2 questions for Pro-Choicers

[Freddy]

The capacity to have consciouness would just make it a potential person.

The capacity for consciousness means that you already have it, whether you are in a position to use it or not. The potential for that capacity means that you don’t.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The capacity for consciousness means that you already have it, whether you are in a position to use it or not.

If you are unconscious, then you are not conscious, so only the potential to be conscious exists.

And if consciousness isn’t neccessary to be a person than the capacity for it is also not important.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The capacity for consciousness means that you already have it, whether you are in a position to use it or not.

If you are unconscious, then you are not conscious, so only the potential to be conscious exists.

And if consciousness isn’t neccessary to be a person than the capacity for it is also not important.

Let’s say that I don’t have the capacity to swim but do have the capacity to walk. Potential means ‘having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future’. So my capacity to walk is not a potential capacity. It’s one I posses right now. I’m not walking right now but I have the capacity to do so.

The capacity to swim is potential because I don’t have it now so I can’t swim. But I may develop it sometime in the future.

If I am unconscious I won’t have to develop the capacity for consciousness sometime in the future. I already have it. I am just not utilising it at the moment.

 

[Benadam]

It doesn’t matter if a zygote is a person. A human individual determining it’s own growth has begun. Maybe more. We were all one at one time.

 

[FiveLinden]

FiveLinden:

A person is a being accepted by society as a person. It is not a scientific definition. It is like ‘justice’, ‘fairness’, ‘freedom’ and other socially-defined abstractions. We decide.

And that’s a good basis to decide on life or death?

Absolutely. We use such abstract concepts like ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ and ‘freedom’ all the time to do exactly that - decide on life or death. So doing so in relation to the concept ‘person’ is no new ethical thing.

 

[Elf01]

Absolutely. We use such abstract concepts like ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ and ‘freedom’ all the time to do exactly that - decide on life or death. So doing so in relation to the concept ‘person’ is no new ethical thing.

So the Nazis were perfectly moral to declare Jews sub human then?

 

[Freddy]

FiveLinden:

Absolutely. We use such abstract concepts like ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ and ‘freedom’ all the time to do exactly that - decide on life or death. So doing so in relation to the concept ‘person’ is no new ethical thing.

So the Nazis were perfectly moral to declare Jews sub human then?

Once you attain personhood, you can’t personally decide it no longer exists. No more than you could say that I am not capable of conscious experience. You can lose it however if there is significant impairment to, for example, the cerebral cortex.

 

[goout]

Elf01:

Define person.

A person is a being accepted by society as a person. It is not a scientific definition. It is like ‘justice’, ‘fairness’, ‘freedom’ and other socially-defined abstractions. We decide.

And endlessly inadequate basis for any human rights or dignity.
" A Jew is not a person." “Black are not persons”.
Prove me wrong based on your definition.

As CAF comes to a close, just let me observe the elephant in the room:
Over the course of decades of debate, the “arbitrary personhood” crowd has never given an adequate response to this disconnect.

 

[Elf01]

Once you attain personhood, you can’t personally decide it no longer exists. No more than you could say that I am not capable of conscious experience. You can lose it however if there is significant impairment to, for example, the cerebral cortex.

By @FiveLinden’s definition, it seems you can decide that personhood no longer exists - and I think the Nazis would argue that the Jews were never persons.

 

[goout]

Freddy:

Once you attain personhood, you can’t personally decide it no longer exists. No more than you could say that I am not capable of conscious experience. You can lose it however if there is significant impairment to, for example, the cerebral cortex.

By @FiveLinden’s definition, it seems you can decide that personhood no longer exists - and I think the Nazis would argue that the Jews were never persons.

yes, just for emphasis.
This moral vacuum has no answer to political power that holds human beings as

socially-defined abstractions

You simply have the favored classes du jour, and that favoritism blows in the wind according to who wields power.

 

[FiveLinden]

You simply have the favored classes du jour, and that favoritism blows in the wind according to who wields power

Well, yes. Socially-defined things are like that. It’s why it is best to persuade people to your point of view rather than rely on the state to enforce your point of view.

 

[goout]

goout:

You simply have the favored classes du jour, and that favoritism blows in the wind according to who wields power

Well, yes. Socially-defined things are like that. It’s why it is best to persuade people to your point of view rather than rely on the state to enforce your point of view.

This is circular. We are simply arguing and politicking here. When “socially defined things like that” start murdering people, what should you do with your gifts of persuasion? What is your answer?

What you are proposing is in fact something that no one really believes, including yourself. “socially defined” human dignity is a luxury for those who aren’t at the point of the knife.

Rather, human dignity is tied to the existential reality of the human being itself. It doesn’t rely on arbitrarily chosen attributes or qualifying characteristics.

 

[FiveLinden]

“socially defined things like that” start murdering people, what should you do with your gifts of persuasion?

Well, people re being killed every day in the name of ‘justice’ and ‘freedom’. I try to persuade people to redefine ‘justice’ and ‘freedom’ so that fewer are killed.

 

[goout]

goout:

“socially defined things like that” start murdering people, what should you do with your gifts of persuasion?

Well, people re being killed every day in the name of ‘justice’ and ‘freedom’. I try to persuade people to redefine ‘justice’ and ‘freedom’ so that fewer are killed.

On what basis will you persuade anyone, if you have no foundation for human dignity beyond “socially defined things”?

Because you surely know that political and “socially defined things” change with the winds?
One day it’s perfectly acceptable that Jews are subhumans, today it’s not. Tomorrow who knows?
And you really don’t have a substantive answer to this contradiction except “whatever we decide”.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Once you attain personhood, you can’t personally decide it no longer exists. No more than you could say that I am not capable of conscious experience. You can lose it however if there is significant impairment to, for example, the cerebral cortex.

By @FiveLinden’s definition, it seems you can decide that personhood no longer exists - and I think the Nazis would argue that the Jews were never persons.

Five’s a smart guy. He’s more than capable of defending his own positions. Please discuss his positions with him. It’s Freddy who is responding to you. As regards the removal of personhood. And I have already explained my position.

What you have done is say that someone else’s position taken at face value (which you are free to do) seems to suggest that mine isn’t valid. That is about as classic as a deflection as it’s possible to get. It’s text book. I give my position and instead of responding to it, you effectively say ‘Look over there! Someone else said something different’.

If you want to discuss this with me then may I suggest you direct your responses to my replies as I stated them. I’m more than happy to respond.

This ‘what about the Jews’ standard response at this stage of any abortion discussion needs a name of it’s own to match Godwin’s Law. I’ve never seen it other than the last repsonse from someone who comes up against a position to which the only response is personal opinion. With which I have no problem. My position, which I believe is reasonable and defendable, is my personal opinion.

If you think it’s not reasonable then explain why.

 

[Elf01]

This ‘what about the Jews’ standard response at this stage of any abortion discussion needs a name of it’s own to match Godwin’s Law

Once again, based on the argument I was responding to it is a valid response, that I note he has not addressed.

You can lose it however if there is significant impairment to, for example, the cerebral cortex.

Define significant impairment.

 

[FiveLinden]

On what basis will you persuade anyone, if you have no foundation for human dignity beyond “socially defined things”?

A good example is the US constitution. Admittedly it is a deist document but minimally so. Most legislation in democracies result from exactly this sort of discussion. People are good at it.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You can lose it however if there is significant impairment to, for example, the cerebral cortex.

Define significant impairment.

To the extent that it doesn’t work. To the extent where it’s equivalent to not having a cerebral cortex.

 

[jochoa]

Once you attain personhood, you can’t personally decide it no longer exists. No more than you could say that I am not capable of conscious experience. You can lose it however if there is significant impairment to, for example, the cerebral cortex.

By it are you proposing one can lose being a person?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Once you attain personhood, you can’t personally decide it no longer exists. No more than you could say that I am not capable of conscious experience. You can lose it however if there is significant impairment to, for example, the cerebral cortex.

By it are you proposing one can lose being a person?

Personhood? Yes.