The Unborn Are Persons From Fertilization

Thank you, KeytarHero, for continuing this Debate. In your first post you wrote, "In order to win this debate, Elvroin must either show why my qualification for personhood fails, *OR* offer his own qualification and show why his should be accepted in lieu of mine." (Emphasis on "or" is mine.) Any argument has two aspects, "data" and "connections". My arguments have focused on *parts* of Pro's data, but more on the connections. I need no alternate definition of personhood (see "or" above). Revealed flaws are: 1. It is fallacious to talk about "inherent value", because all valuations are Subjective, not Objective. A large percentage of killings in history are directly tied to the *fact* that various humans, or groups of humans, valued themselves more than they valued other humans or groups. (Some killings, say by man-eating tigers or disease bacteria, happen because humans have value as "food".) And the Law of Supply and Demand truly *does* apply, even among adult humans. Peasants/workers have always, everywhere on Earth, been valued less than lords/bosses, because peasants are so "common" (that's more a *definition* than a pun). Well, it happens that unborn humans are *very* easy to make, by most sexually active adults. We may not make them hundreds at a time like an "R-strategist", but we can easily make them faster than we can accommodate them. Therefore, per the Law of Supply and Demand, they tend to have less value than things which are difficult to make. Yes, since *all* valuations are Subjective, the unborn tend to be valued highly by the subset of humans who naturally have difficulty making them, but who says *their* valuation of the unborn must be forced upon others? The concept of a "right to life" is an Ideal, such that, *at* *least*, anyone able to understand it would have reason to agree to it. Obviously, you don't have to worry so much about being killed just because you are in someone else's way (or other trivial excuse). Logically, that "right" need not be granted to organisms such as tigers or bacteria, which are unable to understand it. It is *pragmatic* that we grant "right to life" to organisms such as young humans, which also are unable to understand it. If we want the human species to persist, at least some young humans must be protected. How do we decide which? Different cultures have used different criteria. In ancient Rome, physically defective newborns were specifically denied protection. In modern America, the unborn are *generically* denied protection. Note that "denying protection" and "actively killing" are two different things, which Pro seems confused about. The average tree in the woods is not generically protected, either, but that doesn't mean it must therefore and automatically be chopped down. Likewise, even though no unborn human in modern America is generically protected, most of them are *not* aborted. And none of Pro's arguments have changed the above *facts*. 2. It is fallacious to claim that an empty bag must be valued as much as a full bag. That is, by focusing on their *capacity* to hold morals and rationality, Pro is admitting that unborn humans are the equivalent of "empty bags". Pro seems to think the *bag* should be valued, just because of what it *might* someday contain --and in fact it might not, as proved by the existence of "serial killers". It is simply *irrational* to confuse an empty bag with a full bag! 3. It is fallacious to mis-use the word "being". A common definition of "being" is "something that exists", and certainly unborn humans exist --but so also do radishes. We still don't typically say "radish beings" in any ordinary conversation. If Pro can call an unborn human a "human being" simply because it exists, and conclude that the unborn human is a person, because "being" can *also* mean "person", then I can call a radish a "radish being" simply because it exists, and conclude that the radish is a person. Sorry, Pro, but logic doesn't work that way. 4. It is fallacious to claim that unborn humans are "innocent", when they demonstrably do things that adults would typically be arrested for doing. Pro also distorted what I wrote, since I did *not* say anything about a "right to refuse". I specified "without asking permission", which is a completely different thing. As an analogy, suppose you walk up to the carcass of a deer and *take* it, without asking permission of the tiger that made the kill. The *action* is done *regardless* of whether or not permission might have been refused. Likewise it is *actions* that make the unborn guilty, not innocent. Regardless of any communication problems concerning permission! Another distortion that Pro made involves this that I wrote: "Basically, the unborn human is *either* a dumb parasitic 'human animal' with no *right* to life, *or* it is a person who is *more* immoral/unethical than a vampire." Pro then focussed only on the latter part of that, the unborn's lack of being "deliberate" about those horrible actions --but that is *exactly* why the unborn should be considered a "human animal", not a person! Sorry, Pro, you can't conclude something that *only* acts like an animal qualifies as a person! 5. Pro has exhibited *denial* regarding future Artificial Intelligences. *Our* *own* brains qualify as "self-programming computers", because any "habit" is equivalent to a "program", and we can make or break habits at will. A true A.I. will be able to do that, too, because we are *copying* what we learn about human brains to A.I. research. And that's why some A.I. will *eventually*, *inevitably*, qualify as a "rational and moral" entity, or "person". Suppose we build the A.I. with an ability to reproduce by making a "starter" machine that can add more things to itself, until it also becomes an A.I. Now suppose the original A.I. begins building starter-machines in droves. Pro's argument regarding personhood and developing organisms *requires* us to allow *all* the starter-machines to finish. *OR* Pro must recognize that his argument is invalid! 6. It is fallacious to claim "sex causes pregnancy". Otherwise "artificial insemination" and "in-vitro fertilization" would *never* work. Pregnancy really *is* typically caused by an organism *other* than, and *two* stages removed from, people who engage in sex. Should they be *completely* blamed for the *independent* *unrequested* actions of that other organism? Hah! Yes, they are *partly* to blame --so make them pay for an abortion *if* they want it. 7. It is fallacious to claim human pregnancies are generally associated with "permission". Pro ignores the *fact* that humans, unlike other animals, mostly have sex for reasons *other* than an urge to breed. It does *not* logically follow that if pregnancy happens, it *must* have been permitted. Thus does Pro's argument suffer from some small-but-critical bad-data items, plus multiple points of catastrophic *logical* failure. Finally, Pro wrote an odd thing: "...we are morally justified in pulling the plug on a brain-dead human." OK: ht..../technutnews.com/2008/03/23/miracle-mouse-can-grow-back-lost-limbs/ Someday a new brain can grow to replace a dead one! The body on life-support has the "capacity" to once more be a rational/moral entity! But it will be a *different* entity than before, due to all-new brain-wiring (different as twins/clones). Suppose a future Emergency Rescue Squad reaches a decapitation accident-scene in just two minutes. Do they put the head or the body in a regeneration vat, to save the *person*? If "head", then a human *body* is *not* automatically a person. In reality the *mind* is the person, and *it* is associated with a well-developed brain (or equivalent) that mere animals lack. Regeneration can't restore the *dead* *minds* of the brain-dead on life-support --and unborn humans don't *develop* person-class minds until some time *after* birth. Animal *bodies* they *both* truly are!