AndreusMaximus
Master
In reading all this, please keep in mind that I use the word "rational" a lot. I am not using it in a strict sense; I am using it to refer to the unique ability that humans have for reason, self-awareness, etc, at the level that other animals lack.
I am asking if you could provide me with your definition of "person." Right now we've narrowed down our debate to whether/if/when a fetus meets the definition of the word "person", and so I'd like to first hear your definition of "person." I'm not asking for a definition that is specifically garnered towards the issue of abortion, I am asking for your definition, in general. If you were talking to aliens who had no idea about human culture, morals, etc, and they were asking you about your morals and you told them "I think the unjustified killing of a person is wrong" and they then ask "Okay, but what is a person?", how would you answer?
That's why I brought up the concept of a human being who has some sort of sensory issue that stops them from feeling pain. I'm not talking specifically about a fetus that couldn't ever feel pain, the hypothetical human could be an adult, a newborn, a child, whatever; that's irrelevant to the point. I'm sure they would still count as being a person to you. I get the feeling that pain is not something you would normally bring up at all in defining a "person", except that we're honed in on the abortion issue right now and you want to make sure that your definition carves out enough room that a fetus in the early stages of development won't fit. If I'm wrong about that, please provide me your general definition of "person" that demonstrates otherwise.
Of course if we only stop there, we'd be left to conclude that any being that doesn't have rational thought at the moment is fair game. So two-year-olds, Biden voters, and cyclists would all be in perpetual open season.
But luckily the premise is only the starting point. To give a condensed version of the logic I think should flow from there, would go something like this:
I think we had a disconnect here somewhere.C'mon man. In terms of being able to perceive pain. We don't know if a particular fetus will never be able to perceive pain. Regardless of whether it can or can't, it's of the type that can at a certain stage of development. Let's stick to reason here. The left image below is the stage at which you think it's murder. The right image, according to my google search, is about the earliest consensus at which it can percieve pain.
View attachment 346712View attachment 346713
I think visualizing this, you'd likely get more people on board that would view abortions at the stage in the image on the right, than on the left.
I am asking if you could provide me with your definition of "person." Right now we've narrowed down our debate to whether/if/when a fetus meets the definition of the word "person", and so I'd like to first hear your definition of "person." I'm not asking for a definition that is specifically garnered towards the issue of abortion, I am asking for your definition, in general. If you were talking to aliens who had no idea about human culture, morals, etc, and they were asking you about your morals and you told them "I think the unjustified killing of a person is wrong" and they then ask "Okay, but what is a person?", how would you answer?
That's why I brought up the concept of a human being who has some sort of sensory issue that stops them from feeling pain. I'm not talking specifically about a fetus that couldn't ever feel pain, the hypothetical human could be an adult, a newborn, a child, whatever; that's irrelevant to the point. I'm sure they would still count as being a person to you. I get the feeling that pain is not something you would normally bring up at all in defining a "person", except that we're honed in on the abortion issue right now and you want to make sure that your definition carves out enough room that a fetus in the early stages of development won't fit. If I'm wrong about that, please provide me your general definition of "person" that demonstrates otherwise.
Thanks. I promise I'll do my best not to turn around and be too pedantic over definitions (though I may have already done that above.)Colloquial is fine. No worries. As long as we get our points across.
There are a couple additional logical steps needed to get to the conclusion, but ultimately, yes.Okay so the ability to think rationally is what makes it immoral to kill humans in the womb as apposed to any other creature?
I think we may have arrived at my a priori point. I don't know that I really have a rationale for this, I think this is the starting point that I would like to begin at as our given; our first, self-evident premise. I'd be curious what your starting premise is.What's the rationale that makes thinking rationally makes it a moral issue then?
Well, like I said, deeming the killing of a rational being as wrong is the starting point, for me. The a priori; the premise; the first given.And can I assume that if rationality is the basis for deeming abortion as immoral, would it be moral to go back and abort Biden voters?
Of course if we only stop there, we'd be left to conclude that any being that doesn't have rational thought at the moment is fair game. So two-year-olds, Biden voters, and cyclists would all be in perpetual open season.
But luckily the premise is only the starting point. To give a condensed version of the logic I think should flow from there, would go something like this:
- Start with the premise that killing a rational being is wrong.
- Also given as a premise must be that we desire a stable society for rational beings, one that will not devolve into chaos and suffering and ultimately destroy itself.
- Observe that homo sapiens is the only living species we know of that exhibits rational thinking.
- Observe that every homo sapiens will go through a phase of development where he has not yet attained the ability to think rationally, and some will go through such phases later on in life, some will enter a phase of irrationality that may last until death, and some may have mental handicaps that make it questionable as to whether or not they ever attain the full degree of human rationality
- Given how common it is to find examples of homo sapiens who do not have full rationality at this moment, we must conclude that if it is permissible to kill every such homo sapiens, society will devolve into chaos and suffering and ultimately destroy itself.
- Also, we must consider the trait of rationality as intrinsic to homo sapiens; it is something every member of the species has, by their nature, the potential to realize, even if some malady or something else restricts that potential.
- Given the two above points, we must define that is is wrong to kill a "person", and person must be given a definition that includes rational human beings, but also is broad enough, that when applied logically, it will not lead to gross violations of human sensibilities that will lead to destabilizing society
- All of the above, I believe, flow logically from each other. Now, we arrive at my main point of contention in this debate: The only definition of "person" that fulfills the criteria laid out in the previous point, is one that includes all living homo sapiens. This part in bold is something that I will admit does not come as an immediate, necessary logical conclusion from the prior bullet points. Rather, it is something proven by reduction. The evidence I offer for it is negative: I have not found any other definition of "person" that meets the necessary criteria. If someone can provide such a definition, that meets the criteria specified by the preceding bullet point, but without being a mere tautology logically excludes a newly conceived human, then that alone will be enough to disprove my current version of a secular argument for life at conception.