carturo222 wrote:
Went and read your thought experiment. You're committing the continuum fallacy. The fact that a fully grown adult is a person does not imply that a just conceived zygote is a person.
I didn't say person, I said human being.
Quote:
The zygote is of course human, in the sense that it's genetically related to our species, but it's not a person because it has never had psychological functions and subjective experiences.
I don't know where the line should be drawn. I emphatically agree with the approach used in the Netherlands, where a newborn with a severe condition that was not detected during pregnancy can be legally euthanized. How long after birth should it be permissible, I don't know. Becoming a person is a very gradual process; any solid line of demarcation would be arbitrary. But I find it very clear that it's meaningless to speak of harm against anything without neural functions.
Yep, went through this in the other thread. Personhood means different things to different people (in US law it pretty much everyone under the age of 18), you need a
much tighter definition if you are using it to justify ending the lives of human beings.
carturo222 wrote:
but it's not a person because it has never had psychological functions and subjective experiences.
You know, some might call that absolute innocence. Again I put to you the same implied question, still unanswered. Why is it wrong to kill an unconscious, anaesthetised person?
carturo222 wrote:
Edited to add: Also, you make a false distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" conception. I suggest you use more precise terms, because nothing that happens in this universe is not natural.
It's pretty obvious what I mean, no need to get that stuck into that kind of philosophical precision.
_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!