Mar 19 2008
Thoughts on the recent debate
Hey everyone,
On March 19th I attended the rescheduled abortion debate. Michael Payton argued in favour of legalized abortion and Jose Ruba argued against. Michael and I had a class together so I attended the debate to support my friend. The moderator, I learned shortly before the debate, had compared feminism to Nazism. I find this morbidly amusing, since comparisons to Hitler and the Nazi party are so common and so incredibly melodramatic that I find it difficult to believe any self respecting individual would do this and take it seriously. After reading the document he published, available here, I find it curious that anyone would consider him intellectually competent to moderate a dog show, let alone a debate on a serious issue at an institute of higher learning. During the debate Mike ran into a minor technical problem with his presentation that lasted a couple of minutes involving York University’s projector. Reviewing the film of the debate reveals that this time was included in his introduction, leaving him with several minutes less than his opponent to present his position. As a Philosopher it is my job to consider my opponent’s position in its strongest possible formulation, even when presented poorly. I will consider all of the above irrelevant to the debate and consider only the argument present by Jose.
Jose was fond of quoting a medical textbook which explicitly states that Human Life begins at conception. He did this because he wished to distance himself from a religious basis for his position and present anti-abortion as a secular, scientific and intellectual decision. Unfortunately Jose misinterpreted the medical text as they are discussing mere life, not the conscious behaviour variably attributed either to our brain or our soul. Clearly Jose does not have a problem with ending non-conscious life, since he obviously eats and hopefully engages in proper personal hygiene to rid himself of harmful bacteria. If Jose wishes to present his case from a secular perspective, then he must accept a secular source for conscious behaviour. Jose indicated that genetics may be the important aspect of our selves, which would indeed give a fertilized egg the same rights the rest of us enjoy. Unfortunately Michael had foreseen this suggestion and brought along his twin brothers. I assume they’re monozygotic, but even if they are not he makes a very tangible counterpoint. Monozygotic twins have identical genetic material, yet they have developed into separate, unique individuals like the rest of us. Jose declined to object to this point. As a result, we must examine what it is that makes us individuals. It evidently cannot be genetics, as the twins showed. Could it be some organ, then? Humans have successfully, albeit unfortunately, had their limbs amputated on several occasions without losing their individuality. The same applies to the transplantation of kidneys, lungs and hearts to name a few. As an interesting side note some of these can be replaced with machines to varying degrees of success (the most interesting, in my opinion, is the “no pulse” turbine heart). The one thing which appears irreplaceably tied to our selves is our brain. Damage to the brain can cause significant, surprising and nuanced changes in the individual.
So if the brain is what makes us who we are, when does the brain first develop? Michael mentioned this in his presentation, also: at 21 weeks, with activity beginning at 28 weeks*. Jose disliked the idea that we could be defined as people by our brains. He argued that this was akin to determining personhood by other individual traits, like height – it was the beginning of a “slippery slope” to levels of personhood. We already have levels of personhood present in our society which very, very few of us would be comfortable with abolishing. Seriously brain damaged (mentally handicapped) individuals have limited autonomy. Most of us would agree this is for their own good, since they could otherwise harm themselves. Jose would likely respond that it is all well and good to limit autonomy: we are still preserving the “inviolable right to life” of the brain damaged by doing so. But what about animals? We’ve concluded that genetics is not a fair measure of what makes us people – so what makes animals “not people”? The only thing left is their level of intelligence. On the scale of what is and is not acceptable to kill, we must therefore include every single organism on this planet, and determine an acceptable cut-off point for murder. No one would want to be put on trial every time they swallow, dumping bacteria (both harmful and beneficial) into their stomach acid. Is a newly fertilized egg smarter than an elk? Because it’s legal to kill elk if you so choose.
The only remaining defence for Jose at this point is the potential of the fertilized egg to become smarter than an elk. Since his own organization claims not to use potentiality arguments, I no longer feel the need to continue this criticism of his position.
I seek to be a good philosopher and because of this I am obligated to interpret Jose’s position in the strongest possible way. As a result I cannot say that he intentionally misrepresented the scientific data, but I can conclude that he has badly misinterpreted it. By doing so he is, in Mike’s words, doing a disservice to his community. The one thing I did disagree with was Mike’s aggressive debate tactics. Because I’m giving Jose the benefit of the doubt I cannot conclude that this was because it was the only way to get a word in edgewise against Jose, so I have to disagree with Mike on that issue. Overall I think that Mike did as well as could be expected in a debate of this nature.
Nick
*Note: Take into account that in my argument, the actual time when the brain develops is irrelevant. The point is that a zygote isn’t as smart as a baby, who is turn is not as smart as an adult.
[EDIT] Here‘s a bit more about this topic.
March 20th, 2008 at 02:34
Glad you attended Nicholas and glad you were willing to analyze my arguments. But if you do it is important not to misrepresent what I said. Otherwise you fail to live up to your standard of being a good philosopher.
I started off by asking a simple question, one that Michael never answered: What is the unborn? What is that is killed in an abortion? If it is not a human being, than the debate is moot and I can go on with other interests. If the unborn are human beings, than it is 300 Canadians who are killed everyday.
I used biology, to point out that scientifically, we all understand that any organism that sexually reproduces, begins life at fertilization, including human beings. Now you argue I misinterpreted the textbooks because I stated this simple fact. Not at all. I quoted directly from them, making this very point.(http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/development.html)
You accuse me of misinterpreting these texts because you distinguish between a human being and a person. Genetically, you cannot deny that the unborn are unique new human beings but clearly, you want to provide criteria for why they are not persons.
But you need to prove that there is a distinction, something Michael failed to do. You have to show why the audience should accept this metaphysical idea of personhood. Besides, I doubt you can give me a good scientific definition of what constitutes a person. Rather, like Michael, all you’d be able to do is guess how our personality forms from the brain (we may know what parts of our brain do but neuroscience is unable to provide an explanation for what exactly is free will, morality or even personality) and extrapolate from this arbitrary definition that this is a person.
And even if you can accomplish this, you’d have to prove from your perspective, why we should value persons but not human beings. What makes an organism that is capable of these abilities more valuable than others who don’t? I don’t see how you can escape a slippery slope.
Before the debate was abruptly ended, I was able to make another important point: that any criteria that you use to treat the unborn as “nonpersons” can be used to treat born people as “nonpersons” too. In fact, Michael did this in what became his closing comments, alluding to the fact that a born person who is brain damaged is no longer a person in the same sense as you and I are. Truly, his definition of personhood would require a sliding scale, where those who are able to do certain things better should be considered more of a person than others.
Michael makes this point quite clearly when he states that he believes personhood begins at 28 weeks or so (he still wasn’t sure), but still advocate for legal abortion after 28 weeks. This is tantamount to openly admitting that in he has no problem with killing persons.
And that is what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about the right to vote or even the right to bodily autonomy. None of those rights matter until we determine who has a right to life – there is a difference between not respecting a visually impaired person’s choice to become a pilot because she’s blind vs slitting that visually impaired person’s neck because she’s blind.
My argument was not that the unborn are valuable simply because they are alive or have unique DNA. Michael was trying to rebut points I never made. I said simply, that a new unique human being begins life at fertilization. Scientists, even pro-choice ones, know these facts because the zygote is alive, has DNA unique to it and has been created by the fusion of a male and female gamete.
This unique, new individual, is biologically, no different than you and I are. We are just at different stages of development (like that green banana). If I was given a chance to close, I would have made my second point that I had already alluded to: that science can’t prove that human life has value. But if you decide that human beings should be treated with value at all, then the only place where it makes sense to begin valuing life is when it begins.
It was unfortunate, that Michael had technical issues and I offered that he use my laptop, which he eventually had to do.
But I think it was more unfortunate that he attacked our moderator. I am more than happy to have a person hostile to my position moderate the debate, as long as they are fair and I didn’t see any evidence that Prof. Gentles was unfair to Michael.
If there is anyone to blame that this debate was not fair, it is the pro-choicers and the debating society who refused to participate. It is in our best interest too to have the debate as fair as possible and it is only because the other side refuses to participate that we have to resort to asking people like Prof. Gentles, who is a York Professor. If there’s anyone to blame for your perceived bias, it is the pro-abortion choice side.
March 20th, 2008 at 08:32
Do you realize Mr.Ruba, that your so-called “fair” moderator cut Michael’s opening statement by 4.5 minutes?
March 20th, 2008 at 11:11
Mr. Ruba the purpose of my post and a major issue in Michael’s argument was to point out that “life” is not what has value, since we all destroy life constantly without a second thought. “Mind” is what we value, and that does not develop until several weeks into the pregnancy.
Even past this point of development the mind is still very crude. Unless we extend the right to life to all creatures of comparable mental capacity, it would be hypocritical to give the crude mind of an unborn child priority over the mind of a deer. That is, unless you are willing to postulate the existence of an additional variable humans have, even at the point of conception, that animals do not.
Perhaps a soul?
Furthermore, “What is the unborn?” has been dealt with several times. It is the beginnings of a human bereft of mind.
“What is that is killed in an abortion?” -> Before the development of a mind, it is a mass of cells similar to bacteria. After the development of mind it is a creature similar to an animal. Eventually this intelligence exceeds animal levels and hence the level our society has determined is appropriate for proper inclusion into civilization and all the rights that entails, including protection from being killed.
Thank you, Jose and John, for your comments.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:17
The principle of charity states that a philosopher must interpret the writings off his or her opponent in a way that represents their views in their strongest form. It is in the interest of charity to Jose Ruba that I must therefore conclude that it is not in fact Jose who has written this post. Whoever wrote this does not have any conception of the events which took place before this debate began; they have no conception of the arguments and positions Jose defended on Tuesday, they certainly do not understand what I said and it is doubtful that this person, whoever they are, was even present at the debate that was held on Tuesday. Seeing as it would simply be unfair to Jose to attribute this dribbling prose to my former opponent, I will henceforth refer to the previous author as ‘Bizarro Jose.’
It is unfortunate that with such genuinely serious issues to attend to in this debate that Bizarro Jose resorts to blaming the Pro-choice side for bias moderation. Stating instead “[i]f there is anyone to blame that this debate was not fair, it is the pro-choicers and the debating society who refused to participate.” Since the true facts of what happened leading up to the debate are not a matter of public record, it is understandable that Bizarro Jose would not know why the debating society refused to be involved. The reasoning was that a sophisticated debate on policy and ethics does not include photos or videos as arguments. Jose would not part with his beloved abortion video, so the pro-life organizers ‘Students for Bio-ethical Awareness’ found the most bias moderator imaginable in place of the much more capable hands of the Debating Society. Unequivocally, this puts the blame in the hands of the Pro-life side.
Bizarro Jose also rudely claims that he ‘didn’t see any evidence that Prof. Gentles was unfair to Michael.’ Again this is understandable only if the person in question was not present to actually witness the debate. However, both audio and video recordings were made of the debate and will be put online shortly. The timer provided on the bottom screen of any media player will indicate that my speech was cut-off by nearly a third of the pre-agreed time. But I would like to move into rebutting some of the self-contradictory and just-plain-old false statements and arguments that have been written here.
Firstly, it was correctly stated that Jose started his line of reasoning at what are the contents of the womb. That is also entirely where I placed the focus of the debate as well. He had said, as you do, on the topic of life at conception that “[t]his unique, new individual, is biologically, no different than you and I are.” This is claim of fact and it is a testable one. I showed that there is in fact a difference between you and a newly fertilized egg; this difference lies with the existence of a functioning brain. Personhood and all of the things associated with it, such as the ability to feel pain, thoughts, memories, emotions, sentience, consciousness and personality are all found in the brain. Thus I framed the debate so that Jose and I would have had a competition of models. However, Jose did a fantastic job of misrepresenting what I had said.
Jose had never debated someone who has nearly as much scientific training as I have, so he didn’t know how to reply to what I said. The best he could do was to transform what I said about the presence of a functioning brain into a statement about the level of that brain’s functioning. Thus, as the video will show, he made arguments about how people’s brains differ in cases of mental illness. And differ they do! However, I had repeatedly stated that the mere presence was where I was placing the burden, not the level of functionality.
Another thing the Bizarro Jose has gotten wrong is the state of neuroscience today. You have said “all you’d be able to do is guess how our personality forms from the brain (we may know what parts of our brain do but neuroscience is unable to provide an explanation for what exactly is free will, morality or even personality).” Bizarro Jose, this is very ignorant of you, the real Jose would never had said anything so egregiously false about the state of scientific knowledge in the area of Neuroscience; I suggest you write to him and apologize.
Personality is a very well understood topic in neuroscience, and often leads to very interesting phenomena. My favourite examples come from cases where people experience extremely precise damage in the brain that causes them to change characteristics of their personhood such conditions include monothematic delusions. Here’s a nice easy introduction from Wikipedia. If you would like more advanced literature I would be happy to provide it.
The delusions that fall under this category are:
• Capgras delusion is the belief that (usually) a close relative or spouse has been replaced by an identical-looking impostor.
• Fregoli delusion is the belief that various people that the believer meets are actually the same person in disguise.
• Intermetamorphosis is the belief that people in the environment swap identities with each other whilst maintaining the same appearance.
• Subjective doubles, in which a person believes there is a doppelgänger or double of him or herself carrying out independent actions.
• Cotard delusion is the belief that oneself is dead or does not exist; sometimes coupled with the belief that they are putrifying or missing their internal organs.
• Mirrored self-misidentification is the belief that one’s reflection in a mirror is some other person.
• Reduplicative paramnesia is the belief that a familiar person, place, object or body part has been duplicated. For example, a person may believe that they are in fact not in the hospital to which they were admitted, but an identical-looking hospital in a different part of the country.
• Somatoparaphrenia is the delusion where one denies ownership of a limb or an entire side of ones body (often connected with stroke).
So brain functioning is well understood to influence and determine personhood. As for Morality, you can look at the work of Jonathan Haidt, John Mikhail, Marc Hauser, Joshua Greene, Steven Stich, certain chapters in Steven Pinker, Tetlock, Turiell, Fiery Cushman, Michael Shermer, Franz de Waal. You can also read a recent article from Scientific American:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=when-morality-is-hard-to-like&sc=rss
Or you can read the articles from the lab I worked with this summer and read all about the neuroscience of morality:
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/
I am actually writing my thesis on Moral Psychology. If you would like to learn more about it, I would be happy to provide any and all of my knowledge on the topic. However, the point I am making is that the ‘holes’ in our knowledge of how the brain or cognition works are simply figments of your imagination and ignorance.
During the debate I made very straightforward arguments that challenged Jose’s model of moral value beginning at birth. I showed why it is that the brain should be where we draw the line and I would be happy to go over Jose’s reply to these points, however, no replies were made. My arguments remain valid, and even elementary, compared to the level of discourse normally required for such a complex issue.
Having carried irrationality to new limits, Jose chose to use his time to make the audience palpably ill informed about his own expressed position, of which I might add there is a written record easily available at his website:
http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/faq.html#Anchor-11481
Under ‘When does life begin?’ the site reads ‘Although you have changed and continue to change your appearance and abilities, your genetic makeup remains the same.’ This contradicts Bizarro Jose’s statement that ‘My argument was not that the unborn are valuable simply because they are alive or have unique DNA. Michael was trying to rebut points I never made. I said simply, that a new unique human being begins life at fertilization.’ It also contradicts Bizarro Jose’s statement that “science can’t prove that human life has value.” Which he would have noticed, had Bizarro Jose actually been present in the room, was PRECISELY the point I repeatedly made during the debate and why I spent most of my speech explaining why the brain was the most sensible, ethical and philosophically defensible starting point for moral arguments to start being made. Once again, I will post the video and the photographic evidence will confirm what I have said here.
In closing, I will not sink to Bizarro Jose’s level of referring to personal correspondence, which–it is now no surprise–he utterly distorts. The remainder has not even a remote connection to what I said or the events that took place before, during or after the debate, and I will therefore ignore it on the basis of charity. And furthermore I wish to waste no more time on these shameful meanderings.
I suspect Jose, feels similarly, he can now return to terrorizing 15, 14 and 13 year old girls into believing the “abortion is gory therefore it’s wrong” formula which he so proudly advertises on his wedsite:
http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/evidence.html
Perhaps that is the only level of discourse where his childish ‘banana and bear’ analogies pass as arguments. Either way, this debate is best declared over.
March 20th, 2008 at 21:01
More importantly why are we allowing women to kill fully developed tape worms? This injustice cannot be allowed to continue, wont someone think about the tape worms? What right does a woman have to terminate the life of a fully mature and living tape worm? Even more, what right does a MAN have?
March 20th, 2008 at 23:43
Finally, something we can all agree on. Thank you maximon.
March 21st, 2008 at 01:03
I am not just pro-choice. I am pro-abortion.
As much as I respect Michaels scientific arguments, and support his opinions, I must admit I am tired of the nature of this debate, mainly because men are speaking about issues to which they cannot possibly even begin to fathom. But before I digress and my temper takes hold, I thought I would leave a little rant . . .
It is sad indeed that the debate was cut off at such a pertinent moment: question period. Sadder still that we had to tolerate such an incompetent moderator. As a women and a mother to be, I very much wanted to hear the perspectives of other women listening to the debate and not mere emotional statements, but actual opinions. I do not resent that the debate was held and moderated by men, but merely that we as women lacked the time to inject our opinions on the matter. Men or women, pro, or anti-choice can argue the scientific and theological facts until they are blue in the face, but in the end the choice is ultimately that of the women who finds herself in a position in which she must make that choice.
As I said, I am going to be a mother and while I have always been pro-choice, it was a difficult decision to make. No one can fathom the repercussions of such a choice except the women carrying the pregnancy. I have always maintained that if I found myself in such a situation while I was still in the midst of obtaining my education that an abortion would very likely be the outcome. I always fancied myself being financially stable with my partner and in a position where we made the choice to bring a new life in to the world before and not merely as a result if the 1% of women whose birth control measures were ineffective.
I must stress that this decision, while discussed with my partner, was ultimately made by me. While it was not a planned pregnancy, I came to the conclusion, after much deep thought, that I wanted to continue with the pregnancy. This was my choice and my body. No one should have the right to tell me or any other woman otherwise.
The reality is, while you may perceive yourself to be of one opinion and not the other, you don’t really know how you will react until you find yourself in the theoretical situation. Men can discuss the situation theoretically all they want, but it is not they who will ever find themselves in a situation in which they must make that choice. Theory, and graphic imagery may provoke us to emotional responses, but they cannot possibly compare with reality. They serve only to repulse and disgust.
I must, as a side note, point out that pregnancy is not just merely the production of a fetus, it has psychological and physical repercussions as a result. Have any of you pro-lifers, (maybe, as Michael as so eloquently put it, Bizzaro Jose) ever considered this? I must also inquire Bizarro, what if a woman conceives a child as the by-product of rape or incest? Should a woman’s psychological well being and physical health be put at risk because the law forced her to follow through with the pregnancy? A daughter is raped by her uncle and as a result has a child, does this mean pro-life advocates incest as well as disallowing women the right to control her own body? I should think not. In fact the mere idea of it is repulsive.
These were just a few of the arguments and questions I would have liked to discuss after the debate with someone, clearly as ignorant to women and their bodies, as Jose, his cronies, and Bizarro.
Good job Michael!
March 21st, 2008 at 01:31
Wow! Bizarro Jose just got killed.
March 21st, 2008 at 14:30
Thank you for writing on this topic, it is nice to hear from someone who is in this situation personally and can speak from experience.
You asked a question about how Jose would feel about situations where the woman is likely to die as a result of the pregnancy. Jose’s most cowardly and immoral response would be that he simply does not care about the woman’s death. You can read it here on his website:
http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/faq2.html
I can barely even summon the words to describe such a fiendish cruelty, such unimaginable barbarity existing in our contemporary society, that Jose would condemn a woman to death rather than abort a fetus. Only someone whose moral nature was absolutely dead to all senses of suffering and compassion could imagine being so cruel to their own mothers, sisters and daughters.
Jose expressed his position quite succinctly when he made the comparison between a woman and a lecture hall. From what I can bear to read from his newsletters and website his organization sees women as nothing more than walking incubators.
Although I will never know what it is like to be pregnant, although I can never imagine what it is like to be a woman in a society where people like Jose petition to remove my natural rights, I have tried to understand and I tried to argue for what is just.
I was approached by their organization while they were looking for someone to take the pro-choice side. I accepted and defended, and still do defend my beliefs with all of the effort I can muster. I can only hope that if any one person in our society were confronted by the same dilemma they would act as I have, and uphold women’s rights against the onslaught of tricks, half-truths and ignorance.
Thank you, unimpressed. Your support means alot to me.
March 21st, 2008 at 23:39
Michael,
I would like to respond to your argument that personhood begins at 28 weeks with the PRESENCE of brain functioning. What you are doing here is granting supremacy to one of many changes that occur in our body’s development. I understand that your argument rests on the presence of brain function and not the level of brain function. Thus, I will not have recourse to the counterargument that by this chain of reasoning one would have to conclude that people whose brains function faster possess more ‘personhood’ than those with brains that function more slowly. Instead, I would like to offer the following thoughts. You are simply picking one of many developments which we as humans undergo and then arbitrarily positing that the acquisition this thing (brain functioning) is what makes a human embryo a person. But, why should we conclude that brain function is what makes us persons? What if one were to state that the ability to reproduce makes us persons. Thus, a female would not be a person until she has had her first period; likewise, a male would not be a person until he is capable of producing semen. Why if my definition of personhood any worse than yours? If I were to maintain that “you are not a person until you are capable of biologically producing other persons”, and then stated that abortion ought to be made legal up until the homo sapiens in question could produce more people, what would be the problem with that? It seems that this defense of the pro-abortion side is just as logical as your own. These apologetics simply place the beginning of personhood at reproduction while yours places the beginning at brain functioning. There is no objective reason why one definition is better than the other, they are both equally arbitrary. We all, however, know that my fictions defense of the pro-choice side is invalid. Well if both chains of reasoning are equally logical and one is invalid then the other chain in question must also be invalid. Thus, your defense of abortion, based on the presence of brain functioning as being indicative of personhood, is invalid
Quod Erat Demonstratum, Finis.
March 22nd, 2008 at 06:01
Thank you Unimpressed. Thank you Michael. Both of you are very articulate in your posts and I agree with both of you wholeheartedly. Now I rant.
I read the Q&A of the Bioethical group’s page, and I felt myself getting dizzy. Very dizzy. I cannot believe that people as morally and compassionately bankrupt as Jose and Stephanie still manage to exist and garner cronies for their cause. How can they be so cruel as to condone the death of a pregnant woman who is already physically and emotionally distressed enough from a pregnancy that threatens to kill her? How can people like Jose exist? What I don’t understand is how Stephanie Gray, a woman if I’m not mistaken, could be so cold towards the plight of women in their differing backgrounds and circumstances where compassion, NOT self-righteous guilt-infliction, is needed? It’s disgusting. No words can describe how appalling it is to see Jose and this group view women as incubators without rights, to be trampled on and controlled like puppets. Where has their decency gone?! Even most pro-life people support abortion when a woman’s life is at risk!
Jose is so staunch on preserving a glob of literally inhuman cells, but has no problem doing away with women who can actually feel pain, desperation, and fear. Jose happily treats organic material no different from sea anemones and tape worms like slave to his master, but has no problem with treating women as if they were styrofoam cups that were disposable and need not be handled with care or even baseline consideration at all. Not only is Jose and his group morally and compassionately bankrupt, but so are his abilities in prioritizing.
Without surprise, Jose’s buddy is a monster who wrote a paper comparing women’s rights to Nazism! This monster is even a history professor at York’s Glendon campus! It’s degenerates like him that make me ashamed to be affiliated with York University and even ashamed to be associated with normally prestiged majors such as history. How are women’s rights even anywhere similar to Nazism?! How is it even possible that people in contemporary society still condone unequal rights between the sexes? How do people like that even exist?!
Like most of you, I shall defend women’s rights to choose and have control over her own body for as long as crazy infestations of humanity continue to roam and infect the earth with their ignorant, bigoted, cruel, self-righteous, obnoxious slime.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:09
Marc, I explained why the brain is the source of humanity in my original post: the only thing we cannot lose or replace is our brains.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
March 23rd, 2008 at 18:40
That’s a counter-argument? My bizzaro pro-choice argument is still as valid as yours. The brain only becomes a prized part if you maintain that cognizance is the essence of personhood. I did not yield to that and stated that reproduction is the essence of personhood. Both positions are equally arbitrary and invalid. A unich cannot replace his genetalia just like a brain-dead human cannot replace his brain. Your counter argument, that the brain is indispensable and thus the essence of personhood, only stands if we maintain that cognizance is the essence of personhood. I questioned that. Tell me why cognizance is the essence of humanity any more than reproduction and you will have a valid counter-argument. And yes, that which is said in Latin is more profound. So QED again.
March 23rd, 2008 at 22:17
Marc, I’ve been over this already, that’s why my previous comment was so short. It’s not a counter-argument because I don’t need one. A eunuch’s testicles can indeed be replaced (google “artificial sperm”) but even if they couldn’t he won’t forget that he loves his wife and that he knows how to do his taxes.
If you want to posit that the important thing about a human isn’t their likes, dislikes, skills, memories, experience and emotions, that’s fine. But you won’t be persuading any reasonable people.
March 24th, 2008 at 14:28
Exactly, it is absurd to say that repoduction is the essence of humanity. It is equally as absurd to simply argue, through dubious reasoning, that cognizance is the essence of humanity. Both positions are equally invalid! The only valid position is the pro-life one which protects an unique human life from the moment of conception.
March 24th, 2008 at 21:49
Cognizance isn’t what I’m talking about, although you keep referring to it. That’s just one small part of a larger picture, mentioned in my previous post:
“likes, dislikes, skills, memories, experience and emotions”
All of which stem from our brain. There are only two possible ways to argue this:
1. The secular perspective, in which case you must acknowledge that our brain is our “self”, or the part that makes us different from each other. Thousands and thousands of studies have exhaustively shown this to be the case. Our level of intelligence, I might add, is also the only reason we would have any more right to life than bacteria. I also established this argument already in my original post.
2. The theist perspective, in which the “self” can be whatever you want.
March 24th, 2008 at 23:56
Mark, just so we are clear, you are arguing from a false analogy. As often before, and informal fallacy has reared its’ ugly head in the course of your argument. If you would like to know why a false analogy is a bad thing read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
(I hope you appreciated that little strike against intelligent design)
You are arguing that cognition is as arbitrary as reproductive ability and since one of these is absurd, the other must also be absurd. However, niether Nick or I have conceded to you that cognition is in any way similar to reproductive ability. In fact, Nick has repeatedly stated the opposite.
Please tell me why your analogy between cognition and reproductive ability should be accepted. Without establishing that link you cannot plead your case effectively.