Oh Banno, lol. Just avoiding the issue again. What constitutes a 'human being' is what matters in the distinction you're discussing. Given your initial, unedited reply: Should have left it unedited to show your colours. You’re not any good at this and that would have served the dual purpose of making this clearer, and not giving that reply which should probably be a bit embarrassing:

not a human being with memories, needs, and preferences. — Banno

Most things with these attributes aren't humans and all humans go through at least one post-womb phase where they have only needs (which are, unless you're genuinely stupid, insufficient - and even then, arguable. The needs are institutional, not intrinsic). Your cart is literally before the horse. Your criteria for "human being" (which is here, undefined, and exactly what is being discussed) is baked-in to your objection. This kind of failure of either creativity, or clarity of writing is not helpful. Barely asserting your position is not helpful. On your account plenty of people aren't human beings, and vice verse. That's a cool move, i guess..

Thanks for making this thread about me. Always a joy.

even your quips are nonsense.

Keep going.

I understand, and have no problem with either term in common usage, but if I were to ask you to point to whatever it is you're referring to you would invariably point to your body, which has existed and grown since conception. That's what I'm hung up on. — NOS4A2

Think of the difference between a wave and still water. All waves are water but not all water is a wave. The body (specifically the brain) has to be doing something for there to be a person. If the brain isn't doing that thing then there is no person, which is why neither a corpse nor an embryo is a person.

@NOS4A2

I should add that I'm also somewhat perplexed by your questioning of personhood but your acceptance of rights. Can you point to rights? If not then why expect someone to be able to point to personhood as if not being able to is a gotcha?

Some things just can't be pointed to.

But there are organisms, unambiguously people, who lack these attributes as well.

I don't afford embryos the rights of a person because they don't look like people. They look like a dividing cell under a microscope. I could pretend it's more than that, but it's not. An unconscious amnesiac is a person if he resembles those I know to be people. — Hanover

A good point, but then resemblance is not a sufficient criterion either, since a dead human body still resembles a person pretty exactly but isn't a person.

We could add biological details like brain function but we don't have access to those most of the time. So it's about a kind of resemblance but more a resemblance in behaviour.

Beyond that we do afford rights to human beings whose ability to behave as a person has been temporarily or permanently damaged to some extent. I think this can be easily accommodated as being out of an abundance of caution, which seems a reasonable strategy to adopt.

A good point, but then resemblance is not a sufficient criterion either, since a dead human body still resembles a person pretty exactly but isn't a person. — Echarmion

It depends upon what you mean by "resemblance." At first glance sure, but after a while I start to notice differences between a dead guy and and an alive guy.

But as to a sperm affixed to an egg, that doesn't look like any person I know.

Beyond that we do afford rights to human beings whose ability to behave as a person has been temporarily or permanently damaged to some extent. I think this can be easily accommodated as being out of an abundance of caution, which seems a reasonable strategy to adopt. — Echarmion

The most cautious approach is to afford rights at conception. That would be a really safe approach, but if you think women have rights worth protecting, then the safest approach for them would be to protect the right to abortion up until the moment of birth. Then you have to balance the interests, and once you do that, you're not talking about science, but you're talking about public policy that satisifies the most people.

But the problem is that the ideologues control the debate, not the pragmatists, which is why the respective sides spend the better part of their arguing screaming "misogynist" and "murderer" at each other.

Come on, Bob. Yes, a foetus is not a cyst. A blastocyst is a cyst.

Banno, I know you are a very intelligent person. You cannot possibly think that a blastocyst is a cyst—is the word ‘cyst’ in blastocyst throwing you off?

A zygote is never a cyst: that implies it is a liquid sac that developed abnormally and should be removed. A blastocyst is, even according to your own link, a “hallow ball of cells...[which] implants in the wall of the uterus about 6 days after fertilization”. What you are describing is a stage of the process of development of an alive human being.

A cyst is not a person.

Correct. As I noted in my last response, personhood does not begin at conception; and the best way to ground rights in the nature of the being in question—specifically whether or not its nature sets it out as a person. This is not the same thing as saying that a living being is currently a person.

E.g., a human being that is knocked out on the floor does not have personhood; has the capacity for personhood; and has a nature such that it sets it out as a species which are persons.

Even if we agree that "a human being acquires rights that a person gets because their nature sets them out as being a member of a rational species", the question arrises as to when the cyst becomes a member of that rational species.

The blastocyst is an alive human being: it is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. I am not sure why you would argue the contrary.

All else being equal, we would expect the doctors to do everything they can to rehabilitate them and keep them alive. Circumstances matter, though, as, e.g., the doctors may have to prioritize one sick patient over another; but this is a reflection of limited resources and not a disrespect for human life.

Think of the difference between a wave and still water. All waves are water but not all water is a wave. The body (specifically the brain) has to be doing something for there to be a person. If the brain isn't doing that thing then there is no person, which is why neither a corpse nor an embryo is a person.

Maybe that’s it. Maybe “person” is a doing rather than a thing. The having of feelings, thoughts, memories etc. are doings, after all. Humans person. It could be said that fetuses do not person, at least yet, just as they are not walking.

But I do not think that justifies killing a human being because he is not, at present, performing that act. To do so to a fetus would deprive it of the chance to ever do so.

I should add that I'm also somewhat perplexed by your questioning of personhood but your acceptance of rights. Can you point to rights? If not then why expect someone to be able to point to personhood as if not being able to is a gotcha?

Some things just can't be pointed to.

You can point to a right if you write it down. You can speak them. But my view of rights is a little different, as I wrote about here.

You can point to a right if you write it down. — NOS4A2

So a right is a piece of paper with ink markings? That doesn't seem right.

To do so to a fetus would deprive it of the chance to ever do so. — NOS4A2

And that's the point of departure. It is argued that it is not wrong to deprive a foetus (or embryo) of the chance to become a person; or that there is insufficient evidence or reasoning to support the claim that it is wrong; or that it is more wrong to force a woman to carry the foetus (or embryo) to term.

Perhaps abortion would be wrong if embryos and foetuses were grown in some artificial womb, but the fact that they grow inside a person with rights of their own is a fact that has moral relevance.

Relevant paper on that last point:

Could Artificial Wombs End the Abortion Debate?

One should distinguish two aspects of abortion that are currently but not necessarily linked—extraction and termination. Abortion rights might be understood as the right not to be pregnant, the right not to have the human fetus in the womb, the right of extraction. On the other hand, abortion rights might be defined as the right to end the life of the human fetus in utero, the right to terminate not just the pregnancy, but also the life of the fetus. These two understandings of abortion, although distinct, are at least for the present linked, since one cannot currently accomplish evacuation of the human fetus from the uterus at an early stage of pregnancy without also terminating the life of the human fetus. Accordingly, one could advocate the right of evacuation or extraction, that is, the right to have the fetus removed from the woman’s body, and yet not advocate a right of termination, that is, the right to have the fetus killed within the woman’s body.

So a right is a piece of paper with ink markings? That doesn't seem right.

That’s one of their manifestations, sure. Grab any bill of rights and point to a right, you’ll have your answer in what it consists of. If there is more to it, go ahead and reveal it.

And that's the point of departure. It is argued that it is not wrong to deprive a foetus (or embryo) of the chance to become a person. Or at the very least that there is insufficient evidence or reasoning to support the claim that it is wrong.

It’s wrong to kill a fetus for the same reason it is wrong to murder a 40 year old. Both are deprived of a future against their will. Both have their bodies destroyed against their will. The world and the community are deprived of their presence against their will. In any case, any evidence or reasoning to support the claim that it is wrong to kill a 40 year old can be applied to any other human being in any other stage of its life, including early development.

I think it’s the other way about: there is insufficient evidence or reasoning to support the claim that killing a fetus is morally permissible. The only reason I can think of is for reasons of self-defence.

If it is not wrong to kill a fetus, is it not wrong to kill a fetus for personal gain in your view? Can I grow fetuses in order to harvest their organs and sell them, in your view? Why or why not?

It depends upon what you mean by "resemblance." At first glance sure, but after a while I start to notice differences between a dead guy and and an alive guy. — Hanover

I don't know, that doesn't strike me as a particularly honest response.

Regardless, we can clearly conceive of things that don't physically look human but should be considered persons, be them actual animals or hypothetical aliens.

The most cautious approach is to afford rights at conception. That would be a really safe approach, but if you think women have rights worth protecting, then the safest approach for them would be to protect the right to abortion up until the moment of birth. Then you have to balance the interests, and once you do that, you're not talking about science, but you're talking about public policy that satisifies the most people.

But the problem is that the ideologues control the debate, not the pragmatists, which is why the respective sides spend the better part of their arguing screaming "misogynist" and "murderer" at each other. — Hanover

That tracks with my position fairly well. I'm not really unsure about whether a bunch of cells with no nervous system is a person. But things get less sure as pregnancy progresses. As I have pointed out elsewhere, there seems little practical benefit to restricting abortion regardless.

Correct. As I noted in my last response, personhood does not begin at conception; and the best way to ground rights in the nature of the being in question—specifically whether or not its nature sets it out as a person. This is not the same thing as saying that a living being is currently a person.

E.g., a human being that is knocked out on the floor does not have personhood; has the capacity for personhood; and has a nature such that it sets it out as a species which are persons. — Bob Ross

This seems silly. An unconscious person isn't brain-dead. There's an obvious and measurable activity still going on. This seems like intentional ignorance to force the conclusion that somehow we can't make an evidence-based determination and must instead rely on arbitrary "nature".

The blastocyst is an alive human being: it is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. I am not sure why you would argue the contrary. — Bob Ross

Obviously "life" does not begin at conception, since all the cells involved are already alive before they fuse.

It’s wrong to kill a fetus for the same reason it is wrong to murder a 40 year old. Both are deprived of a future against their will. Both have their bodies destroyed against their will. The world and the community are deprived of their presence against their will. In any case, any evidence or reasoning to support the claim that it is wrong to kill a 40 year old can be applied to any other human being in any other stage of its life, including early development. — NOS4A2

I think that's not quite true because as Kant pointed out, the idea of some society where you exist together with others is at the basis of moral philosophy. Future people cannot be interacted with even theoretically. Their interests have no bearing on any current situation - they can't affect anyone nor can their interests be affected.

I think that's not quite true because as Kant pointed out, the idea of some society where you exist together with others is at the basis of moral philosophy. Future people cannot be interacted with even theoretically. Their interests have no bearing on any current situation - they can't affect anyone nor can their interests be affected.

Fetuses do not exist in a void. Fetuses can be interacted with. If they couldn't, they wouldn't be killed.

That’s one of their manifestations, sure. Grab any bill of rights and point to a right, you’ll have your answer in what it consists of. If there is more to it, go ahead and reveal it. — NOS4A2

That's not a right. That's a supposed description of a right. The words are not the thing they describe. I'm not asking you to point to words that describe a right; I'm asking you to point to a right.

As it stands it amounts to me pointing to the word "person" and saying that I'm pointing to a person.

It’s wrong to kill a fetus for the same reason it is wrong to murder a 40 year old. Both are deprived of a future against their will. Both have their bodies destroyed against their will. The world and the community are deprived of their presence against their will. In any case, any evidence or reasoning to support the claim that it is wrong to kill a 40 year old can be applied to any other human being in any other stage of its life, including early development. — NOS4A2

Killing a 40 year old isn't wrong just because "he is deprived of a future against his will". It's wrong because "he is deprived of a future against his will and is a person". The "and he is a person" has moral relevance. It is not wrong to deprive a foetus of its future against its will because a) it's not a person, and b) it doesn't even have a will.

Can I grow fetuses in order to harvest their organs and sell them, in your view? Why or why not? — NOS4A2

You mean like scientists growing ‘mini-organs’ from cells shed by foetuses or cultivating embryonic stem cells in general?

Yes, that's acceptable. It could save many lives.

I think pretty much everybody who is alive is pro-life. The so-called "pro-life" movement is really "anti-abortion". If it is an issue of personal responsibility, then it is and should be a personal choice. If it is an issue of social responsibility, then the world is becoming increasingly overpopulated, in a way which increasingly threatens the health and well-being of many, as well as the biosphere. In which case it is a reasonable choice.

That's not a right. That's a supposed description of a right. The words are not the thing they describe. I'm not asking you to point to words that describe a right; I'm asking you to point to a right.

As it stands it amounts to me pointing to the word "person" and saying that I'm pointing to a person.

Those are rights. It is a bill of rights. A deceleration of human rights is a declaration of rights, without which there are no rights. It is up to those who confer rights to uphold them and defend them in others. Human beings have no rights other than those that have been declared and conferred by others.

Killing a 40 year old isn't wrong just because "he is deprived of a future against his will". It's wrong because "he is deprived of a future against his will and is a person". The "and he is a person" has moral relevance. It is not wrong to deprive a foetus of its future against its will because a) it's not a person, and b) it doesn't even have a will.

No measurable property called “personhood” appears or disappears in any given human being. Therefor no one can pick and choose with any certainty when one is or isn’t a person. So it’s an arbitrary distinction, a value judgement one applies to others without any reason or evidence to do so. How can one say a fetus is not a person when its “personhood” might be present and operating in proportion to its development? Is a sonogram a “personhood” detector?

The Lockean approach to making the distinction between man and person was theological in origin, had its grounds in the transmigration of souls and God. Those grounds are now gone, but for some reason the Lockean legacy persists. So what grounds are there to make the distinction now?

Human beings have no rights other than those that have been declared and conferred by others. — NOS4A2

So a foetus doesn’t have a right to live unless some authority declares and confers that right?

Then what exactly are you trying to argue here? Because with the above in mind all we can do is describe the fact that in some places and at some times abortion is legal and in other places and at other times it is illegal.

No measurable property called “personhood” appears or disappears in any given human being — NOS4A2

Most of us are quite capable of understanding what “person” means, that rocks, embryos, and flies are not people, and that adult humans (and intelligent aliens) are people. The type of “personhood” that you think doesn’t exist isn’t the type of personhood that any of us are talking about.

So what grounds are there to make the distinction now? — NOS4A2

The very real and obvious observable differences between rocks, embryos, and flies on the one hand and born humans on the other hand.

The fact that an embryo has roughly the same DNA as me and will eventually grow into an organism like me simply isn’t sufficient grounds to grant it the same rights as me or even just the right to live at the expense of the rights of the woman who must carry it to term.

This seems silly. An unconscious person isn't brain-dead.

Do you know what personhood is? Just because a brain is firing neurons doesn’t mean that that being, which has that brain, is a person. E.g., a dog is not a person (traditionally).

must instead rely on arbitrary "nature".

Evolution is not arbitrary: that is a myth invented by some evangelical religious people.

Obviously "life" does not begin at conception, since all the cells involved are already alive before they fuse.

It is an undisputed scientific fact that life begins at conception: it is the clear beginning mark of the ever-continual development cycle of an individual human being (until death).

It is an undisputed scientific fact that life begins at conception: it is the clear beginning mark of the ever-continual development cycle of an individual human being (until death). — Bob Ross

I believe the point he was making is that sperm cells are alive, and so that life began before conception.

Do you know what personhood is? — Bob Ross

Yes, because I am a person.

Just because a brain is firing neurons doesn’t mean that that being, which has that brain, is a person. E.g., a dog is not a person (traditionally). — Bob Ross

And? I didn't claim any brain makes a person. Some brains do though.

Evolution is not arbitrary: that is a myth invented by some evangelical religious people. — Bob Ross

I did not claim evolution is arbitrary. The concept of "nature" is arbitrary.

It is an undisputed scientific fact that life begins at conception: it is the clear beginning mark of the ever-continual development cycle of an individual human being (until death). — Bob Ross

It's a scientific fact that, at conception, two cells fuse to become one, combining their genetic material. That is the description, which is all that science provides. The rest is the addition of categories, which can be useful but aren't scientific facts.

Fetuses do not exist in a void. Fetuses can be interacted with. If they couldn't, they wouldn't be killed. — NOS4A2

They aren't person though. You want us to consider them based on their future personhood, not the current one.

Yes, because I am a person. — Echarmion

That gives you no authority to that claim. Dogs don't know what Dogs are.

They aren't person though. — Echarmion

There is no settle consensus on this. All claims of this kind are personal, and don't adhere to any particular argument in biology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood#:~:text=In%20the%20college%20text%20book,silent%2C%20secret%2C%20unknown%22 . the complete chaos of this page should be illustrative.

It's not helpful to simply implore others to take your concept on, and argue on that basis. It's the concept that's in question. I should be quite clear that I am in no-way "pro-life" politically, but I notice that pro-choice people tend to have really, really shitty arguments. The only reason i'm pushing back on them (and to rark Banno up) is that they aren't good arguments, and often are counter to the facts. Such as here - personhood isn't a fact.

You want us to consider them based on their future personhood, not the current one. — Echarmion

He believes otherwise. You would need to fully ignore this to make a claim, as if it were an objection to his position. If personhood starts at conception (a fully acceptable formulation, just not one I personally think helpful, even if true) then the position is fine. Silly, imo, but fine. He's asking you to consider his position that personhood starts at conception. These are just competing theories of personhood. Should be fun to discuss LOL.

Which brings in the much much more interesting question: If personal identity doens't obtain other than through relation R, how is it possible that a child of three weeks could be considered 'a person' and be afforded the rights of a person? Hehehe.

That gives you no authority to that claim. Dogs don't know what Dogs are. — AmadeusD

But I'm not a dog. I do know what I am. That's one of the things that makes me a person.

There is no settle consensus on this. — AmadeusD

Indeed there's not. But in that particular conversation, we had already arrived at the conclusion that a fetus is relevant because it's a future person.

Such as here - personhood isn't a fact. — AmadeusD

I did not mean to claim that personhood is a fact. I'm arguing in favour of an evidence-based judgement of personhood.

He believes otherwise. You would need to fully ignore this to make a claim, as if it were an objection to his position. If personhood starts at conception (a fully acceptable formulation, just not one I personally think helpful, even if true) then the position is fine. Silly, imo, but fine. He's asking you to consider his position that personhood starts at conception. These are just competing theories of personhood. Should be fun to discuss LOL. — AmadeusD

You're commenting on this discussion without the relevant context of the previous posts/replies.

Which brings in the much much more interesting question: If personal identity doens't obtain other than through relation R, how is it possible that a child of three weeks could be considered 'a person' and be afforded the rights of a person? Hehehe. — AmadeusD

Presumably because "relation R", whatever that is, obtains at that time.

Are you asking me what the evidence is that a newborn is a person?

But I'm not a dog. I do know what I am. That's one of the things that makes me a person. — Echarmion

This is just an elaborate restatement of the initial, incoherent claim, though. So, my response would be the same. It's circular and gives no argument. Just you believe that being a person entitles you to define a person. Which begs the question. *matt walsh voice* "Ok, but what is a person?"

fetus is relevant because it's a future person — Echarmion

This can't possibly be the case. It is , in fact, a fetus. It isn't some future person. I understand what's being got at and am sympathetic, morally speaking, but could you clear up how it is that you could hold a view counter the facts, and hold it morally relevant?

I'm arguing in favour of an evidence-based judgement of personhood. — Echarmion

What evidence? That's the point I'm trying to get across - no level of 'evidence' would satisfy a conflict of conceptual analysis (though, i recognise this lends itself to idiots simply moving hte goalposts, so maybe im being a bit too analytical here).

You're commenting on this discussion without the relevant context of the previous posts/replies. — Echarmion

I'm commenting only on your comportment, not hte discussion. That said, I do have the relevant context in mind. My comments aren't (well, not significantly) askance from the discussion. Though, treat it is a new one if you want to. It would work as such.

Presumably because "relation R", whatever that is, obtains at that time. — Echarmion

Sorry, 'relation R' is psychological continuity, in Parfitean terms. A child of three weeks does not have this relation in either direction, it seems. And so, could not be considered a personality. Not a personality=not a person? That's hte corner I'm trying to canvas.

Are you asking me what the evidence is that a newborn is a person? — Echarmion

No. There couldn't be 'evidence' I am, though, challenging the concept and offering other ways to look at it. I would want to know how you are claiming a newborn is a person. 'evidence' wouldn't help, without this well-understood. If it's a concept I can jive with, and the evidence for the facts are there, we're off to a great start.

I did. A cyst is not a person. — Banno

That's propaganda, not an argument. It does not help you that the emotional post you dredged up from six years ago contains propaganda, nor is it surprising that it does. Nor does it help the thread.

No measurable property called “personhood” appears or disappears in any given human being. Therefor no one can pick and choose with any certainty when one is or isn’t a person. — NOS4A2

But that's the whole point of this particular line of discussion. The laws have to make that distinction - there needs to be some means to determine whether any given collection of cells and protoplasm is legally a person or not.

This is just an elaborate restatement of the initial, incoherent claim, though. So, my response would be the same. It's circular and gives no argument. Just you believe that being a person entitles you to define a person. Which begs the question. *matt walsh voice* "Ok, but what is a person?" — AmadeusD

Yes, being a person entitles me to define a person. How else would it work? It's neither incoherent or circular. The argument is quite simply that since I'm the one that needs to decide on a moral framework, I need to figure out how to judge who is a person and who isn't. Since the only fixed point I start out with is that I am a person, I need to proceed from that.

This can't possibly be the case. It is , in fact, a fetus. It isn't some future person. — AmadeusD

I agree.

What evidence? That's the point I'm trying to get across - no level of 'evidence' would satisfy a conflict of conceptual analysis (though, i recognise this lends itself to idiots simply moving hte goalposts, so maybe im being a bit too analytical here). — AmadeusD

I think I see what you mean, but then I'm not trying to establish some specific test. I'm merely arguing for my take on the conceptual analysis. Which is that, if we're being honest, we determine personhood based on certain cognitive similarities and their expressions in behaviour.

We could hypothesize whether rocks have some mystical thinking power and are actually fully conscious, self aware beings. But doing so is clearly pointless. All we can do is work with what criteria we can come up with by self-reflexion.

By doing that it seems pretty obvious that a person needs some kind of thinking apparatus. Rocks don't have that (as far as we can tell), so rocks probably aren't persons. Zygotes don't have it either, I'm merely drawing the obvious conclusion.

I'm commenting only on your comportment, not hte discussion. That said, I do have the relevant context in mind. My comments aren't (well, not significantly) askance from the discussion. Though, treat it is a new one if you want to. It would work as such. — AmadeusD

I just don't really think that works because I'm not necessarily arguing my own position in those comments.

Sorry, 'relation R' is psychological continuity, in Parfitean terms. A child of three weeks does not have this relation in either direction, it seems. And so, could not be considered a personality. Not a personality=not a person? That's hte corner I'm trying to canvas. — AmadeusD

Oh, right, I wasn't aware of that terminology.

But yes that's a conclusion you could draw. It's obviously a pretty controversial conclusion to draw. Someone might say that even considering the possibility serves as a reductio ad absurdum for my argument. I think it's useful though to consider the possibility that there's no mystical essence to the human form that somehow turns it into its own category.

Now to be clear I'm not saying we should conclude, at this point, that children under the age of 2 aren't people. But if we're not going to invoke some kind of permanent soul or some other special pleading that makes humans special cases, we'll have to approach a human like we would any other lifeform. And would we consider the equivalent of a three week old human child a person if it happened to not look like a human? You did ask for a fun discussion, did you not?

??? . I can't tell if you are joking.