South Dakota is introducing a bill that will ban abortion

[Elok]

Oh, and Rogan, my answer is a single cell, sorry. If it's got forty-six chromosomes and it'll turn into a full-grown human in time, it's a person as far as I'm concerned.

Arguments about abortion never convince anyone either way, which is why I stay out of them. The pro-life movement will never compromise on abortion, and we ain't going anywhere anytime soon. I'm curious as to how it'll end up, but I've given up on argument. There's nothing you can interest us with but complete capitulation, and we're certainly not going to give you anything, so...(shrug)

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
If it's got forty-six chromosomes and it'll turn into a full-grown human in time, it's a person as far as I'm concerned.

Why?

[DinoDoc]

What would you call it?

[Felch]

Originally posted by loinburger
Why?

Why not?

WUTANG!

[Guynemer]

A cell.

[DinoDoc]

That's a fairly limited amount of time when its a single cell.

[Guynemer]

Yup. After that, it's a few cells. Then a bunch of cells.

I don't know when it is "human", but it sure as hell ain't that early.

[DinoDoc]

If you don't know when it's human, how do you differentiate between a buch of cells in utero and a "bunch of cells" five minutes after birth other than location?

[Guynemer]

DD, if you're looking for a bright line, you're outta luck. Anyone, on either side of the debate, who thinks that there is a bright line between "not human" and "human", wherever they imagine that line to be, is completely and totally full of ****. Things are not that simple.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What would you call it?

An embryo.

Originally posted by Guynemer
Anyone, on either side of the debate, who thinks that there is a bright line between "not human" and "human", wherever they imagine that line to be, is completely and totally full of ****. Things are not that simple.

I distinguish between an organism with a functional human brain and an organism without a functional human brain. Whether the possession of a functional human brain automatically denotes sentience is a non-issue to me -- obviously it is sufficient to denote sentience in most humans, so, barring any bright line between a "functional human brain that denotes sentience" and a "functional human brain that does not denote sentience," I don't see any alternative but to de-fuzzify the cluster**** by assuming that a functional human brain always denotes sentience. Questioning the sentience of a fetus in the third trimester is not a whole helluva lot different than questioning the sentience of a newborn, in my book. At the same time, assigning sentience to a newly fertilized egg is not a whole helluva lot different than assigning sentience to any other brainless entity.

At the same time, I don't see any other way to distinguish between a "person" and a "non-person" than to define a "person" as an organism that is sentient, and a "non-person" as an organism that is non-sentient. Any other definition merely cheapens the term "person" and all of the rights, natural, societal, divine, or other, associated with the classification, IMO -- f'rinstance, if 46 chromosomes are required for personhood, then does this mean that everybody is non-sentient who has a genetic defect that causes them to have one extra or one fewer chromosomes? Does this mean that any sentient species with more or less chromosomes than humans are not endowed with and/or granted the same rights as "persons"? Bull. Quantity of chromosomes doesn't mean anything when it comes down to a question of rights, and if we're not using the term "person" in the context of "one who is endowed with and/or granted rights," then we're using the wrong term.

[DinoDoc]

Sentience is more than neural activity, loin.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sentience is more than neural activity, loin.

Sure, but sentience cannot exist without neural activity -- you can't be conscious unless you're able to think. So, if we know that a functional human brain is a necessary condition for sentience, and if we we're currently incapable of quantifying any other necessary aspects to sentience, then all we're left with is the working definition that possession of a functional human brain is a necessary and sufficient condition for sentience.

[Ben Kenobi]

so are you guys happy it didn't pass or happy that something like this was proposed?

Kudos to boann for posting this thread here. I wanted to do that myself, but I felt it would be better if someone waited.

I'm sad that it did not pass. Some people said that this is not the right time, but when will the right time come?

Burke said that for evil to triumph merely requires good men to do nothing. This fact should haunt the senators who voted against the bill, that thought this was not the right time.

[Ben Kenobi]

Loinburger:

An embryo.

What's the difference between an embryo and an adult? These are just terms for different stages of human development.

I don't see any alternative but to de-fuzzify the cluster**** by assuming that a functional human brain always denotes sentience.

Why play the game at all? Why not go for the real, and conclusive bright line of conception?

Questioning the sentience of a fetus in the third trimester is not a whole helluva lot different than questioning the sentience of a newborn, in my book. At the same time, assigning sentience to a newly fertilized egg is not a whole helluva lot different than assigning sentience to any other brainless entity.

Okay. So at what age do you set the line for sentience? It is useless to say that children are more developed at the end of pregnancy than at the beginning. For something to function as a true bright line, you must clarify your position.

Secondly, what is so special with brain function? Brain function changes drastically over time. As the child grows, their brain becomes more developed, so why are they not considered to become more of a person in adolescence than in infancy?

Any other definition merely cheapens the term "person" and all of the rights, natural, societal, divine, or other, associated with the classification, IMO -- f'rinstance, if 46 chromosomes are required for personhood, then does this mean that everybody is non-sentient who has a genetic defect that causes them to have one extra or one fewer chromosomes?

Excellent point. Why should we allow sentience to be the hurdle for personhood? Would that not cheapen personhood for adults to be seen as the same as their much less capable infants?

Or what about those darkies and Jews? Wouldn't it cheapen the meaning of personhood to extend the same right to them?

Quantity of chromosomes doesn't mean anything when it comes down to a question of rights, and if we're not using the term "person" in the context of "one who is endowed with and/or granted rights," then we're using the wrong term.

Right. One need not have 46 chromosomes to be a human person. However, one does need to have human dna capable of growth and development, as found in the zygote from the moment of conception onwards.

[Ben Kenobi]

Things are not that simple.

Why not? Surely if we are going to kill something, we ought to ask ourselves, what are we killing. If we do not know whether we are dealing with a human person or not, then we ought not to act.

It's analogous to a hunter in the woods. Do you shoot unless you are absolutely certain that you are really aiming at a deer, and not your companion?