Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[ZNFYRH]

A human life is protected by human rights, right?

A human life begins at conception, right?

When you have serial killers with no personality of any redeeming value who are protected, how can you rationalize that a developing fetus is worthless?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: ZNFYRH A human life is protected by human rights, right?

Most human lives are protected by rights, but not all.

When you have serial killers with no personality of any redeeming value who are protected, how can you rationalize that a developing fetus is worthless?

I, personally, rationalize protecting them on the basis that the justice system could have made a mistake. Even though I am not pro death penalty, it is not something I lose sleep over.

I did not say that a fetus is worthless, and neither do the vast majority of even very staunch prochoicers.

The rationalization would be that until the fetus posses a personality, its value is less than the value of giving the woman the choice of whether or not she wants to carry the fetus. That is not the same as saying the fetus has zero value.

[5010]

Quote by: ZNFYRH CC, So what's the line you're drawing, then? You really haven't answered that question. Brainwaves? Development of a brain?

I think I understood his position by the analogy between personality and computer software. Consider:

And look... Your personality might be affected by your genes, but your personality is located inside your brain, not your genes. Using a computer analogy, personality is the software, brain is the hardware.

But there is the problem with separating genes from personality. Consider this study on alcoholism:

Within that region are genes that make proteins enabling GABA to signal to nerve cells and so do its work in the brain.

The genes don't merely develop a brain and then stop their influence. The genetic influence is ongoing and integral to the brain function and resulting behaviors. CC says "personality is the software", but doesn't realize that genes include both the software that guides growth of the hardware and the software that runs on that hardware. If you were to swap out some genes that control proteins that effect behavior, then you are changing the personality. Likewise, if you put someone in a harsh environment, they could very well build character and take on new behavior, and thus a new personality.

But EVEN IF one believes personality = person, it would lead to bizarre conclusions. If there is change in personality, is it a different person? If you seek treatment for a behavioral problem and find success, should you be tried for murdering the 'old person' that previously inhabited your brain? Of course not!

[ZNFYRH]

Wait...

Some aren't?

I'm intrigued.

I am assuming you are going to link the human lives that are not protected to unborn babies.

I could swear that our country is based on the idea that all men are created equal.

Created... not born.

At what point is a human life created?

Seems to me like when that life is created, it is endowed with the right to life.

[ZNFYRH]

5010,

Based on your post, am I correct in saying that since the DNA "contains" the personality and such, then one can't say the personality "starts" with brainwaves.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Wait... Some aren't? I'm intrigued. I am assuming you are going to link the human lives that are not protected to unborn babies. I could swear that our country is based on the idea that all men are created equal. Created... not born. At what point is a human life created? Seems to me like when that life is created, it is endowed with the right to life.

Now you are making a legalistic argument. Currently, the courts interpret the constitution such that they allow abortion.

I am more interested in what the law should do, not what it does.


Many prochoicers are not opposed to legal abortion because they feel a fetus without a personality is not of high enough value to take away the woman's choice about her body.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: ZNFYRH 5010, Based on your post, am I correct in saying that since the DNA "contains" the personality and such, then one can't say the personality "starts" with brainwaves.

My understanding of personality is not the genetic blueprint, but the actual manifestation, that is a result of both nature (genes) and nurture (interaction with environment).

[Captain Chaos]

=5010But there is the problem with separating genes from personality. Consider this study on alcoholism:

Genes are not separate from personality. Genes clearly have a causative role in the development of personality. Nevertheless, that is not the same as saying that genes are personality. Genes precede the development of personality - in the same way that initial programming precedes the development of complex learning software.

CC says "personality is the software", but doesn't realize that genes include both the software that guides growth of the hardware and the software that runs on that hardware.

Of course I realize that, but it does not change my argument.

But EVEN IF one believes personality = person, it would lead to bizarre conclusions. If there is change in personality, is it a different person? If you seek treatment for a behavioral problem and find success, should you be tried for murdering the 'old person' that previously inhabited your brain? Of course not!

Absolutely you should be held responsible. Holding people responsible, and the knowledge that we will be held responsible, has a positive influence on our decision making. That is the reason we should hold people responsible. I suppose revenge is also a motivation, and a hard one to deny in some circumstances.

[5010]

Quote by: Captain Chaos My understanding of personality is not the genetic blueprint, but the actual manifestation, that is a result of both nature (genes) and nurture (interaction with environment).

Not all genes are blueprint. Some regulate the ongoing production of molecules that control behavior.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: 5010 Not all genes are blueprint. Some regulate the ongoing production of molecules that control behavior.

OK.

That just means that genes play an ongoing role in the manifestation of personality. Thus, genes are a necessary but not a sufficient cause of personality.

[5010]

Quote by: Captain Chaos OK. That just means that genes play an ongoing role in the manifestation of personality. Thus, genes are a necessary but not a sufficient cause of personality.

That seems consistent. Therefore, can there be multiple persons within the same brain?

Consider this:

In contrast to social ordinariness, lateralized testing in which the stimuli and/or responses are restricted to one hemisphere reveals a dramatic lack of communication between the two disconnected hemispheres, each of which appears to have its own perceptual, learning and memory systems.

[Captain Chaos]

Sounds miserable!

[5010]

Yep. Anyway, the point is if you define a person based on personality, then you need to start looking at each human body as a group of persons! Should hemispherectomy be considered murder? Is the census 1/2 what it should be? Should we double the casualty figures from war? Should we increase the number of blondes it takes to change a light bulb?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: 5010 Yep. Anyway, the point is if you define a person based on personality, then you need to start looking at each human body as a group of persons!

I think any form of multiple personality is very very rare. There is just one personality in my head (that I will admit to, anyway). My Corpus Collosum is working just fine, and my hemispheres are in synch. Thus, there is just one Captain Chaos at the moment.

Should hemispherectomy be considered murder?

Killing one, so that the other may live, may well produce a superior outcome to having both live with horrendous epilepsy.

Should we increase the number of blondes it takes to change a light bulb?

If they are hot, and we get to stare up their skirts while they do it, then absolutely.

[fushigi]

Quote by: pikatore Well seeing that there is no actual PROOF against me to speak of (i've been the one who's pulled out science textbooks and internet sources, the others pulled thier argument out of the dictionary), I am quite open to any decent opposition. So far, I'm yet to recieve any.

I've read and considered your theory and reject it.

I don't oppose your evidence that brain waves only begin at 16 weeks or sometime around then. I have merely argued, again and again, that an organism that is temporarily incapable of consciousness is nonetheless still worthy of human rights.

Be that organism a patient in a coma or having a stroke, an epileptic mid-seizure, a boxer who is knocked out, a fetus, etc.

[5010]

Yep, some value the human organism's life and others value a life that arises from the psyche. Both arguments seem consistent to me. But we can all agree the unwanted pregnancy is bad thing, no? Precautions are best.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Captain Chaos It is not a question of whether it is considered human. I mean, for this thread, that is the question. I agree that a human's life begins at conception. The question is, do we apply rights to a human without a personality. In our society, we do not. The law allows killing the brain dead for organs, and the law allows abortion.

It's the mother's right to privacy. The laws have all taken into consideration when life begins, and so forth, but because this life is so dependant it has no rights till a certain point, and this is to be determined by the doctor, and the mother. This is the right to privacy by law.

I don't think it's got anything to do with personality, it's the mother's rights.

[ZNFYRH]

Go to a concert and I miss everything...

5010 and fushigi have basically taken the same track I was going towards.

What about a person with multiple personality disorder? Do each of those personalities deserve equal human rights? In that case, is it murder or some kind of wrongful imprisonment for a psychiatrist to try to get the "main" persona to suppress the others?

But as fushigi pointed out, there are times when brainwaves are non-existent. Those times to not suddenly invalidate human rights.

CC,

When you mention that I'm making a legal argument, that's what this is all about, right? Rights.

My position is simple.

The fetus has human rights from conception, but the mother has the ability similar to the responsible party for a comatose person. Namely, she can determine that her inability to handle the situation legally allows her to terminate the life.

I don't agree with abortion. I just agree with someone's right to choose.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I don't agree with abortion. I just agree with someone's right to choose.

Therefore, you agree with abortion, as abortion is a CHOICE. By saying that, you acknowledge that despite your personal feelings about it, at the end of the day, the choice is not yours, or anyone elses to make, but the mother's.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: fushigi I've read and considered your theory and reject it. I don't oppose your evidence that brain waves only begin at 16 weeks or sometime around then. I have merely argued, again and again, that an organism that is temporarily incapable of consciousness is nonetheless still worthy of human rights. Be that organism a patient in a coma or having a stroke, an epileptic mid-seizure, a boxer who is knocked out, a fetus, etc.

There is a difference. In such patients the personality is present, but on hold.

A new embryo has no personality.