Well "person" doesn't have a scientific defination. "Human Being" does however and its universally (among scientists) accepted that children in the womb are human beings.
Now its up to society on whether we should again label entire groups of our fellow human beings as "non-persons".
On a purely historical level we have always come to regret such labeling, so prehaps its time we finally declare ALL human beings are people with inheraint worth that need not be proven or justified.
The paradox hasn't been addressed in the US realm of law. At what point cells become a person is beside the point of Roe vs. Wade. The argument is that women have the right to control their bodies. Just as they would be under no legal obligation to offer their body to a child after birth (say donating a kidney), they should be under no legal obligation to offer their body to a child in utero.
You've never seen non-religious arguments for the claim that personhood begins at conception? This is argued for at length by prominent pro-life philosophers like Schwarz and Beckwith. You should definitely check out their work if you still haven't encountered such an argument.
Here's a brief, oversimplified one: 1) Human persons are identical to human animals (i.e., animalism is true); 2) Human animals begin to exist at conception; and finally, 3) Personhood is an essential property.
i would have thought this issue should have been intuitively obvious: a person becomes a person at the moment it draws first breathe, having been separated from the mother. only then does it function independently as a living entity. no longer is the child a parasitic organism existing only as part of the woman, rather it has become an entity in its own right, albeit a weak and vulnerable one.
It is not so obvious otherwise it would not be such a flashpoint in the culture wars. What of the child who is born and does not breathe and is hooked up to machines for many months; does this entity become a person only when the machines are no longer needed?
I am not religious, but I have always believed that life begins with the development of the heart at 4 weeks or so. I honestly believe that it has gotten somewhat out of hand, and is used as a main form of birth control as opposed to a last resort. Pregnancy is a risk when having sex, I think ultimately, that if people are going to have consensual sex, that they should be prepared in the advent of pregnancy and be responsible for their actions. Of course, there are always exceptions.
I think that the real answer is to have better sex-education, and birth control access in schools. We have the entire world surrounding youth, promoting sex. Then we have sex-ed programs preaching abstinance. Kids are going to have sex! If sex was less tabooed, as well as forms of birth control, then abortion would not be so prevalent. I do believe that abortion has its place, however, I also believe that it is used as a scapegoat at this point which seems problematic.
As we see, the definition of life as well as 'bald' varies depending on who is asked. The debate does not revolve around philosophical problems at all, but only around experience. Ultimately this leaves the definition of life at the mercy of subjective factors. This subjectivity is most effectively eliminated by prohibition of abortion altogether, and if abortion is prohibited, the debate on the definition of life loses all its legal relevance whatsoever. Now tell me, do you want this or not?
I spend 75% of my time presenting a philosophical and scientific reason why we believe the unborn are human beings (not religious).
The problem is that your argument relies on the philosophically questionable notion that there is a difference between personhood and being a human being.
Scientifically, the unborn are human beings and I haven't met any human beings who aren't persons. Have you?
And what is this reason you spend 75% of your time presenting? My argument- if it is an argument, it is more an exploration- asks about how we define person-hood. There are arguments to say(I do not say whether i agree or dis-agree) that babies with only brain stems are not persons- though of course they are homo sapiens. This is a legitimate exploration.
Nice vid, just one point: its not just philosophers who will get their say as to where personhood begins and ends--consider another line--when is somebody dead?? It was medical technology which redrew this line--there was no such concept as "brain dead" before we could transplant organs.
No doubt, if medical technology ever advanced to the point where we could "save the life" of a fetus in the first trimester, there would be a re-evaluation of personhood and when it begins.
You are right of course, new medical knowledge does change conceptions of when life begins and ends. I do think, however, that the beginning of life (and death) needs to be given a meaning and this is a philosophical question. E.g. science cannot decide that brain-dead means the end of personhood since science itself does not make normative judgements, though it can help in making them through providng the facts of the matter.
Not so much, a Sorites paradox generally depends on something out there in the world, something tangible, that our language had trouble describing perfectly and so vagueness creeps in. Ideology's are as vague or as particular as one would like, I mean one is not attempting to measure an ideology up against an objective standard.
Well "person" doesn't have a scientific defination. "Human Being" does however and its universally (among scientists) accepted that children in the womb are human beings.
Now its up to society on whether we should again label entire groups of our fellow human beings as "non-persons".
On a purely historical level we have always come to regret such labeling, so prehaps its time we finally declare ALL human beings are people with inheraint worth that need not be proven or justified.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago 2
The paradox hasn't been addressed in the US realm of law. At what point cells become a person is beside the point of Roe vs. Wade. The argument is that women have the right to control their bodies. Just as they would be under no legal obligation to offer their body to a child after birth (say donating a kidney), they should be under no legal obligation to offer their body to a child in utero.
ChrrristianGP1981 3 years ago
You've never seen non-religious arguments for the claim that personhood begins at conception? This is argued for at length by prominent pro-life philosophers like Schwarz and Beckwith. You should definitely check out their work if you still haven't encountered such an argument.
Here's a brief, oversimplified one: 1) Human persons are identical to human animals (i.e., animalism is true); 2) Human animals begin to exist at conception; and finally, 3) Personhood is an essential property.
vanhornluke 3 years ago
i would have thought this issue should have been intuitively obvious: a person becomes a person at the moment it draws first breathe, having been separated from the mother. only then does it function independently as a living entity. no longer is the child a parasitic organism existing only as part of the woman, rather it has become an entity in its own right, albeit a weak and vulnerable one.
Winedarkseas 3 years ago
It is not so obvious otherwise it would not be such a flashpoint in the culture wars. What of the child who is born and does not breathe and is hooked up to machines for many months; does this entity become a person only when the machines are no longer needed?
iwentdowntotheriver 3 years ago
I am not religious, but I have always believed that life begins with the development of the heart at 4 weeks or so. I honestly believe that it has gotten somewhat out of hand, and is used as a main form of birth control as opposed to a last resort. Pregnancy is a risk when having sex, I think ultimately, that if people are going to have consensual sex, that they should be prepared in the advent of pregnancy and be responsible for their actions. Of course, there are always exceptions.
lilprince585 3 years ago
I think that the real answer is to have better sex-education, and birth control access in schools. We have the entire world surrounding youth, promoting sex. Then we have sex-ed programs preaching abstinance. Kids are going to have sex! If sex was less tabooed, as well as forms of birth control, then abortion would not be so prevalent. I do believe that abortion has its place, however, I also believe that it is used as a scapegoat at this point which seems problematic.
lilprince585 3 years ago
As we see, the definition of life as well as 'bald' varies depending on who is asked. The debate does not revolve around philosophical problems at all, but only around experience. Ultimately this leaves the definition of life at the mercy of subjective factors. This subjectivity is most effectively eliminated by prohibition of abortion altogether, and if abortion is prohibited, the debate on the definition of life loses all its legal relevance whatsoever. Now tell me, do you want this or not?
kristopaivinen 4 years ago
men should have abortion rights too, tell that whore to abort and no child support bitch. death to the whores
MrRightAllTime 4 years ago
I spend 75% of my time presenting a philosophical and scientific reason why we believe the unborn are human beings (not religious).
The problem is that your argument relies on the philosophically questionable notion that there is a difference between personhood and being a human being.
Scientifically, the unborn are human beings and I haven't met any human beings who aren't persons. Have you?
Canbuhay 4 years ago 3
And what is this reason you spend 75% of your time presenting? My argument- if it is an argument, it is more an exploration- asks about how we define person-hood. There are arguments to say(I do not say whether i agree or dis-agree) that babies with only brain stems are not persons- though of course they are homo sapiens. This is a legitimate exploration.
iwentdowntotheriver 4 years ago
Nice vid, just one point: its not just philosophers who will get their say as to where personhood begins and ends--consider another line--when is somebody dead?? It was medical technology which redrew this line--there was no such concept as "brain dead" before we could transplant organs.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
No doubt, if medical technology ever advanced to the point where we could "save the life" of a fetus in the first trimester, there would be a re-evaluation of personhood and when it begins.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
You are right of course, new medical knowledge does change conceptions of when life begins and ends. I do think, however, that the beginning of life (and death) needs to be given a meaning and this is a philosophical question. E.g. science cannot decide that brain-dead means the end of personhood since science itself does not make normative judgements, though it can help in making them through providng the facts of the matter.
iwentdowntotheriver 4 years ago
You must be an optimist--most times the paradox is presented the man is losing one hair at a time instead of gaining one hair at a time....
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I like that; though that was the way it was taught to me so the credit must go to my prof!
iwentdowntotheriver 4 years ago
Not so much, a Sorites paradox generally depends on something out there in the world, something tangible, that our language had trouble describing perfectly and so vagueness creeps in. Ideology's are as vague or as particular as one would like, I mean one is not attempting to measure an ideology up against an objective standard.
iwentdowntotheriver 4 years ago