Abortion: A Sorites Paradox?

I attempt to show what a Sorites Paradox is and why arguments over personhood in the abortion debate are based on semantic vagueness over the idea of personhood. As I say in the video, I attempt to stay away from my personal opinion on abortion, only disregarding the theistic notion of personhood beginning at the point of conception as I have not seen any non-theistic arguments for such a notion.

For more on Sorites Paradox check out:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Abortion
• Sorites
• Paradox
• Personhood
• Semantic
• Vagueness

[Winedarkseas]

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.

[iwentdowntotheriver]

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?

[Canbuhay]

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?

[iwentdowntotheriver]

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.

[randyhelzerman]

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....

[iwentdowntotheriver]

I like that; though that was the way it was taught to me so the credit must go to my prof!

[HumanRights4Everyone]

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.

[dingeske]

Thirdly: on the notion of personhood. What defines man is self-consciousness. This, however, is achieved through interaction with people and objects, and does not pop up at birth or at conception. It can develop months or even years after birth. Since it is generally agreed it is not okay to abort/kill babies after birth, personhood, or self-consciousness may not be a useable argument in this discussion.

Of course, this is only my concept of personhood, and I welcome everyone to disagree.

[dingeske]

Secondly, I wish to discuss some arguments made in this argument. A woman does not have full control of her body, for she is pregnant unwillingly. Again, I do believe one should be able to have an abortion, I just resent faulty argumentation.

[dingeske]

Firstly, I am against any law prohibiting abortion, not because of the notion of personhood, but rather the notion of choice. I believe that underneath all of the human rights lies the ability to choose, i.e. be able to make a wrong decision. If government rules out wrong decisions, government is totalitarian. I am not saying abortion is immoral, but even if it is one should have the right to choose abortion, and of course, deal with the consequences, as few or many they may be.

[ChrrristianGP1981]

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.

[vanhornluke]

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.

[lilprince585]

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]

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.