Sorry. I thought it was more focused on the specific instance of the law in passed in Victoria. My mistake
It was focussed on that story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
Before I go into that, a quick question. Why conception? Why not earlier?
Biology. Before conception all that is present are parts of the mother and father. After conception a new human being has formed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
That same "baby"'s fate was set in the instant before conception
There is no fate but what you make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
Following the logic to its conclusion, any contraceptive method is equivalent to any abortive method.
:squint: Do you think a couple who do not have sex are aborting their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
The result is the same.
The result is not the same. One involves killing your child. The other does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
The contraceptive method is only effective in the case where had it not been for it, a baby would have been formed. So why give personhood to the result of conception itself, rather than saying there is a chance that a new person is formed in the act itself (sex, I mean), and contraceptive methods work only when that person would have been formed?
Because of science. This is the silliest thing I think you've put forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
Second, I'm curious what your stance on cloning is.
Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
Third, what is a person? And this actually does begin to answer your question. You see, I believe people are defined by their minds, more than their bodies.
There is no definition for person. Personhood is conferred. It is not a list of things one must attain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
Yes, a conceived child has all it needs to, if it beats the odds, eventually form a human body. And become a person. But what it is, after conception, is a single cell. No mind, no desires, no ambitions, no feelings, nothing. In short, a whole lot of potential, but none of it realized.
So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
However, there are situations where the person who actually has to pay the cost for turning all that potential into an actual person isn't willing to do so, for social, health or economic reasons. I don't believe it is my right to dictate terms to this person. If they have decided to go to the lengths of getting an abortion, I imagine the cost for them must be incredibly high, and I simply can't make a decision on matters of this kind, because I am unable to imagine that kind of emotional investment in anything.
You've jumped from not being able to deny personhood to babies at conception to being sure they are not people. How did you do that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
It's not that the baby becomes more of a person for being in an incubator, but that the burden of turning the baby into a person is lifted from the mother's shoulders. Survivability in an incubator is important then because, if you have one method that kills the baby and another where you have close to half of the population happy to bear the burden of turning the baby into a person, there's no reason to kill the baby.
There is never a reason to kill a baby.
Once again your standard is that killing people is OK if they cause an inconvenience to others. What happened to the idea that they are not people? Why can you not use a single unified idea to justify everything you believe about human life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
My understanding is that the mother seeking an abortion isn't looking to kill the baby. She's looking to have the baby not be in her anymore. This usually results in the baby's death. If this can be achieved without the baby's death, so much the better.
Do you think the day will come where mother's can become pregnant and then give their children over to others so that no more people have to be killed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
And I have another question. The matter of artificial wombs was brought up before, and you and others said you looked forwards to the possibility of saving babies that had to be removed due to complications that threatened the lives of both mother and child. Would you oppose the use of such artificial wombs, when and if they become available, in the case of women whose lives are not at risk? What if the womb is not perfect and there's a chance of death for the baby? What if the womb IS perfect, and there's no chance of death?
If it is true that medical advance can increase a baby's chances for survival then I have no problem with its use. But no artificial device will ever be better than what it is designed to replace. Creating an artificial womb to make things more convenient for the mother will only increase the risk to the child.
It would be like cutting off your leg and using a prosthetic because you did not like cutting you toenails.
----
Kian. You seem open to discussing this civilly. How about you stick to one idea at a time. Either a baby is a person or not. Stop trying to use two opposing ideas ("babies are not people" and "some people do not deserve life") to justify the killing of kids and you will start seeing things a whole lot more clearly. Pick one of those lies and stick with it and your arguments will be destroyed quickly. Continue using them both and you can make things long and confusing for yourself.
Ok, let's get at the argument from one side. Focusing on the personhood of conceived children. Now, you said yourself that you have no definition of 'person', but that personhood is arbitrarily conferred (if there is no definition of person, there can be no other method of granting personhood).
Without a definition of person, you are saying there is no actual difference between animals and people, for instance. Simply that ones are recognized as people, and the others aren't. And then, who gets to decide who are people and who are animals?
As I said before, a person is more than just his body. Though that is a bit of an oversimplification. I see no reason to protect the life of undifferentiated cells. They may become a person eventually, but doing it at the expense of an actual person who doesn't want to go through the pregnancy I think is wrong.
Perhaps, biologically, they are a 'person'. But that is a very simplistic view of thew world. For the purposes of rights, which have nothing to do with biology, I don't see them as people.
Ok, let's get at the argument from one side. Focusing on the personhood of conceived children. Now, you said yourself that you have no definition of 'person', but that personhood is arbitrarily conferred (if there is no definition of person, there can be no other method of granting personhood).
Without a definition of person, you are saying there is no actual difference between animals and people, for instance. Simply that ones are recognized as people, and the others aren't. And then, who gets to decide who are people and who are animals?
As I said before, a person is more than just his body. Though that is a bit of an oversimplification. I see no reason to protect the life of undifferentiated cells. They may become a person eventually, but doing it at the expense of an actual person who doesn't want to go through the pregnancy I think is wrong.
Perhaps, biologically, they are a 'person'. But that is a very simplistic view of thew world. For the purposes of rights, which have nothing to do with biology, I don't see them as people.
Ok, let's get at the argument from one side. Focusing on the personhood of conceived children. Now, you said yourself that you have no definition of 'person', but that personhood is arbitrarily conferred (if there is no definition of person, there can be no other method of granting personhood).
Without a definition of person, you are saying there is no actual difference between animals and people, for instance. Simply that ones are recognized as people, and the others aren't. And then, who gets to decide who are people and who are animals?
I don't confer personhood to animals. Do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
As I said before, a person is more than just his body. Though that is a bit of an oversimplification. I see no reason to protect the life of undifferentiated cells. They may become a person eventually, but doing it at the expense of an actual person who doesn't want to go through the pregnancy I think is wrong.
Perhaps, biologically, they are a 'person'. But that is a very simplistic view of thew world. For the purposes of rights, which have nothing to do with biology, I don't see them as people.
So all you have to support your position is your preference. Why would you reject simple biology?
Ok.... How do you define person, definition which apparently doesn't include me? Or do you agree with Stripe that there is no definition, and persons are defined by personal opinion?
Ok.... How do you define person, definition which apparently doesn't include me? Or do you agree with Stripe that there is no definition, and persons are defined by personal opinion?
Why am I not surprised that you are too dumb to recognize sarcasm when you see it?
A person is a person when all that is needed to make a person is together and living.
Well, it's a tautology. You can't confer personhood to animals, as conferring personhood to them means they aren't animals.
But then, if personhood doesn't have a definition, what does conferring someone the title of person mean?
Quote:
So all you have to support your position is your preference. Why would you reject simple biology?
Because biology is not, never has been, and was never intended as, a basis for moral and ethical structurs. It describes the world. It is up to human experience to give that description meaning.
Why am I not surprised that you are too dumb to recognize sarcasm when you see it?
A person is a person when all that is needed to make a person is together and living.
I recognize sarcasm well enough. That wasn't it.
Oh, what a splendid definition of person! A person is what makes up a person! Why couldn't I see it before? This is sarcasm. You can identify it because the meaning of the words is the exact opposite of the message.
Your definition is not in fact a definition. It is a tautology. It doesn't add any new meaning. Of course a person is the sum of all its necessary parts. Ok, the bit about living is new information. Not that anyone argued against it, but it's more what I was looking for than the rest.
My definition of person identifies the mind as the fundamental defining characteristic of a person. Adding your tidbit there, then a conceived child is not a person until at the very least the central nervous system develops, as the parts that make it up (body and mind) aren't there yet.
Disagree with me? Then put up an actual definition of person.
You can't confer personhood to animals, as conferring personhood to them means they aren't animals.
Well, that's encouraging, Kian. On what basis do you regard humans as distinct from animals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
But then, if personhood doesn't have a definition, what does conferring someone the title of person mean?
It's a recognition of the source of our rights, our abilities and our status. People sometimes try to assume the job of conferring personhood. From this we get eugenics, genocide, euthanasia, racism and abortion. It is probably important to dismiss your idea that conferment is sourced by the opinion of people. It is not and nor do I, or any others, have the right to deny personhood to any person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
Because biology is not, never has been, and was never intended as, a basis for moral and ethical structurs. It describes the world. It is up to human experience to give that description meaning.
Why would you give reality a meaning that is in opposition to biology? Why would you call a baby at conception who is the product of human reproduction, alive and human, why would you deny biology and deny that baby personhood?
What evidence do you have to support your opinion?
Well, that's encouraging, Kian. On what basis do you regard humans as distinct from animals?
As I said, my definition of personhood identifies the mind of an individual as what makes them a person. We are separate from animals because we can think.
Quote:
It's a recognition of the source of our rights, our abilities and our status. People sometimes try to assume the job of conferring personhood. From this we get eugenics, genocide, euthanasia, racism and abortion. It is probably important to dismiss your idea that conferment is sourced by the opinion of people. It is not and nor do I, or any others, have the right to deny personhood to any person.
If personhood doesn't have a definition, and now it turns out that noone has the job of determining who is a person, how do you know what is a person and what isn't? Who or what is it that confers personhood?
See, when you say "you can't deny personhood to a person", you are already giving that entity personhood. The act of recongizing someone as a peson is confering personhood. So how do you identify what is a person, that you know we shouldn't deny them personhood?
Quote:
Why would you give reality a meaning that is in opposition to biology? Why would you call a baby at conception who is the product of human reproduction, alive and human, why would you deny biology and deny that baby personhood?
What evidence do you have to support your opinion?
I do not give reality a meaning in opposition to biology. I use biology as a tool to shape my opinion. Biology tells me that at conception, a baby is a single undifferentiated cell. It then becomes 2, 4, 8 and more cells, still undifferentiated. It then turns into a small globe of cells, and that is when the cells first begin to differentiate, though anything resembling organs is still a long way away. Biology tells me that in a few months, that group of cells will be a baby, if everything goes right. But right now, it is a group of cells. Given that my definition of person identifies the mind as the fundamental source of personhood, biology tells me that this group of cells, while it will become a person eventually, is not a person yet. Because it lacks the central nervous system that would make it a person.
So I don't feel inclined to give it rights that will supercede the well-being or quality of life of the mother, who is in fact a person.
As for evidence, the process of pregnancy is well documented, as is the recognition that the central nervous system is what makes our mind work.
As I said, my definition of personhood identifies the mind of an individual as what makes them a person. We are separate from animals because we can think.
:squint: Animals can't think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
If personhood doesn't have a definition, and now it turns out that noone has the job of determining who is a person, how do you know what is a person and what isn't? Who or what is it that confers personhood?
Whoever it is that confers personhood we should agree with Him. If you think the government confers personhood then you should follow the government. If you think the majority confers personhood then you should follow the majority. If you think you confer personhood then you should follow yourself.
Kian, if I am correct and personhood is not defined, but conferred, who do you think it is that confers personhood?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
See, when you say "you can't deny personhood to a person", you are already giving that entity personhood. The act of recongizing someone as a peson is confering personhood. So how do you identify what is a person, that you know we shouldn't deny them personhood?
We all recognise people. Now recognise why we all do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
I do not give reality a meaning in opposition to biology.
Yeah, you do. You could use biology to recognise that the living human product of human reproduction is a human being. Instead you only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
...use biology as a tool to shape my opinion. Biology tells me that at conception, a baby is a single undifferentiated cell. It then becomes 2, 4, 8 and more cells, still undifferentiated. It then turns into a small globe of cells, and that is when the cells first begin to differentiate, though anything resembling organs is still a long way away. Biology tells me that in a few months, that group of cells will be a baby, if everything goes right. But right now, it is a group of cells. Given that my definition of person identifies the mind as the fundamental source of personhood, biology tells me that this group of cells, while it will become a person eventually, is not a person yet. Because it lacks the central nervous system that would make it a person.
Every person is "only a group of cells". Why do you deny personhood based on the number of cells people have? Isn't that kinda like denying personhood because of a person's height or weight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
So I don't feel inclined to give it rights that will supercede the well-being or quality of life of the mother, who is in fact a person.
You're talking death for one person on the basis of the comfort of another. And once again you are using the argument that personhood is not the issue. Please stick to one argument so as not to confuse your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
As for evidence, the process of pregnancy is well documented, as is the recognition that the central nervous system is what makes our mind work.
That's your evidence?
At conception a baby is alive and human. He is not his mother or his father. He is everything he ever needs to be. All that is required is that he is given nourishment and protection and he will continue to grow for another 20-odd years.
So. I have thousands of questions! All these questions are easily answered by an admission of the truth. If you accepted that a person is not defined by any physical trait, but rather that personhood is conferred, then all these questions would be answered. As it is you will have to spend paragraphs on each question trying to make them fit with your assertions.
How is it that your "evidence" denies this being personhood?
What is it about the size of a baby or the development stage of his organs that determines personhood?
How does a central nervous system define a being as a person?
What is a mind? Is it a physical thing or is it just a synonym for person?
Is a person less of a person if he has a smaller or less than perfectly functioning nervous system?
Where is the nervous system before the baby is a person, in your opinion?
Come now, Stripe. You complain when I'm wordy, and when I'm not you purposefully misinterpret me. No, animals can't think the way humans can. They can learn behaviors and may display emotions that we link to our own, but they lack the higher mental faculties of humans.
Quote:
Whoever it is that confers personhood we should agree with Him. If you think the government confers personhood then you should follow the government. If you think the majority confers personhood then you should follow the majority. If you think you confer personhood then you should follow yourself.
Kian, if I am correct and personhood is not defined, but conferred, who do you think it is that confers personhood?
But you see, I disagree with you. I don't think personhood is conferred. As I said before, I believe personhood is defined, and those who meet the definition are persons, those who do not aren't.
As for who defines it, as far as I am concerned I do. I will agree to use the definitions of others in so far I find it beneficial, but I will guide my behavior by my standards. At the end of the day, I'm the one that has to live with myself.
Quote:
We all recognise people. Now recognise why we all do that.
We do so, because we have an innate understanding of the definition, which in the most general sense means "those like me". It is the source of empathy, and the reason why it is so easy to get people riled up for wars, and make them dehumanize enemies so that they can perform the atrocities that human history is peppered with. Show how someone is not "like me", and they stop being people.
Writing that innate understanding down is a good defense against that sort of crowd control.
Quote:
Yeah, you do. You could use biology to recognise that the living human product of human reproduction is a human being. Instead you only...[...]
Every person is "only a group of cells". Why do you deny personhood based on the number of cells people have? Isn't that kinda like denying personhood because of a person's height or weight?
First of all, do not misquote me. I never referred to anything as "only a group of cells". That string of words does not appear anywhere in the part you quoted. So don't attribute it to me, asking me to defend it as if I had said it.
I recognize that at conception, you have a new living organism which is a member of the human race, yes. There is quite a leap from that to a "human being", which is not a biological definition, but a social one. Even "human race" is a pretty loaded phrase, "Homo sapiens" might be more appropriate.
I do not deny this organism personhood. I have a definition for person, which I find is pretty accurate, and simply recognize that this organism doesn't yet measure up. It might in the future, but it doesn't now. Also, it is not on the basis of the number of cells, but on the presence or absence of a human mind. I know a mind requires a central nervous system, so until there is at least that (necessary but not sufficient condition), there is no argument in my mind that the organism is not a person.
Quote:
You're talking death for one person on the basis of the comfort of another. And once again you are using the argument that personhood is not the issue. Please stick to one argument so as not to confuse your position.
Well, sticking to the matter of personhood, I am talking death for a non-person for the benefit of a person.
Quote:
That's your evidence?
At conception a baby is alive and human. He is not his mother or his father. He is everything he ever needs to be. All that is required is that he is given nourishment and protection and he will continue to grow for another 20-odd years.
I'm curious, what do people "need" to be? I find it hard to see how the boldened portion makes any sense at all. Unless the answer is noone actually needs to be anything, which would mean the baby at conception is nothing. Now there's an interesting reading.
Quote:
So. I have thousands of questions! All these questions are easily answered by an admission of the truth. If you accepted that a person is not defined by any physical trait, but rather that personhood is conferred, then all these questions would be answered. As it is you will have to spend paragraphs on each question trying to make them fit with your assertions.
Don't really need paragraphs for each. A single sentence does for most.
Quote:
How is it that your "evidence" denies this being personhood?
We know we need a brain to have a mind and thus be able to qualify as a person, and we know a single cell cannot have a brain.
Quote:
What is it about the size of a baby or the development stage of his organs that determines personhood?
The presence or absence of a functioning nervous system, which would serve as evidence of the presence of a mind.
Quote:
How does a central nervous system define a being as a person?
It doesn't. I called it a necessary requirement. A person is a lot more than a central nervous system, but anything that doesn't have one certainly can't qualify as a person. Look up the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient".
Quote:
What is a mind? Is it a physical thing or is it just a synonym for person?
Ok, this is a more complex question. A mind isn't so much a 'thing' as it is an emergent characteristic of the physical and chemical processes inside a brain, which are also heavily influenced by the environment and other aspects of the state of the body.
Quote:
Is a person less of a person if he has a smaller or less than perfectly functioning nervous system?
I never claimed there were varying degrees of personhood. Your question doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Where is the nervous system before the baby is a person, in your opinion?
:squint:
The state of the central nervous system is not a matter of opinion. It develops during the pregnancy. It begins to be noticeable at around 15 days (about 2 weeks), with the primitive streak, which later will be the spine.
Come now, Stripe. You complain when I'm wordy, and when I'm not you purposefully misinterpret me. No, animals can't think the way humans can. They can learn behaviors and may display emotions that we link to our own, but they lack the higher mental faculties of humans.
But you see, I disagree with you. I don't think personhood is conferred. As I said before, I believe personhood is defined, and those who meet the definition are persons, those who do not aren't.
As for who defines it, as far as I am concerned I do. I will agree to use the definitions of others in so far I find it beneficial, but I will guide my behavior by my standards. At the end of the day, I'm the one that has to live with myself.
We do so, because we have an innate understanding of the definition, which in the most general sense means "those like me". It is the source of empathy, and the reason why it is so easy to get people riled up for wars, and make them dehumanize enemies so that they can perform the atrocities that human history is peppered with. Show how someone is not "like me", and they stop being people.
Writing that innate understanding down is a good defense against that sort of crowd control.
First of all, do not misquote me. I never referred to anything as "only a group of cells". That string of words does not appear anywhere in the part you quoted. So don't attribute it to me, asking me to defend it as if I had said it.
I recognize that at conception, you have a new living organism which is a member of the human race, yes. There is quite a leap from that to a "human being", which is not a biological definition, but a social one. Even "human race" is a pretty loaded phrase, "Homo sapiens" might be more appropriate.
I do not deny this organism personhood. I have a definition for person, which I find is pretty accurate, and simply recognize that this organism doesn't yet measure up. It might in the future, but it doesn't now. Also, it is not on the basis of the number of cells, but on the presence or absence of a human mind. I know a mind requires a central nervous system, so until there is at least that (necessary but not sufficient condition), there is no argument in my mind that the organism is not a person.
Well, sticking to the matter of personhood, I am talking death for a non-person for the benefit of a person.
I'm curious, what do people "need" to be? I find it hard to see how the boldened portion makes any sense at all. Unless the answer is noone actually needs to be anything, which would mean the baby at conception is nothing. Now there's an interesting reading.
Don't really need paragraphs for each. A single sentence does for most.
We know we need a brain to have a mind and thus be able to qualify as a person, and we know a single cell cannot have a brain.
The presence or absence of a functioning nervous system, which would serve as evidence of the presence of a mind.
It doesn't. I called it a necessary requirement. A person is a lot more than a central nervous system, but anything that doesn't have one certainly can't qualify as a person. Look up the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient".
Ok, this is a more complex question. A mind isn't so much a 'thing' as it is an emergent characteristic of the physical and chemical processes inside a brain, which are also heavily influenced by the environment and other aspects of the state of the body.
I never claimed there were varying degrees of personhood. Your question doesn't make sense.
:squint:
The state of the central nervous system is not a matter of opinion. It develops during the pregnancy. It begins to be noticeable at around 15 days (about 2 weeks), with the primitive streak, which later will be the spine.
Kian..
You believe that at conception a baby is only "a group of cells" and not a person. My apologies for including the word only within the quotation marks when you did not use the term. Every person is a "group of cells". There is something we add to those cells that makes killing him wrong. We call this addition 'personhood'. You believe that you have the right to decide who is a person and who is not.
Now if you cannot see the perverse nature of what you are saying here then perhaps I need to spell it out clearly, but let me try something a little more helpful for a moment. You claim the emergence of a brain, a central nervous system and other things as making a person. Now I ask where those things are before they emerge. I think the answer to my question is perfectly obvious. Those things are coded into a baby at conception such that everything he will ever need is already present.
So my question to you would be: At what point does the size or recognisability of the items you use to define personhood become great enough for you to say that this is now a person and killing him is wrong? This is a very important point for you because if you cross your threshold for personhood, yet still see a mother's right to kill her baby then clearly personhood means little or nothing to you.
So, when is it, Kian? When is a brain big enough for you to consider its owner a person? When is a central nervous system functionable enough for you to judge its owner's deliberate killing a crime against a person? And what is your evidence that these stages of growth are so relevant to personhood as opposed to any other stage? You wouldn't want to be seen as making arbitrary delimiters in order to retain a preconceived idea, now would you?
You believe that at conception a baby is only "a group of cells" and not a person. My apologies for including the word only within the quotation marks when you did not use the term. Every person is a "group of cells". There is something we add to those cells that makes killing him wrong. We call this addition 'personhood'. You believe that you have the right to decide who is a person and who is not.
I agree we are all groups of cells. You could say our cells are made of molecules, the molecules of atoms, and we are all a collection of atoms.
What matters is not what we are made of. It matters what we are. The same way a cake is not a cake until you bake it, even if the 'cake' before being baked is everything it needs to be to become a cake, if only you put it for an hour in the oven (no, I don't know how long you bake a cake).
Personhood is not something that is added to someone, in any case. You recognize something as a person or not, but your calling it a person does not change what it is. It affects the person recognizing the other, because it affects the way he behaves towards the one recognized as a person.
Quote:
Now if you cannot see the perverse nature of what you are saying here then perhaps I need to spell it out clearly, but let me try something a little more helpful for a moment. You claim the emergence of a brain, a central nervous system and other things as making a person. Now I ask where those things are before they emerge. I think the answer to my question is perfectly obvious. Those things are coded into a baby at conception such that everything he will ever need is already present.
You misunderstood me. I said that the mind was an 'emergent characteristic', not that the emergence of the brain affected whether something was a person. My point is that a person is more than the sum of its parts.
The pieces may be there, but the value is not in the pieces existing. It would be like not bothering to solve a puzzle, because "Well, the pieces are all there. No value is added by finishing the puzzle."
Quote:
So my question to you would be: At what point does the size or recognisability of the items you use to define personhood become great enough for you to say that this is now a person and killing him is wrong? This is a very important point for you because if you cross your threshold for personhood, yet still see a mother's right to kill her baby then clearly personhood means little or nothing to you.
I've been trying to stick as closely as possible to whether a baby is a person, as you asked me to focus on one point at a time. It may shock you to discover that no, even though I argue a lot about the definition of personhood, I don't in fact think much of persons, or believe in the existence of inherent rights.
I don't even think a born baby, full term, nine months old, is a 'person'. Killing the baby would not be a crime against the person of the baby. It would be a horrible crime, but not because you're killing a person.
When does someone become a person is a complex matter, and not so much about physical development as mental. Ok, mental development depends a lot on physical development, but the situation isn't clear cut. I'd say, however, it is some time after birth, and definitely by the time they can speak.
And before you get confused, something not being a person doesn't mean killing it is ok. Not even for convenience.
Quote:
So, when is it, Kian? When is a brain big enough for you to consider its owner a person? When is a central nervous system functionable enough for you to judge its owner's deliberate killing a crime against a person? And what is your evidence that these stages of growth are so relevant to personhood as opposed to any other stage? You wouldn't want to be seen as making arbitrary delimiters in order to retain a preconceived idea, now would you?
I made my definition of person clear enough to answer these questions, even if I did not give an exhaustive definition. The presence of a human (loaded word, handle with care) mind plays an important part in the definition. I can't really get into the specifics without getting more wordy. I will admit that I was surprised by at how early a fetus develops its central nervous system, but as I said, my definition never rested on that. It simply made it a necessary, not sufficient, requirement.
Oh, what a splendid definition of person! A person is what makes up a person! Why couldn't I see it before? This is sarcasm. You can identify it because the meaning of the words is the exact opposite of the message.
Your definition is not in fact a definition. It is a tautology. It doesn't add any new meaning. Of course a person is the sum of all its necessary parts. Ok, the bit about living is new information. Not that anyone argued against it, but it's more what I was looking for than the rest.
My definition of person identifies the mind as the fundamental defining characteristic of a person. Adding your tidbit there, then a conceived child is not a person until at the very least the central nervous system develops, as the parts that make it up (body and mind) aren't there yet.
Disagree with me? Then put up an actual definition of person.
We all recognise people. Now recognise why we all do that.
Linear Mode
