Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Read more carefully. I deny nothing, other than that those terms are loaded, and that there are other possible ways of seeing the issue. As far as I see it, I do not have any right to any final opinion on that question. I don't get to judge. Who are you to judge?
Of course the term personhood is loaded. It is especially loaded if you are on the side of denying it to a certain group. That you are uncomfortable with what might be true is no reason to ignore the truth.
I agree there are many possible views on every issue. There is generally only a lot of wrong views and just the one that is right.
And as to judgment I, again, do not think you understand how the world works. It does not matter what you do not like. The ability to judge has been given to all people. I know some judgments are bad, but that does not mean we should stop trying to get things right.
We do not bow to the will of those that have no problem acting against what is right. We are to judge rightly and put bad people in their place! Who am I to judge? A person who is capable of doing so and without a reason not to.
Where did you get the ridiculous notion that you should not judge from?
-
Kowhai.
If you're prepared to ignore the issue of personhood then you must deem the idea that 'babies at conception are people' is irrelevant. On what basis do you advocate the right to kill people for reasons such as convenience, state of mind, medical complication, rape, financial concerns or relationship status?
On what basis do you deem it OK to kill people (babies prior to 24 weeks) for any of these reasons when I can only hope you condemn murder even with any of those excuses at any time afterward?
-
Grant: mu.
What's an mu?
I would accept that we do not currently have any single empirical test with a result that would be agreed upon by all observers in all cases. But that doesn't mean that an empirical definition is impossible in principle for all purposes, or that we should ignore empirical evidence in cases where the result is clear
You believe perhaps it is possible that there will be discovered a test by which we might measure personhood? Do you really think a set of data or a scan of something will be able to determine person from not person? I find that utterly irrational given that personhood is a purely abstract concept. Something we recognise, not something we have discovered by scientific means.
I find the notion that we might find a test for personhood akin to the idea that we might one day find a test for people who don't like "Dances With Wolves". :)
I think the current situation, that you recognise, supports my stance. I think the fact that we do not have a test for personhood, not even a consensus on what it is, is clear evidence for the idea that personhood is something that must be recognised by the application of good judgement.
I agree that certain traits and attributes can tell us that a person is a person. But I am distinctly of the opinion that who is a person should be perfectly obvious. It's a tragedy that it is not.
As I've already said, I do not want to give anyone else the power to decide whether I am a person based solely on their own judgement. (How would you feel about that?)
I don't think you understand the way the world works. Anyone has the capacity to believe anything they like. Everyone is capable of denying another's personhood. You are in discussions here because you deny babies at conception personhood. What you do not want to happen is irrelevant. What is relevant is the truth. The truth is that people are all created equal. The truth is that people are created at conception.
This is what I judge to be true and I think there are several good observations that support that judgment.
Do you see how what I say is reasonable?
-
Linger. Do you agree that personhood can not be defined by any set of empirical means?
-
Mark. I know you didn't. I said you did based on what you defined as a person. I assumed that you just didn't have a clue what you were saying. I think I was right.
-
But for the shortage I've no issue with eating whales and am rather keen to chomp on cheval.
I want a dolphin burger!
-
Actually, that's an assertion without evidence (as you yourself acknowledged by prefacing the original claim with "I'm willing to bet...").
Sure. And it's an assertion I am not willing to test. Though I can guarantee you that every baby will react adversely to being assaulted whether in the womb or not.
But, for at least some stages of fetal development, the description "killing a person" cannot be proven to apply, as "personhood" cannot be definitively established, for reasons we've already discussed. (You don't have to agree with me; and for that matter, the mother doesn't have to agree with me. I merely note that this is an alternative interpretation consistent with the observable data, and leave the choice of interpretation back with the mother.)
Establishing personhood is a simple matter of applying the term as we see fit. I think it is right to apply the rights of a person to babies at conception. I think you agree with me that there is no definitive test for personhood. Do you think that one day there will be? Will we one day have access to a person-o-meter (TM)?
"Self-determination" means the ability to make decisions about your own future. This is a much higher level of "personhood" than the minimum "perception plus memory" definition discussed earlier, and is accordingly to be valued more highly. No-one has ever established that newborns -- let alone foetuses -- are capable of any conscious decision. By contrast, we certainly do know that about the mother!
OK. I understand what you mean by the term. Your declaration of this term is not evidence that it is a correct means by which to judge who is and is not a person. I'm also wondering, as with all the methods you describe, how you avoid the conclusion that some people are more persons than others.
BTW, the definitions of "personhood" we've been discussing are independent of species. They could also be applied to the ethics of food consumption. Nobody has any ethical qualms about eating cabbage, as we're pretty sure it doesn't have any plans for tomorrow. Most of us aren't that worried about eating lamb or beef, for much the same reason; but if we believe that these animals are capable of self-determination, then that's problematic. Rather more of us are squeamish about eating dogs, horses, whales, or monkeys, largely because there is more evidence that such animals are above the self-determination threshold. Of course, if you're going to go with the minimum definition of "personhood", and apply it consistently, your diet will be that much more restricted. Unless you are a strict vegetarian, you must also be "willing to exclude the rights of others".
And, at the risk of being banned, the only response I have to that is, "Yummy, whale." :D
I have to keep reminding myself to be polite (I think I just failed). I want to thank you for the continued levels of maturity you post with. I know I'm not the easiest of guys to communicate with. Thanks :)
-
I'm sorry, but if you cannot find it in yourself to agree that there is nothing wrong with all four of those statements then there is no room left for discussion elsewhere.
-
What? This is an ability that not even toddlers are noted for, wrt all sorts of lethal dangers. Babies might suck something to find out what it is. A newborn would be lucky to focus on it. I'm not sure what a late term fetus can perceive, but it's not likely to be more. A pre-term fetus on telly the other night seemed fine about a major tumour being removed from its backside.
I carefully described the situation in which a baby would fight for his life. A toddler not knowing about poison is reasonable, a toddler reacting adversely to a sharp pbject is obvious. It is interesting that you note an acceptance of a procedure designed to help a child. I'll not pretend that the kid knew what was going on, but it is interesting. My simple point was that babies do not take kindly to being assaulted. And the fact that babies are being killed is reason enough for me to voice my opinion with or without their consent.
-
Uh. OK, that was unnecessarily surreal. Susan, did you have a point?