philosophical concepts, not science. Ethics, morality, what we define as right or wrong has no grounding in science.


And again, the nature of our law is such that for a right to be denied to a human being, that human being, or group of human beings must be identified, the right they are being denied must be identified, and why the right is being denied must be enumerated. Like it or not, that is the nature of our legal system.


Not at all. The law talks about "persons". Who defines "persons"? The definition has changed as our culture and mores have changed. Historically most humans did not enjoy full legal protection as "persons" (women, children, non-landowners, minorities, slaves, etc.). It was only from the late 18th through the late 20th century being that born as a member of the human species gradually became seculargrounds for an appeal for basic rights of liberty, freedom from persecution, and humanitarian care. That concept is is continuously changing - as witness your attempts to bring "the unborn" into the category of "persons".


And there is no consensus in the scientific community that neurological development is necessary to be a human being. "Personhood" is not the realm of science. Distinguishing persons from human beings is the realm of necromancers and gypsys.


Science explicitely states that it can not adequately answer the question of "personhood". It does not deny "personhood". You keep throwing in necormancers and gypsies like a mantra. However, I'll ask again - what is the grounding for our laws? It is not science.


Since the legal definition of "person" is "a human being" they are all written either for the protection of human beings or for human beings to follow.


There is a logical fallacy inherent here with your insistance that there is no difference between "human being" and "person" based upon a legal definition. If I strip away all the extraneious words - your argument comes down to this, yes?

The legal definition of a "person" is "a human being"
All persons are human beings.
Therefore all human beings are "persons".

Do you see the problem with pursuing this line of argument?



You didn't point out anything of the sort. What you brought was very old religious doctrine that expressed the belief that we aren't human beings until we have a spirit.


No. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more. You're attempting to muddy the waters here.

You said - in summary (and correct me if I'm wrong) - that the concept of "personhood" is a modern phenomena related to the abortion movement. Yes?

I said - in summary - that the concept of "personhood" is a very old one and has been around a long time.

Now you poo-poo it because I used old religious references. Well, here are some other references exploring the concept of "personhood" that predate the abortion controversy and are not religious texts.

According to Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (AD 480–524 or 525):

Person is an individual substance of rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation. The soul is not person, only the composite is. Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights.

John Locke emphasized the idea of a living being that is conscious of itself as persisting over time (and hence able to have conscious preferences about its own future).


Are you arguing that unborns are corporations?


No, I'm pointing out the flaw in relying on literal legal definitions.


The law said that blacks were not human beings, not that they were not persons. When it became undeniable that they were indeed human beings, it followed that they were persons deserving of the protection of the law. Read your history.


Can you give me some examples of this? Most references to the legal justifications for slavery do not use species as a justification.

The law also denied other groups full "human" protections by denying them "personhood". In addition, even after abolition, blacks still did not enjoy full legal protections as "persons".


Using the actual definition of a word is flawed? Using words as they are meant to be used is flawed? Do you see how outrageous your argument has become. You are actually suggesting that using words incorrectly, which can't help but create flawed concepts is somehow the right way to express an idea.

It's flawed because that legal definition includes corporations. Do you feel corporations are have the same inherent basic rights as a natural person?


Show me a constitutional amendment that describes the difference between a person and a human being.


Show me an amendment that claims all persons are human beings.


I suppose you are referencing the 13th amendment with regard to blacks and slavery, but that amendment doesn't even contain the word person. Blacks were enslaved because the argument was made (and believed) that they were not human beings. Since they were not human beings, they could not be persons. It is simple as that.

The history of slavery is long and complex and some of the logic used to justify it centered around the idea - not that they were not of the speicies human beings but that they were inferior breed of human beings.


It is a flaw to rely on the legal definition when discussing the law and who the law protects?

Yes, when you misuse that definition. And again -this goes back the inherent flaw in your logic

All "persons" are human beings, therefore all human beings are "persons".


What other definition has any merit? And would you like to see non legal definitions of words used in legal arguments to execute or imprison others besides the unborn?


Obviously scientific definitions have merit because you use them in your arguments also. I won't argue the fine points of law here - I am not a lawyer nor an expert in law. In addition, when you strip away everything - the specific laws are secondary, the bigger question is what is law based on - where does it come from that gives it any authority? Obviously - through history the definition of consitutes a person worthy of protection has changed even though the wording has not.



I have the accepted legal definition. What exactly do you have beyond some philosophical slight of hand?


We're going in circles but here again: what is the accepted legal definition of a "human being"?

[palerider]

Where does that right come from? The law gives rights to "persons" - it defines and re-defines what it feels a "person" is.

No. That entire body of legal theory is called human rights. Not person's rights. Person is a legal term that means human being.

A philosophical concept? Maybe - but law is grounded in philosophical concepts, not science. Ethics, morality, what we define as right or wrong has no grounding in science.

What we define right or wrong is grounded in truth. In this case, philosophical slight of hand is being used to sidestep the truth that human beings and persons are one in the same in the eyes of the law so that a particular group of human beings can be denied their very right to live.

Not at all. The law talks about "persons". Who defines "persons"? The definition has changed as our culture and mores have changed. Historically most humans did not enjoy full legal protection as "persons" (women, children, non-landowners, minorities, slaves, etc.). It was only from the late 18th through the late 20th century being that born as a member of the human species gradually became seculargrounds for an appeal for basic rights of liberty, freedom from persecution, and humanitarian care. That concept is is continuously changing - as witness your attempts to bring "the unborn" into the category of "persons".

The legal definition of person is "a human being". No matter how hard you try, you are not going to be able to get around that one.

Science explicitely states that it can not adequately answer the question of "personhood". It does not deny "personhood". You keep throwing in necormancers and gypsies like a mantra. However, I'll ask again - what is the grounding for our laws? It is not science.

Actually, it is. There is no long and rambling definition of person built of a tangle of legaleese. The definition of person as it applies to living beings is simply a human being and science certainly has established that unborns at any stage of development are human beings.

There is a logical fallacy inherent here with your insistance that there is no difference between "human being" and "person" based upon a legal definition. If I strip away all the extraneious words - your argument comes down to this, yes?

There would be if the legal definition of person were more complicated than "a human being". The logical fallacy exists in trying to unilatarally redefine words in an attempt to torture them into supporting your argument.

The legal definition of a "person" is "a human being"
All persons are human beings.
Therefore all human beings are "persons".

Show me law that states that all human beings are not persons. Since the legal definition of person is a human being, law enumerating the premise that some human beings are not persons is necessary.

No. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more. You're attempting to muddy the waters here.

You are the one who keeps bringing spirits and other metaphysical entities from the ether to the table.

You said - in summary (and correct me if I'm wrong) - that the concept of "personhood" is a modern phenomena related to the abortion movement. Yes?

As it applies to this discussion. Yes.

I said - in summary - that the concept of "personhood" is a very old one and has been around a long time.

You said that, and then brought religious doctrine that pertained to spirits in an effort to support your flawed argument.

Now you poo-poo it because I used old religious references. Well, here are some other references exploring the concept of "personhood" that predate the abortion controversy and are not religious texts.

Those old religious references didn't state that there is a difference between a person and a human being.

According to Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (AD 480–524 or 525):

Person is an individual substance of rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation. The soul is not person, only the composite is. Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights.

This refutes your religious references because they claimed that you were noting till you have a spirit.

John Locke emphasized the idea of a living being that is conscious of itself as persisting over time (and hence able to have conscious preferences about its own future).

So children are not persons until they are able to concieve of and contemplate their own future? If they are not persons, why do they enjoy the protection of the law?

No, I'm pointing out the flaw in relying on literal legal definitions.

Would you be willing to stand in a court in which literal legal definitions didn't necessarily apply?

Can you give me some examples of this? Most references to the legal justifications for slavery do not use species as a justification.


See the Dred Scott Decision

Show me an amendment that claims all persons are human beings.

The constitution doesn't state what isn't, only what is. Since the legal definiton of person is "a human being" to claim that unborns are not persons, specific enumeration would be required.

The history of slavery is long and complex and some of the logic used to justify it centered around the idea - not that they were not of the speicies human beings but that they were inferior breed of human beings.

It was thought that they were simply not human. As the body of science grew, the philosophical slight of hand began and among the tricks was the claim of inferior breeds. The philosophical wrangling today is very much like the sort that was used to try and deny human rights to blacks.



Yes, when you misuse that definition. And again -this goes back the inherent flaw in your logic

We're going in circles but here again: what is the accepted legal definition of a "human being"?

No. You are going in circles. The legal dictionaries support my postion therefore I am standing still watching your mental gyrations as you attempt to get around what is.

[Coyote]

No. That entire body of