Posted on 11/28/2001 2:48:37 PM PST by Caleb1411
Nuts!
The key phrase there is "in law". The relevant, objectively observable fact is that a zygote is a distinct, individual, living, existent human being, and since human beings are personal beings, (that's just the type of being human beings are) the zygote is a personal being who has actual existence. He is a being-in-fact, or a natural person, as opposed to a mere legal construct. I believe the law should conform itself to the actual facts, not the other way around.
So to answer your question, ordinarily speaking (if I may paraphrase Johnny Cochrane here) "A body without a head, is a person who is dead!" Dead persons are not properly considered as subject to the law anymore as they are usually unable to discharge obligations and duties. But estate planning and probate matters are beyond the scope of our discussion.
The fundamental issue still is whether or not there exists such a thing as a human being who is not a person, and the ontological and scientific burden of proof is on those who want to make the distinction. Aside from an arbitrary legal construct, what is the difference between human and person?
Cordially,
O.K., I'll leave that phrase out then if it troubles you:
Does a headless body on life support have rights?
"A body without a head, is a person who is dead!"
Fine by me (assuming the head is also dead, and not simply separated and similarly on life support.)
Fertilized ova also do not have heads or brains or rights.
I think it is safe to assume that a person whose head has been severed from his body is dead.
Fertilized ova also do not have heads or brains or rights.
Why do you call a zygote a 'fertilized ova'? Sperm and ova cease to exist as such during the process of fertilization, that is as parts of human beings, and a completely new human being is produced. They are no longer what they were, but have been changed into a single, whole, complete human being.
A person with a severed head is not analogous to a human zygote. The case of the person with the severed head is distinguished from the case of the zygote in that the person in the first case is dead, while our hypothetical zygote is alive. The two are not analogous.
Moreover, you are confusing the accidents of personhood with the essence of personhood. The essence of being is actual, it is the the functioning of that being which is potential or accidental. The personhood of the zygote is already existent because he must actually be in essence a human being in the first place to grow a human brain! So he is already a person with the potential to grow a brain, just as a newborn baby is already a person with the potential of speech. But perhaps you prefer to define a child who has not yet developed speech or who has speech defects as less of a person with less rights in the same way that you define a zygote who has not yet fully developed a brain as less than, or no person at all - with diminished or no rights at all. How about a two-year-old who has not fully developed her reproductive organs? Is she less of a person than a five year old or a seventeen-year-old? What if I said that the seventeen-year-old is a person because she has developed breasts and the five-year-old is not a person because she has not? But that is the absurd conclusion of your premise when taken to its logical conclusion. Human beings are personal beings. That's just the kind of beings they are, no matter what their stage of development.
What do you think personhood is anyway, and what is the difference between human and person?
Cordially
It is safe to assume that if it is on life support it is alive.
Now does it have rights?
"Why do you call a zygote a 'fertilized ova'?"
I'm happy to go along with that semantic change. Let me restate:
A zygote does not have a head, brain, or rights.
"The case of the person with the severed head is distinguished from the case of the zygote in that the person in the first case is dead, while our hypothetical zygote is alive. The two are not analogous."
You have dismissed the analogy without addressing it. The fact remains a live body without a head, or brain, or brain without a structurally intact cerebral cortex has no rights.
The zygote is analogous to the body on life support because it has no brain.
Let me put another question to you: Suppose you came upon the scene of a decapitation, and had the ability to save either the main body or the head. Which would you save?
"Moreover, you are confusing the accidents of personhood with the essence of personhood."
No, I simply don't truck with superstitions like 'essense of personhood'. Or, if there is an essence, it is in having a brain (with the structures for thought, to allow us to distinguish from animals,) which the zygote does not have.
"just as a newborn baby is already a person with the potential of speech."
Now suppose the newborn baby only had the brain structures necessary to sustain a pulse and respiration. Does it have rights?
If no, I would then pose the same question about a similar fetus at 8 months gestation, 7 months, 6 months, etc.
"But perhaps you prefer to define a child who has not yet developed speech or who has speech defects as less of a person with less rights in the same way that you define a zygote who has not yet fully developed a brain as less than, or no person at all - with diminished or no rights at all. How about a two-year-old who has not fully developed her reproductive organs? Is she less of a person than a five year old or a seventeen-year-old? What if I said that the seventeen-year-old is a person because she has developed breasts and the five-year-old is not a person because she has not?"
Now wherever did you get such silly ideas.
"But that is the absurd conclusion of your premise when taken to its logical conclusion. Human beings are personal beings."
Hardly.
The absurd conclusion from your premise ( that a brain is not necessary for rights ) leaves us with a headless body with rights.
Look, I'm really trying to understand you, but it seems perfectly obvious and commonsensical to me to say no brain = no rights (and no personhood.)
First, your statement about rights is not a scientific statement - it is a philosophical statement. But the reason that a person without a head would not be considered to have rights is that that person would be considered to be dead by reasonable and ordinary standards. I haven't seen too many persons with severed heads on life support.
The zygote is analogous to the body on life support because it has no brain.
You are right that they both have no brain, but the zygote's body is intact and whole. The body with the severed head is not. In any case, your attribution of personhood to certain human beings and not to others is philosophical, not scientific.
Let me put another question to you: Suppose you came upon the scene of a decapitation, and had the ability to save either the main body or the head. Which would you save?
I don't even know how to begin to suppose such a fantastic scenario.
Now suppose the newborn baby only had the brain structures necessary to sustain a pulse and respiration. Does it have rights?
I think your terminology, "newborn baby" should provide a rhetorical answer that question.
If no, I would then pose the same question about a similar fetus at 8 months gestation, 7 months, 6 months, etc.
Exactly my point. The human brain is not actually completely developed until about age 16. What is your cut-off point for personhood? What if someone else has a different philosophical cut-off point for personhood, say age 16? For that matter, can it be said that any of us are ever fully developed? In my view, it is ontologically consistent to say that the beginning of personhood is at the beginning of the actual existence of the person.
Now wherever did you get such silly ideas.
It comes from the ability to distinguish between the essential attributes, properties, or qualities of substances on one hand, and accidental features, which something merely happens to have. Just as volume is an essential property of a cube, so is personhood an essential property of a human being. All humans are personal beings.
Look, I'm really trying to understand you, but it seems perfectly obvious and commonsensical to me to say no brain = no rights (and no personhood.)
I know it seems obvious to you, but again, your distinction between humans that are persons and humans that are not is philosophical, not scientific. You are imposing an arbitrary idea upon the empirical reality that is inconsistent with the ontological truth that personhood inheres at the beginning of the actual existence of the individual, not at some later purely arbitrary philosophical demarcation.
Cordially,
THAT'S what I was referring to. Not that Waagner and I were fellow-travelers. And thanks for the compliment. You have NO IDEA how much that means to me.
Psssttt......Don't tell anyone, but I'm still praying for you. Shhhhh....our little secret!!!!
I'm gonna be out of the loop for the most part next week, unless I sneak on here LATE at night.
BE GOOD and be nice to my friends here, ya hear? Love ya! BG
They can't even vote.
Cordially,
Pro-Choice Is Pro-Abort.
Pro-Abort Is Pro-Death.
Pro-Abort Is Anti-Baby.
There is nothing more evil than that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.