The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! When does personhood begin and can you prove it?in Philosophy

YeshuaRedeemed

I don't know when personhood begins, but I am open to hearing from you if you do your best to prove it. I figured I would use this site to collect opinions, weigh the evidence, and form my own opinion. As a Christian, I will accept the Bible as evidence, if you choose to present it. I am thinking either brainwaves, or when it can feel pain, but remain unsure.

dbox

@YeshuaBought

My argument is that person-hood begins at conception due to the fact that this is the fundamental stage of development common to every person. The foundational components that give rise to everyone are present at conception, namely a distinctly human genetic code. All other characteristics are contingent on the presence of this code. To rely on secondary traits to define person-hood is to place arbitrary markers. I would argue that the beginning is not an arbitrary marker.

K_Michael

@YeshuaBought

Would you consider a 2 year old to be a person?

K_Michael

@YeshuaBought

Would you consider a 2 year old to be a person? Under what grounds?

whiteflame

@dbox

I understand that this argument is meant to be inclusive of every stage of development, though I find it problematic on a few levels. 

First, you designate “a distinctly human genetic code” as the trait that defines what is human. What is distinctly human? What portion of the genome places us into the human camp? And how much of that could I take away and still be called human? If it’s a specific set of genes or some other marker, we should be clearly able to define what in DNA makes us human, and therefore what mutation(s) would remove said humanity.

Second, DNA alone seems a bad standard. Every cell in our bodies contain it, that doesn’t make them individual humans. So you must be using some other facet, perhaps developmental capacity, based on the rest of your post. But I run into a problem: you say that relying on any secondary traits (I assume that means anything physical) to designate the beginnings of humanity are arbitrary. So, then, what makes DNA a non-arbitrary standard? The fact that we all share it doesn’t make it non-arbitrary, nor does its importance. You’re still selecting that specific trait and saying that it is the most essential to humanity. If developmental capacity is your answer, then you’re basing humanity on those arbitrary secondary traits, just as inevitabilities. If designating an arbitrary standard for humanity is the problem, it seems you’re just as guilty.

Third, if your goal is to find something we all share, I don’t see why DNA is your standard. We all share a nervous system, so why isn’t that the standard? Our development is similarly contingent on those neurons from the point that they develop going forward. Your argument assumes that we should apply personhood as early as possible, though you do not justify that viewpoint. I could pick any foundational aspect of humanity along the process of development and call it “the beginning” and, I would argue, be just as correct in doing so. Your argument assumes conception is the beginning, though I could justify points before and after are beginnings themselves. Why is this the absolute beginning while those are secondary or non-beginnings? And, even if I accept conception is the beginning of a human, why should I necessarily accept that human’s status as a person? What is the benefit of that designation for a zygote?

K_Michael

The reason I'm asking is to introduce my reasoning.
Would any of you consider a two-year-old to be a proper human, in every sense of the word?

whiteflame

@K_Michael

Sure, I’ll bite. I don’t think anyone would disagree that a 2 year old is a person.

MayCaesar

In my eyes, the moment one can say, "I am a person" - they are a person. "Cogito, ergo sum". Until then, they are an unconscious animal.

When I was 6, I was a person. When I was 2, I was nothing; less developed than the average domesticated dog. When I was 4... I suppose I was a bit of a person, but very-very primitive.

whiteflame

@MayCaesar

Alright, I can see where you're coming from, though I'd say two things. First, the ability to speak is acquired at different times over the course of development, depending on the person. Most toddlers can speak 20 words before they're 2, so it's entirely possible that they would be able to say those 4 in sequence, even if they don't necessarily understand what they mean. So, if that is the standard, then there is no specific age at which someone becomes a person. Rather, personhood is obtained by skill development. Second, I don't really understand why personhood should be based on the capacity to say these 4 words in sequence. I suppose it shows a certain degree of self awareness, but I'm unclear as to why that degree must be met in order to be called a person. Why is this particular skill what defines a person, and not any other skill or knowledge? Perhaps your point is that they have to understand what those words mean rather than that they have to be able to speak them, though I'd say understanding is difficult to assess. Beyond that, I don't see how that understanding reveals consciousness.

YeshuaRedeemed

@K_Michael Don't be a spoilsport. The 2 year old is a person because he or she has brainwaves.

YeshuaRedeemed

@dbox Prove it, pretty please. I had my tubes removed, so don't act like I will have an abortion.

K_Michael

@whiteflame
A two-year-old has the same rights as an adult, so obviously, they're considered to be a person. However, many animals have an intelligence and linguistic skills rivaling that of a two-year-old. So intelligence and the ability to speak of a person cannot be what determines them to be a person. (Unless we want to get into animal rights, which is a totally different thing) 
@YeshuaBought
Animals have brainwaves too.

My view is that if you're going to get pregnant, you can't wait all that long to abort a baby.Because I haven't studied embryonic development, I couldn't say when is the turning point is to become a person.
If you were raped, had sex when you were drugged or intoxicated, your contraceptive measures fail for whatever reason, or you just weren't in the right relationship to support a child, then it makes sense not to be prepared. If any of these things occurred, then you should go to your doctor immediately and abort the fetus. However, for only the sake of convenience, it is unjust to prevent a potential person, their life and influences, from ever happening! You definitely should be doing it as soon after finding out that you're pregnant as possible. 

whiteflame

K_Michael said:

@whiteflame
A two-year-old has the same rights as an adult, so obviously, they're considered to be a person. However, many animals have an intelligence and linguistic skills rivaling that of a two-year-old. So intelligence and the ability to speak of a person cannot be what determines them to be a person. (Unless we want to get into animal rights, which is a totally different thing) 

I agree with that perspective. My views when it comes to personhood aren't based on a set of traits, but rather based on what is most pragmatic for society, i.e. where the most harm begins to arise as a result of allowing or denying specific rights. I think any effort to try and ascribe personhood on the basis of specific, objective traits is inherently flawed.

dbox

@whiteflame & @YeshuaBought ;


First, you designate “a distinctly human genetic code” as the trait that defines what is human. What is distinctly human? What portion of the genome places us into the human camp? And how much of that could I take away and still be called human?  If it’s a specific set of genes or some other marker, we should be clearly able to define what in DNA makes us human, and therefore what mutation(s) would remove said humanity. The short answer is the specific arrangement of the standard 23 pairs of chromosomes and the presence of a soul (I know I just introduced the soul into the argument, I apologize for the late addition. I was trying to keep the argument in the realm of science at least initially, and that falls outside of that realm in a manner of speaking). 

Second, DNA alone seems a bad standard. Every cell in our bodies contain it, that doesn’t make them individual humans. So you must be using some other facet, perhaps developmental capacity, based on the rest of your post. But I run into a problem: you say that relying on any secondary traits (I assume that means anything physical) to designate the beginnings of humanity are arbitrary. So, then, what makes DNA a non-arbitrary standard? The fact that we all share it doesn’t make it non-arbitrary, nor does its importance. You’re still selecting that specific trait and saying that it is the most essential to humanity. If developmental capacity is your answer, then you’re basing humanity on those arbitrary secondary traits, just as inevitabilities. If designating an arbitrary standard for humanity is the problem, it seems you’re just as guilty.

While every cell does contain DNA, not every cell has the function of differentiating into another human being. By secondary traits I mean any organ system that arises due to the coding of the genetics. Our chromosomal arrangement is what gives rise to every other physical trait. Maybe you could call it arbitrary in so far as I selected the point, but maybe a better phraseology would be to say it is the only sensible or useful starting point as that is when life, by the definition of science, begins.

Third, if your goal is to find something we all share, I don’t see why DNA is your standard. We all share a nervous system, so why isn’t that the standard? Our development is similarly contingent on those neurons from the point that they develop going forward. Your argument assumes that we should apply personhood as early as possible, though you do not justify that viewpoint. I could pick any foundational aspect of humanity along the process of development and call it “the beginning” and, I would argue, be just as correct in doing so. Your argument assumes conception is the beginning, though I could justify points before and after are beginnings themselves. Why is this the absolute beginning while those are secondary or non-beginnings? And, even if I accept conception is the beginning of a human, why should I necessarily accept that human’s status as a person? What is the benefit of that designation for a zygote? 

Yes, we rely on the development of a neurological system, but that system is contingent on our genetic coding. That is why I understand it to be the fundamental human characteristic, physically speaking. Also, out of curiosity, what point would you consider to be human life before conception? As to the usefulness, it is always useful to be accurate in understanding of what is true, simply for the sake of truth. Beyond that, human life has intrinsic value, so it is important to understand when it is exactly that we are dealing with human beings. There are moral implications.

@YeshuaBought
What do you mean when you say prove it? What portion and what constitutes proof for you?

whiteflame

dbox said:

The short answer is the specific arrangement of the standard 23 pairs of chromosomes and the presence of a soul (I know I just introduced the soul into the argument, I apologize for the late addition. I was trying to keep the argument in the realm of science at least initially, and that falls outside of that realm in a manner of speaking). 

Can I get the long answer, then? Because this is rather underwhelming. You seem to have some understanding of genomics, but you're pointing to some nebulous "specific arrangement" of the chromosomes that I have no means of understanding. What aspects of that arrangement make one human? If there are multiple elements, are they all shared by every human, including people with extensive chromosomal deletions like those with 22q11 syndrome (VCFS and DiGeorge Syndrome)? What study or set of studies are you basing these specific arrangements on for the sake of defining their inherent humanity?
As for the presence of a soul, that's even more nebulous. What is a soul? Is it something we can detect objectively, and if so, how? If it is not something that can be clearly detected, then how do we determine if a zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, etc. have one?

dbox said:

While every cell does contain DNA, not every cell has the function of differentiating into another human being. By secondary traits I mean any organ system that arises due to the coding of the genetics. Our chromosomal arrangement is what gives rise to every other physical trait. Maybe you could call it arbitrary in so far as I selected the point, but maybe a better phraseology would be to say it is the only sensible or useful starting point as that is when life, by the definition of science, begins.

I actually addressed this point in part in advance. Essentially, you're saying the capacity to become a human is what makes one a human being. I understand that, but I have problems with it.
First, that's still functionality. You're pointing to other functions, saying that they should not be used as the basis for where humanity begins, and doing so on the basis that they are functional traits that arise from something else. Well, DNA also arises from something else. The capacity to differentiate arises from something else. You're just picking a specific functionality and claiming that it's the first, so it should be called "the beginning" of a human being.
Second, it's still arbitrary, and as you're claiming that the reason other parts of our development shouldn't be called "the beginning" based largely on the fact that they are arbitrary points to select, I think the fact that it is arbitrary stands in opposition to your reasoning. Why is it more "sensible or useful" as a starting point? You don't explain. If you're able to dismiss other points of development for how arbitrary they are, you shouldn't yourself take up an arbitrary point.
Third, I really dislike this statement that somehow "science" defines this as the start of life. What science? Is the entirety of the scientific field absolutely agreed as to the specific moment at which a human life begins? My own reading of embryology (probably the science to which you refer) doesn't lend much credence to that statement. If it did, they would be able to point to a specific moment along the developmental cycle from individual gametes to a zygote at which life begins. How many unique bases have to be paired before we call it a new life? Is implantation in the uterine lining necessary for a life to begin? It seems to me that, if it is so obvious as you claim, then we should be able to define the moment at which it happens, yet I can't find anyone willing to specify to this level of detail. Worse yet, where they are willing to define, scientists tend to disagree. If they're not clear, then why are you?

dbox said:

Yes, we rely on the development of a neurological system, but that system is contingent on our genetic coding. That is why I understand it to be the fundamental human characteristic, physically speaking. Also, out of curiosity, what point would you consider to be human life before conception? As to the usefulness, it is always useful to be accurate in understanding of what is true, simply for the sake of truth. Beyond that, human life has intrinsic value, so it is important to understand when it is exactly that we are dealing with human beings. There are moral implications.

I think you're missing my point. Every step is contingent on a previous step. The construction of that genetic code and the cell in which it resides is contingent upon the gametes that formed it. Does that mean we should call the gametes persons? Beyond that, why is DNA the fundamental human characteristic? I'm not clear on this. Is it because it is essential the future development? What part of the zygote isn't essential to its future development? For that matter, what part of any previous step can be eschewed without preventing that future development? If they're all essential, how can you designate DNA as the most essential?
If you want my answer to the question, my view is that we both don't know and can't know when a human life begins. My view is that the question of when a human life begins is entirely philosophical, and therefore cannot be proven scientifically. All we can do is arbitrarily designate traits that we feel embody humanity, whether that's DNA, a nervous system, or sufficient tissues and organs to impart viability.
As for your answer regarding usefulness, I don't think you're getting my point here, either. I understand that there is importance to figuring out this question, if it's possible to answer it objectively. My question was, "why should I necessarily accept that human’s status as a person? What is the benefit of that designation for a zygote?" Your answer tells me why we should care about answering the question at all, it does not explain why designating a zygote as a person is, specifically, important. I understand that there's a moral implication, but you're not explaining why the zygote should be given the benefit of the doubt in the face of uncertainty. Why the zygote, specifically?

YeshuaRedeemed

@K_Michael I'm a vegetarian.

K_Michael

@YeshuaBought
 But do you consider animals to be people?

YeshuaRedeemed

@K_Michael Yes.

K_Michael

Ok, then. That's not a popular view, which I respect. I personally value human lives more than animals, mostly on the basis of religion.
Genesis 1:26 
" And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. "
However, this also meas to me that we have a responsibility to care for them and the environment.

AmericanFurryBoy

It’s not your body its a seperate organism. And don’t make the argument that its solely yours, its just as much the fathers as it is yours. Half of your DNA went to it and half of his went to it.

whiteflame

@AmericanFurryBoy

Alright, you've presented an opinion that has nothing to do with this debate, so well done there.

AmericanFurryBoy

@whiteflame
yeah well I realize that now

Plaffelvohfen

Weirdly worded question... You're asking to prove a definition? Let's say someone defines personhood as an attribute of potential humans, physically existing at any growth stage, then a single sperm or egg is a person, the proof is in your definition...  Someone might otherwise define it as an attribute of an autonomous human being, making the "personhood" attribute acquired only at birth... Both proposition can make sense depending on your belief system, so this line of questioning will lead you nowhere IMO...