Palin's Abortion Stance

[Mare Tranquillity]

Let me get this straight -- you want me to provide proof of the human-ness of 'chincks, ******s and spics' and the non-human-ness of moose and deer?

If you cannot discern human existence intuitively, you might want to apply the self-evident axiom -- the offspring of human beings is a human being; the offspring of moose is a moose.

Clear?

Personhood is easy, I was talking about "humaness". Define it if you like, I'm trying to find out what you're talking about. It's funny to me that even when I write respectful questions to you seeking information you're always snippy and sarcastic. Why is that? You called me at least as many nasty names as I've called you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes it is a nightmare having an intellect as minute as mine.

It stops me from believing the facts in the bible.

How will I survive?

FACTS? In the Bible? Doesn't seem very likely, does it. Of course, it's a big book and nobody can be wrong ALL the time. (Go ahead, Nums, make the trite, expected joke.)

 

[numinus]

Personhood is easy, I was talking about "humaness". Define it if you like, I'm trying to find out what you're talking about.

You want me to define human existence????

Where should one begin with that question. Tell you what -- you can start with the plato's forms and substance -- as good as any starting point in a question as encompassing as the whole of western thought.

I'd be happy to help you on anything you might have a problem with.

It's funny to me that even when I write respectful questions to you seeking information you're always snippy and sarcastic. Why is that? You called me at least as many nasty names as I've called you.

You don't expect me to suffer your insults quietly, now, do you?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Mare, he responds with insults when he is bereft of a legitimate responses which is most of the time.

Don't worry he justy makes himself look ridiculous

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You want me to define human existence????

Where should one begin with that question. Tell you what -- you can start with the plato's forms and substance -- as good as any starting point in a question as encompassing as the whole of western thought.

No, I don't. Please read the post. Asked about "humaness". A definition.

 

[Agnapostate]

A human being IS a person. Conversely, an animal IS NOT a person. There is no sense contriving a set of criteria that allows for a human being to not be a person nor an animal to be a person. Nor is there any logical basis to set personhood at some arbitrary stage of human development.

This is not a question of taxonomical dilineation. Taxonomy is just a tool for scientific study, not an infallible criteria to determine human existence. With the completion of the human genome project, as well as some primates, we already know that the line between species and their current classifications are getting blurred.

And I have contended that the definition of considering humans equivalent to persons is insufficient, and that personhood should be based on traits such as self-awareness, rationality, and the capacity to feel pain. I have pointed out that animals possess greater levels of this trait than human fetuses.

What is your objection to this definition?

The utilitarian premises can hardly be considered as the appropriate starting point of a valid ethical inquiry. There is a marked departure between the utilitarianism of bentham and js mill. For one, js mills, in defense of bentham, explains that 'happiness' varies not only quantitatively, but qualitatively as well -- that in the qualitative degrees of happiness, there exists both lower and higher forms of it.

And that the highest form of utilitarian pleasure resides in what he calls an internal sanction, the explanation of which coincides with kant's categorical imperative.

Do you assume that I will immediately accept John Stuart Mill's claims as valid? Firstly, I am a preference utilitarian, not a classical utilitarian, so I differ substantially from Mill in that regard.

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the equation. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

I openly disagree with Mill's assertion. Has a human being been a pig, or has Socrates been a fool? How would they be familiar with the benefits of idle and simple pleasure if they had never had it themselves?

But the satisfaction of preferences and interests are themselves means to some higher end -- as both js mill and kant assert.

At some fundamental level, THE IMPERATIVE TO CONTINUE ONE'S EXISTENCE RESIDES IN ALL ORGANISMS, whether such imperative is consciously or rationaly discerned.

There is nothing more fundamental in ethics than the right to live since all the happiness attendant to your existence as a rational being IS POSSIBLE ONLY WHEN YOU ARE ALIVE.

Then on what grounds do you differentiate between a worm or a snail and a human, since worms and snails have a similar imperative to continue their own existences?

A fetus is not a rational being at that stage of its existence, so to include a fetus in your analysis, you would need to assert that it had some inherent value in and of itself.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Don't you realise that pro-lifers aren't pro life?

Even the best of them are only pro-human life.

And most of them are very pro death when it comes to war and execution and foreign aid.

 

[Dr.Who]

And I have contended that the definition of considering humans equivalent to persons is insufficient, and that personhood should be based on traits such as self-awareness, rationality, and the capacity to feel pain. I have pointed out that animals possess greater levels of this trait than human fetuses.

What is your objection to this definition?

Yet this definition (person = human)* is the one that exist in our legal dictionaries. This definition is the one that has been used for hundreds of years. You want to change it so why don't you give the rest of us a good reason to change?

Why should personhood be based on any extra traits at all? Who are you to decide which ones? Why is it that the motivation to come up with a new definition for person arose coincidentally at the same that that the debate over abortion became heated? It is still obvious to so many that the desire to define unborn humans as not person is motivated by the desire to keep abortions legal and not based on the tradition use of language, legal precedent, or science. Just like slave holders tried to define black people as not fully persons the arguments today ring just as hollow.

*
Here are the first few definitions from legal dictionaries:

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=person&type=1&submit1.x=23&submit1.y=8&submit1=Look+up

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/sc...com&topic=e4/e4b1efffd2c970a94531d44ee63d3d3b

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P.aspx

And one from just a regular old dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

 

[Dr.Who]

Don't you realise that pro-lifers aren't pro life?

Even the best of them are only pro-human life.

And most of them are very pro death when it comes to war and execution and foreign aid.

That is not a very intelligent statement.


Everyone understands that the term pro-life means pro-human life so there is no need to specify that.

And yes almost all pro-lifers are pro-human life. Duh. Those who are not are not really pro-lifers are they (by definition)? They just masquerade.

And being pro-innocent human life is very different than being pro-convicted criminal life or pro-enemy life.

 

[Agnapostate]

Yet this definition (person = human)* is the one that exist in our legal dictionaries. This definition is the one that has been used for hundreds of years. You want to change it so why don't you give the rest of us a good reason to change?

Why should personhood be based on any extra traits at all? Who are you to decide which ones? Why is it that the motivation to come up with a new definition for person arose coincidentally at the same that that the debate over abortion became heated? It is still obvious to so many that the desire to define unborn humans as not person is motivated by the desire to keep abortions legal and not based on the tradition use of language, legal precedent, or science. Just like slave holders tried to define black people as not fully persons the arguments today ring just as hollow.

*
Here are the first few definitions from legal dictionaries:

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=person&type=1&submit1.x=23&submit1.y=8&submit1=Look+up

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/sc...com&topic=e4/e4b1efffd2c970a94531d44ee63d3d3b

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P.aspx

And one from just a regular old dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

I have explained this many, many times to you; I should not have to do so repeatedly. Those definitions are irrelevant to ethical definitions of personhood. Consider the Dred Scott example again. Dred Scott was considered a nonperson by the law and popular Southern opinion, but he remained a person in the ethical sense.

I have elaborated on a definition of personhood that has survived in one form or another since the Enlightenment. It determines moral status on the basis of self-awareness in addition to basic sentience. What objections do you have to this definition?

That is not a very intelligent statement.

Everyone understands that the term pro-life means pro-human life so there is no need to specify that.

And yes almost all pro-lifers are pro-human life. Duh. Those who are not are not really pro-lifers are they (by definition)? They just masquerade.

And being pro-innocent human life is very different than being pro-convicted criminal life or pro-enemy life.

Why is human life inherently superior to nonhuman animal life at the same level of awareness and rationality?

 

[Dr.Who]

I have elaborated on a definition of personhood that has survived in one form or another since the Enlightenment. It determines moral status on the basis of self-awareness in addition to basic sentience. What objections do you have to this definition?

Apparently I am too dense to understand that definition. Do you have a source for a definition of person that is like that and has gained any widespread acceptance? If it is not the same as the legal definitions used in this country and the normal ones used in everyday speech why should I care about that definition? Why is it relevant?

Why is human life inherently superior to nonhuman animal life at the same level of awareness and rationality?

It might not be. But if say a great ape was as important that would in no way mean that a human life that was not quite as bright as the ape would be any less important.

 

[Agnapostate]

Apparently I am too dense to understand that definition. Do you have a source for a definition of person that is like that and has gained any widespread acceptance? If it is not the same as the legal definitions used in this country and the normal ones used in everyday speech why should I care about that definition? Why is it relevant?

Because it is an ethical definition separate from the legal one. If the legal definition of personhood excluded minority races and women, would you similarly ask why you should care if the legal definition was different than what some claimed was the ethical definition?

It might not be. But if say a great ape was as important that would in no way mean that a human life that was not quite as bright as the ape would be any less important.

It's not a matter of "brightness," per se. This was originally intended to highlight a logical inconsistency in Palin's position that was really only caused by her religious beliefs. At this point, I'm attempting to clarify a utilitarian justification for abortion.

It's essentially one of preventing suffering. A fetus is not a self-aware being, and cannot form preferences and interests about the future. Hence, it cannot suffer from their denial. A pregnant woman, conversely, can form such preferences and can suffer from their denial. As a result, it would be a greater maximization of utility to satisfy preferences than to not satisfy them because a fetus has no comparable rational moral preferences that can be weighed against those of the mother.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Why is human life inherently superior to nonhuman animal life at the same level of awareness and rationality?

Why is the measure of a life's value based on some purported "level of awareness and rationality"? We decide what life has value based on our perception? Life's value then becomes utilitarian rather than intrinsic.

 

[Agnapostate]

Why is the measure of a life's value based on some purported "level of awareness and rationality"? We decide what life has value based on our perception? Life's value then becomes utilitarian rather than intrinsic.

What objection do you have to life's value being utilitarian rather than intrinsic?

Should we aim to prevent suffering, a greater level of awareness would create a greater capacity to suffer, and beings with greater levels of awareness thus have more weighty moral interests in that regard.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What objection do you have to life's value being utilitarian rather than intrinsic?

Should we aim to prevent suffering, a greater level of awareness would create a greater capacity to suffer, and beings with greater levels of awareness thus have more weighty moral interests in that regard.

I don't know, but the anthropocentric viewpoint is just difficult for me to accept. I think animals value their lives as much as I value mine, I have no evidence that I can suffer more than they. We know so little about animals that I dislike objectifying them.

On a philosophical level we cannot give life, all we can do is take it. Whatever the source is, it has seen fit to give each of us a piece of it and who am I to steal what has been given to another? I feel that my life has intrinsic value, should I judge others to be less than myself?