Schelling Points Around Personhood

Author: K_Michael

Posts

Total: 64
#31
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,897
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
3RU, glad your back. Thx for Ponca vid, that, I knew nothing about.

At 26:00 is where YFLam { and others } needs to begin, regarding personhood recognition of Standing Bear, by judge Bundy.

I love the part where Standing Bear says his ancestors have lived there of 1 or 2000 years, and would not even sell his land to the great spirit or great father for a million dollars.
#32
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@ebuc
The human is not an independent, breathing { inspirited } individual person until they have been born out of the pregnant woman, taken their first inspiration _ inspire } of oxygen and had their umbilical cord severed.
Are you saying that the ability to breath oxygen on your own is what makes a person intrinsically valuable?
Because if you are, then what would you call people who have been born, but can't breathe on their own (hooked up to a medical machine)?
Are their lives not intrinsically valuable? Is it morally ok for me to kill them based soley on my own convenience?



#33
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,897
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Are you saying that the ability to breath oxygen on your own is what makes a person intrinsically valuable?

Read my lips/text. No where have I ever stated what you state above.  Why you would think otherwise makes no sense.

Spermozoa and the egg are also biological life, ergo, they also are intrinsically valuable. Understand? It is simple to grasp

TWS...."Personhood = [a] born “person.” "....states it clearly. Understand?
The human is not an independent, breathing { inspirited } individual person until they have been born out of the pregnant woman, taken their first inspiration { inspire } of oxygen and had their umbilical cord severed. Understand. It is simple to grasp. Understand? It is simple to grasp.

..." 1.fill (someone) with the urge or ability to do or feel something, especially to do something creative.
"his passion for romantic literature inspired him to begin writing"

2. breathe in (air); inhale "...

"Spire...1. a slender tapering blade or stalk (as of grass)
2.  the upper tapering part of something (such as a tree or antler) : pinnacle
3 tapering roof or analogous pyramidal construction surmounting a tower
 ... steeple

The minimal spire is a tetra{4}hedron and a one mile high one of these tetrahedra was photographed on Mars by Voyager 1 spacecraft flyby of Mars 1972.

Oxygen has 8 electrons, and two tetrahedra = 8 veretexial points. Dual tetrahedra LINK define 8 corners crystal structure of a cube.

#34
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@ebuc
Terribly sorry. Didn't understand for a second. 

My apologies. 
#35
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,897
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Terribly sorry. Didn't understand for a second. My apologies. 
Thank you for your understanding response. The value of biologic life in most of our ecological environment

The value of human ability to access Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego, is a double-edged sword, and we will know more in the future, in those regards.



#36
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
Is there a non-religious argument against abortion?
#37
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@b9_ntt
Well, I'm an Atheist and a Materialist,
Who's against abortion,
I think there are.
#38
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Lemming
I'd like to hear some.
#39
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@b9_ntt
I wish this site currently had it's past forum posts feature active,
But ah well, should return in some days.

So being unable to review my past well thought out answers,
I suppose I'll wing it.
. . .

Well, you've not been 'exact on what you mean by abortion,
So I feel free to take an extreme stance,
Though if you become exact, I'll instead address that.

An extreme stance,
A woman who is an hour from a natural abortion in a hospital,
Suddenly decides she doesn't want it,
Saying she doesn't know how she'd take care of it.
. . .

I value humans,
And see the unborn as human.


#40
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Lemming

Does your "unborn" include embryos as well as fetuses?
#41
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@b9_ntt
Ah, yes, the other end of the question,

I confess, I have a harder time having a strong opinion,
The further towards that moment of conception, it gets.

But, I 'still value humans, individual persons,
And does an embryo 'not have it's own unique genetics?
That define it as different than mother or father?

So, still valuing individual humans,
I value 'that unborn as well.
I don't like people freezing embryos for use.
. . .

A more difficult question for me, is valuing personhood 'when,
Of which I am unsure,
Though one doesn't need to be 'religious to believe in a soul,
I don't believe in souls.
. . .

But I do value personhood. loosely though it is defined in my mind.
Certainly my brothers, sister and I, were all different in temperament, preferences, actions, as babies,
My mother says.

I 'think fetuses have differences from one another, in action,
When does this difference of mind appear?
But I am digressing.
. . .

I value humans, and I view humanhood to begin from conception, this is not a religious reason, I think.
I value personhood, and am unsure 'when it begins, thus staying my hand towards abortion further, this also is not religious, I think.

#42
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
I value humans,
And see the unborn as human.

Within this context, you are conflating the terms humans and human. 
Humans clearly means, ‘human beings.’ You use “as human” synonymously in the context given above. That is factually inaccurate. 

A pregnancy =/= [a] human being.

Identifying a pregnancy “as human” conflates cellular life with personhood.

Personhood being defined as being [a] person (in other words, [a] human ‘being’). Such a social-psychologically accepted layman and a legal designation is not bestowed (categorically given) until BIRTH.

Prior to birth, the pregnancy is primarily seen, thought of, and spoken of in emotive terminology in favor of the less understood scientifically accurate terminology. Your use of “the unborn” is one such emotive term, as is “baby” and “child.” These terms make it difficult for rational and logical discourse on the subject of abortion. 

A pregnancy = a potential human being, it is not an actual human being.

Potentiality =/= Actuality. Never has. Never will. 
#43
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Lemming
I think abortion applies to the termination of a pregnancy at any stage.
However, I can't see that a fertilized egg is a human being. If I eat a fertilized egg, I don't say I ate some chicken. I say I ate some eggs.
#44
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@b9_ntt
A fair point.
But if they are not eaten.
A chicken egg develops into a chicken,
A human egg into a human,

Most store bought chicken eggs are not fertilized I think,

And though what a fertilized chicken egg 'looks like,
May depend on development,
A fertilized egg and unfertilized egg, are different I would argue.

Myself I come back to my concern about 'when in development to say 'human.
#45
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Lemming
A fertilized egg is two cells only. Two cells do not a human make.
My understanding is that even after the cells divide, they are still undifferentiated, and so are human only because they contain human DNA.
But DNA can be extracted and worked with to do other things. So I think you need more than raw DNA to be human.
#46
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@b9_ntt
@TWS1405_2
Another good point,
Possibly because you are correct,
But at the least because I'm unfamiliar with the exact science of human reproduction and development,
So I don't know if you are, Though it 'sounds like you are.
And so another tab on my browser opens up.

Arguably, early term abortions are a middle ground for a number of people Pro Choice or Pro Life.

I've seen you debate this point before,
And am not inclined to add my own view to those against it,
As I think those who have already argued against it, are sufficient.
#47
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
I've seen you debate this point before,
And am not inclined to add my own view to those against it,
As I think those who have already argued against it, are sufficient.

Even if you did, you’d be = as wrong as the others. 
#48
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Lemming
To get back to my original request ... What are some non-religious arguments against abortion?
I get that one such argument you make is that human life begins at conception. Are there others?
#49
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@b9_ntt
Limits to bodily autonomy I suppose,
Specifically when another person is involved.

There are people Pro Choice, who are big on personal freedom, which isn't wrong,
Who see an unborn as an unwelcome parasite.

But the Pro Life view often,
Is that the individual 'chose to invite that individual into their body,
(By the act of consensual sex)
And that it is not right, that they should then kill them.

Which is why you see some people who are Pro Life,
But accepting of people who were raped, choosing to abort.


#50
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Lemming
lnteresting.
Couldn't it be argued that the pregnant woman consented to the sex act, but not the pregnancy?
What if her birth control failed? Or the man lied about being infertile? 
#51
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@b9_ntt
I'm not aware of any birth control that is 100%,

But then even in life, not everything is 100%,
And I imagine there are situations which have a 'possibility of causing harm.

Though choosing 'not to have sex, sounds 100% that there will be X% chance to harm
. . .

Then again,
Driving accidents would be 0% if no one drove,
. . 
Then again, again,
People can drink, and think the odds are in their favor of not having an accident, because of past experiences,
Drinking is a pleasure,
While driving is a necessity for many people in the modern age.

. . .

Of the man lying,
I imagine a number of people Pro Life, would see that as the woman not consenting.

I suppose there are people who also 'think themselves infertile,
Which again,
I imagine a number of Pro Life people, would see that as neither consenting.

. . .
Well,
There's 'still people Pro Life,
Who highly value humans,
Especially weak helpless children, (Though such words depend on what one see's the unborn as)

Hence the people who are opposed to abortion,
Even in the cases of rape.

While they may view the pregnancy as a great wrong,
They also view abortion as wrong,
And view carrying the pregnancy to full term and birth, as a lesser wrong,
Than to kill the child. (Again, use of child depends on persons perception of the unborn)
. . .

I use child, weak helpless children,
Because it is descriptive of perception and value.
I understand appeal to emotion can be a fallacy, but I forget why,
So going to Google that after I post this, but still use it here,
Because it speaks to 'why those people act as they do.
#52
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Lemming
But until a certain point in the pregnancy, there is no "child," only a potential child. Certainly, neither a fertilized egg, nor a mass of undifferentiated cells can be thought of as a child. Is it not true that opposition to abortions at these early stages derives from some people's belief that it is against God's will?

#53
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@b9_ntt
A human, mouse, and snake,
They all look distinctively different to me.

Certainly there are religious people who believe the soul comes about during conception,
But there's also religious people who believe the soul comes about with breath.
Also a bunch of in between times.

Atheists who believe personhood comes about at conception,
Atheists who believe personhood comes about during childhood experiences.
Also a bunch of in between times.

Religious or Atheist, both can have people who don't care,
Even if they believe the unborn has a soul or personhood,
They may value personal comfort, or a variation of freedom value.
. . .

People's reasons and values vary.
. . .

I don't believe in God,
I  value humans,
'Might be you have a point in post #45,
I still need to research,

But currently, I don't care for abortions at any stage.


@NoOneInParticular
Emotion is fallacy 'if,
It makes you ignore other arguments
Not fallacy if you are concerned with virtue ethics rather than consequentialism?
'How human life is valued,
Focus on honor duel culture,
Focus on alive culture,
Course people often pick and choose, various values in head, various scales weighing.

Even for Pro Life,
Abortion can be good if it prevents greater number of unborn and mother deaths,
But such is consequentialism,,
Not focus on individual action?
. . .

Edit, ah wait,
Did I confuse Deontological ethics with Virtue Ethics?
Though I 'like philosophy, I'm not well 'learned in it.

#54
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
Limits to bodily autonomy I suppose,
Specifically when another person is involved.

🤦🏼‍♂️ Another “person” is not involved. The ONLY person involved in a pregnant girl/woman is that girl/woman. 

Personhood is NOT established until birth. That is a resolved and undeniable fact of social-psychology but more importantly, THE LAW! 
#55
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@b9_ntt
If you're interested of more of my views on abortion,
I state some of my views in the below two threads,
Also other people state their views.

In this one, I greatly enjoyed my conversation with Uragirimono,
After not enjoying a conversation with TWS1405.

In this one, I greatly enjoyed my conversation with 3RU7AL, and a few others.

#56
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TWS1405_2
🤦🏼‍♂️ Another “person” is not involved. The ONLY person involved in a pregnant girl/woman is that girl/woman. 
Then what would you call the zygote or fetus?
It is biologically not part of the woman's body. 

Yet has the capability to be its own person.  

Personhood is NOT established until birth. That is a resolved and undeniable fact of social-psychology but more importantly, THE LAW! 
The law is also not always correct. 

Personhood is defined when a person starts to exist correct?
So, if birth is the defining factor of a person, then what would you call the baby, who is in the womb 2 days before birth?
Is that still not a person, and right to kill?

#57
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
TWS1405_2
🤦🏼‍♂️ Another “person” is not involved. The ONLY person involved in a pregnant girl/woman is that girl/woman. 
Then what would you call the zygote…
By its medically accurate term…zygote.

or fetus?
By its medically accurate term…fetus.


It is biologically not part of the woman's body. 
Yes it is. If it is within her, attached to her, feeding off her…it is “biologically” a part of her body. 

Yet has the capability to be its own person.  
Capability (potentiality) =/= Actuality. Never has. Never will. 

Personhood is NOT established until birth. That is a resolved and undeniable fact of social-psychology but more importantly, THE LAW! 
The law is also not always correct. 
That’s an emotively driven subjective “opinion,” not fact. Until the law changes (i.e., the 14th Amendment), it stands as being correct and factually accurate. 


Personhood is defined when a person starts to exist correct?
At birth, yes. Never before birth. 

So, if birth is the defining factor of a person, then what would you call the baby, who is in the womb 2 days before birth?
Not a baby, but a viable fetus. Because medically that is what it is. A viable fetus. 

Is that still not a person, and right to kill?

No, it’s not [a] person, not until birth (be it natural or by C section). 
#58
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
After not enjoying a conversation with TWS1405.
Oh 😢 boo who!! Guess those pesky facts got you all discombobulated. 

#59
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TWS1405_2
By its medically accurate term…zygote.
By its medically accurate term…fetus.
Yes of course. 

But what are they? 
It's not part of the woman's body, so it's not the woman's body.
And if it isn't part of the woman's body, then logically it has to be another living organism. 
And if it's living then that means it has the potential to grow.
And with that potential to grow comes out a human. 
So, by definition a fetus or zygote is a human. 

Yes it is. If it is within her, attached to her, feeding off her…it is “biologically” a part of her body. 

"It is simply untrue that the unborn child is merely “part of the mother’s body.” In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn possesses separate circulatory, nervous, and endocrine systems."
No, it biologically isn't.

In the woman's body, not a part of it.  
Capability (potentiality) =/= Actuality. Never has. Never will
But:
Potentiality = Possibility.

And if there is a possibility of human life, then by definition, doing anything to that possibility is the killing of a possible human life?
Is it better to let something try to live, instead of not giving it a chance at all? And in doing that we have to consider those fetuses/zygotes humans. 

At birth, yes. Never before birth. 
But life begins at conception. 
And it is a human driven life (in other words) if left to its natural processes will create human life. 

Not a baby, but a viable fetus. Because medically that is what it is. A viable fetus.
So, would it be ok to hurt or do anything morally unethical to that viable fetus two days before birth?

No, it’s not [a] person, not until birth (be it natural or by C section). 
Is potential human life ok to harm?
#60
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Lemming
I read the comments at the links you provided and found them interesting and informative.
The ones that affected me the most were:

Public-Choice #191: A baby has every right to be there. The contract was signed when the penis entered the vagina. The risks were clearly delineated and accepted.
[ I strongly disagree with this. The unborn is not a party to the "contract," and it has no rights. (I also don't believe there is such a contract.)]

Uragirimono #224:  But who do you think you are that you can allow a mother to do anything? Why do her motivations have to meet your standards in order to be valid, particularly since her decision either way won't affect you at all?
[ I agree with this. I think it is very well said.]