Originally posted by LemonJelloThat's ridiculous. Keep waiting, then. Just insert 'possession' instead, if you're confused.
[b]I'm waiting for your definition of actual possession.
That's ridiculous. Keep waiting, then. Just insert 'possession' instead, if you're confused. The point is that your notion of what I called latent possession (of X) doesn't imply possession (of X)! That is, under your notion of 'inherent capacity', if some thing possesses the 'inhe ...[text shortened]... ugh as I mentioned before I do not consider your two notions to be identical.[/b]
Your 'possession' is simplistic:
A man in a temporary coma cannot function as a person, however he will function as one -- he is a person.
A 2nd trimester fetus cannot function as a person, however he will function as one -- he is not a person. What is the difference?
You argue that the man in the coma possesses at least some of the necessary conditions to function as a person.
My reply is that these conditions however are not sufficient, since he cannot yet function as a person. Furthermore these "conditions" - when you go into specific detail are arbitrary, since there may be persons who fulfill none of these "conditions", yet still function as persons and therefore merit personhood.
Originally posted by HalitoseIf it is the case that a coma victim nevertheless possesses said capacities, then you're simply wrong when you state that the coma victim cannot function as a person. By definition of 'capacity' (or 'faculty', if you'd rather), the victim can -- it just happens to be the case that said capacities are, for whatever reason, not being exercised.
[b]That's ridiculous. Keep waiting, then. Just insert 'possession' instead, if you're confused.
Your 'possession' is simplistic:
A man in a temporary coma cannot function as a person, however he will function as one -- he is a person.
A 2nd trimester fetus cannot function as a person, however he will function as o ...[text shortened]... e of these "conditions", yet still function as persons and therefore merit personhood.[/b]
But you're right when you say that a 2nd trimester fetus cannot, and that's because it lacks said capacities. And that is the difference.
You argue that the man in the coma possesses at least some of the necessary conditions to function as a person.
No, what I argue is that the man is a person if and only if he possesses said capacities.
My reply is that these conditions however are not sufficient, since he cannot yet function as a person.
If you want to merely stipulate that in the example he cannot function as such, then, fine, he lacks said capacities and he's not a person. But you habitually fail to appreciate the distinction between having the capacity for a certain mental state and having that certain mental state be occurrent. It is certainly not the case that all coma victims cannot so function.
Furthermore these "conditions" - when you go into specific detail are arbitrary, since there may be persons who fulfill none of these "conditions", yet still function as persons and therefore merit personhood.
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Originally posted by KnightWulfeI hold that abortion is morally permissible only when immediately necessary to save the life of the mother - otherwise not.
This is likely one of the hottest topics that I have ever discussed with others. It covers sex, religion, and even the affects of life itself.
I am curious of those who are both pro-choice and pro-life.... Is there a line where abortion is ok or not ok?
Originally posted by amannionI'm not attempting to belittle human life - I helped create two such things myself, and I love them to death.
Have a look at the definition of a parasite and then think again about the nature of a foetus. I'm not attempting to belittle human life - I helped create two such things myself, and I love them to death.
My point in using the term parasite is to highlight that we have on the one hand an existing and viable life (the mother) and on the other hand a potenti ...[text shortened]... learly in any sort of decision regarding the importance of these the mother must take priority.
Do you love them enough to tell them to their faces that you considered them 'parasites' between their conceptions and their births?
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf they pose a danger to human life, I would advocate the removal of these life forms.
I have a hypothetical question for the anti-abortionists here.
Suppose a cognescent[sic] alien life form came to earth, which could only survive by parasitising humans. Would you advocate the removal of these life forms, even though it would cause their death, or would you suggest that people should "just live with it"?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes. Accidents happen - that's a fact of life. No one's necessarily to blame.
for those who believe that a foetus is equivalent to a baby(post birth), should a mother who accidentally falls and causes an abortion be treated in exactly the same way as a mother who accidentally kills a child?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIt all boils down to the rights and personhood of the fetus/child.
I actually support legal abortion in the first two trimesters. (Edit: this based on science about pain, consciousness, etc.)
However, I believe your argument is one of the weaker arguments in favor of abortion. No law completely stops the act it targets. There are still murders despite the laws against murder. There are still robberies despite the ...[text shortened]... erest, the state must not interfere with a woman's right to do with her own body as she will.
Are the two equivalent?
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat is the difference between 'latency' (or 'potential'[1]) and 'capacity'?
You mean 'latent' as in potential, not yet actualized, right? I would freely give you that the young fetus -- down to a hypothetical zygote at conception -- is in latency a person. That is not sufficient to make your case. Actually, since 'latent' implies something like 'not yet actual', the fact that the young fetus qualifies for latency of relevant capacites is, if anything, sufficient for making just the opposite case.
LH
[1] I'm distinguishing this from 'potency' which is a metaphysics term.
Originally posted by KnightWulfeSay your daughter is a teenager - 15 - and she is brutally raped by a criminally insane escaped convict and is impregnated, would you allow her to have that child?
My apologies for my delay in returning to this thread.
The question that I wished to pose was this:
Say your daughter is a teenager - 15 - and she is brutally raped by a criminally insane escaped convict and is impregnated, would you allow her to have that child?
As to the likelihood of the situation - yes, it is not likely, but rape happens, in ...[text shortened]... this is not meant to provoke. This is meant to see what kind of line there is...if there is one.
Yes.
Would that be a line? Would that circumstance warrant an abortion?
No.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloImplicit in your argument is a circular argument. You're equating, without providing reasons, the following two definitions of 'person':
[b]I'm not sure which one you mean
I meant I would grant you that the zygote is a latent person. This doesn't help your case at all because it follows tautologically that a latent person is not a person (at least, not yet). That is, the young fetus is not a person but merely a potential person. Potential persons don't have rights; and there is n siderable and cannot be harmed in any way and the woman has a basic claim to self-autonomy.[/b]
(P1) a being with certain capacities (rationality, self-consciousness, suffering etc.)
(P2) a being that qualifies for rights
You need to either start from P1 and show why P2 is necessary and sufficient - or vice-versa.
EDIT: I'm taking up the exact difference between 'capacity' and 'potential' elsewhere.
Originally posted by no1marauderA corpse isn't a stage in human development because it's not alive.
So is a corpse a "but a stage in human development, nothing more, nothing less". However, at that particular stage of human development it no longer has rights. A non-viable fetus is a stage of human development that hasn't acquired rights yet.
Originally posted by no1marauderBy your logic an elephant is "more alive" than a human being.
As pointed out, a recently deceased corpse has far more living human tissue than a zygote. So it's more alive, isn't it?
A deceased corpse does not have more living tissue, in percentage terms, than a zygote. Further, the zygote is a living organism, its living cell is integrated fully (quite trivially, in this case) into the organism. That's not true of the disparate and uncoordinated living tissue of a recently deceased corpse.