Replies

There are several mistakes of fact and logic in your post.

This whole issue has been one with a theological base.

First, I wish I could make it be understood for all time and eternity that I am not arguing on the basis of theology here. I am arguing on the basis of science and metaphysics.

To me, the question of "when is a human a person" is literally nonsensical because it conflates and confuses two different logical categories of being. The essence of a being refers to the question of what kind of thing it is, but the term person refers to the question, 'who is it?' Every human being is a different ‘who’, but humans are all the same ‘what.’ Diamond and MACVSOG68 are different ‘who's’ even though both are the same ‘what’ or essence. So the notion that there is such a thing as a human being who is not a person is logically unintelligible and absurd because persons are a subset of human beings. Personhood is a universal property of human-ness. The question is logically inconsistent with its own terms.

When further down in your post you ask if a fetus has a rational nature, or will that rational nature be formed at some time, you are controverting the same logic you profess to not to have denied; namely, that capabilities are limited to the kind of thing to which they belong, and that anything that has the potential to do human things, whether now or at any time in the future, is already a human being otherwise it could never have that capability.

When did you begin to exist?

How did you come into existence?

At that time, what was your essence?

At that time what was your nature?

At that time what was your substance?

At that time what was your person?

At that time what were some of the accidents (incidental properties) of your person?

The answers to these questions are all knowable in principle. And I am willing to predict that you will not be able to answer them without either destroying the notion that a fetus is not a person, or alternatively, destroying any intelligible concept of your own identity and existence.

A factual issue:

Well, an obvious question would be, if abortion was ok for early stage fetuses for over a thousand years in the Western world, what changed?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but haven't you read that part of the Hippocratic Oath, 4th Century BC?

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.

You continue to equate the unarguable biological truism of a human being with the highly arguable legal question of "person", as meant by the Constitution.

That's because I'm here speaking of natural persons as opposed to artificial or legal persons; and of natural law, the foundation of the Constitution, as opposed to positivistic law, currently in vogue, which basically says you only have inalienable rights if some other human beings say so. To think that a law authoritatively determines what constitutes a natural person is insane and wicked, in my opinion. Do you think that there is properly such a thing as a human being who does not not have inalienable rights?

Again, the listing of a man, woman, or child. What is important here, is that again, he fails to address the term fetus.

What Webster "fails" to address" is an argument from silence. That Webster divides humanity into three general categories by itself says nothing about what he thought about the humanity of prenatal offspring of human parentage. Perhaps a definition of fetus would be instructive. Notice particularly the etymology of the word:

fe·tus /'fit?s/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fee-tuhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology.

(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Also, especially British, foetus.

Compare embryo (def. 2).

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < L fétus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, young still in the womb, equiv. to fé- (v. base attested in L only in n. derivatives, as fémina woman, fécundus fecund, etc.; cf. Gk thésthai to suck, milk, OHG taan to suck, OIr denid (he) sucks) + -tus suffix of v. action]

Cordially,

First, I wish I could make it be understood for all time and eternity that I am not arguing on the basis of theology here. I am arguing on the basis of science and metaphysics.

The science will go far in the USSC case, the metaphysics will likely not. I was merely pointing out that it was a thread on theological rationale. Let's talk about the assumptions of Augustine. Yes, his decision was based on the timing of ensoulment, but I'm sure you understand that as a scientist he did know that a fetus was a human at all stages, don't you?

To me, the question of "when is a human a person" is literally nonsensical because it conflates and confuses two different logical categories of being.

Everything you said is 100% true. I do not disagree with it. What I do disagree with however, is that the term "person" has had a different meaning for purposes of the Constitution than the meaning you present. You can argue it until you're blue in the face, but as I pointed out earlier, slaves were human, but were not considered persons under the Constitution until the 13th and 14th Amendments. That alone is definitive in terms of how the Court will view this issue if it looks to the original meaning of the term by the framers of the Constitution.

So the notion that there is such a thing as a human being who is not a person is logically unintelligible and absurd because persons are a subset of human beings.

Even using your 1828 dictionary, I demonstrated that certain requirements seemed to be necessary to be a person. While I don't necessarily agree with that completely, it should tell you that the argument that persons are humans doesn't necessarily be default mean that all humans are persons. I have already shown how the legal system and constitutional interpretations have throughout history had varied meanings.

Personhood is a universal property of human-ness. The question is logically inconsistent with its own terms.

When you approach the USSC, you may want to bolster that argument a bit for the reasons I have already given you. And don't believe that either the history we have discussed or the varied meanings are irrelevant to the discussion. They are not.

An illegal alien is a human, and of course, is a person. But is he a person to which the Bill of Rights applies? That question has been going around for a while now. A terrorist is both a human and a person, but the Administration argues that he is not a person with regard to the 4th or 5th Amendments.

My point was simply that it is not an unfair question as to whether that rational nature, once developed takes on any additional rights by virtue of its having reached a certain developmental plateau, or does it have all of the rights from the moment of conception regardless of development. Your case is based on the fact that conception creates the human, and for all purposes, legal, constitutional, religious and metaphysical, this is now a person. Don't count on others necessarily agreeing with that thesis.

And I am willing to predict that you will not be able to answer them without either destroying the notion that a fetus is not a person, or alternatively, destroying any intelligible concept of your own identity and existence.

Well, to begin with you may use the term "person" all you want, but it doesn't mean a court will accept your term, simply because philosophically you can link personhood with humanhood. When we speak of "man", frequently we are including women in that context. But not always. This issue is very complex and will not be settled in the USSC simply by resorting to philology.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but haven't you read that part of the Hippocratic Oath, 4th Century BC?

Surely you're not taking issue with my statement concerning the acceptance of abortion for over a thousand years, are you? To be sure, it was not accepted everywhere, especially in the Eastern Church, but as I said, was clearly acceptable up to a point in the development of the fetus, until the late 19th Century in the Western world.

That's the hurdle you must get over. Let me ask you why partial birth abortions are so frowned upon, even by judges? Is it because they see something human that they do not necessarily recognize as such at earlier stages?

And let's face it, slaves had the same unalienable rights as everyone else, they were ignored though, by refusing to accept that a slave was a person as envisaged by the Constitution.

It was you who presented his published definitions as authoritative. To also suggest his personal philosophy should be seen with the same degree of authority is quite a leap of faith.

n humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Uh, are you absolutely sure you want to insert this into your argument that a person is one from the moment of conception? Doesn't this definition legitimize abortions rather than proscribe them?

I think your strongest argument is in the area of natural rights. I do think you present your side well.

Take care.