I don't disagree that at conception there is the potential for a human being, nor do I disagree that it is a member of the species homo sapien .. whether it is a person are not is debatable in my opinion. I forgot to point out that the submissive twin in the picture was not causing any life threatening problems to the dominant twin .. the only "problem" it was causing was cosmetic ie inconvenience. Your point about doctors not removing a submissive chimera that would increase the harm to the surviving twin isn't always correct .. here is another picture of another chimera twin where the circumstances were similar ie not threatening to the dominant twin View attachment 21028 These twins shared some pretty major items, and doctors gave the dominant twin only a 40% survival chance if they operated and removed the submissive twin - The survival rate for both twins without surgery was placed at around 80% - they operated and the dominant twin is still alive, all be it with some mental disability .. so in this case the removal of the chimera twin did increase the harm to the dominant, further more the submissive twin (before surgery) could blink, suckle and move its mouth .. it had a fully developed brain (all be it joined with its dominant twin) See above, the submissive twin did not pose a life threat to the dominant twin, it was purely done for cosmetic reasons.
I would like to know what any of this has to do with abortion. The legal definition for a natural person is "a human being." You just contradicted yourself a little. An existing "member of the species" is more than just a "potential" member of the species. Isn't it? Again, I don't see what any of this has to do with the abortion issue. But, looking at the picture, I can see open sores and such on the other twin and I think the burden of caring for his parasitic twin would be very ureasonable. But that's only my opinion. I would respect the opinion of doctors and such who have access to his specific information. In my view, their attempt to give the surviving twin a better chance at life was justified even if they failed in that attempt. We may have to agree to disagree. 1. I think it all hinges upon how reasonable or unreasonable the expectations are and that will vary from case to case. Some conjoined twins have had very productive (though un-usual) lives. TV shows even. Do you think you can tell me how any of this ties into the abortion issue?
You have absolutely no proof that the doctors had legally killed the submissive twin. This is just speculation. Post links to this story. If you don't do this, your argument is automatically invalid.
What are the qualites unique to a person? What differentiates a person from a chimp, for example, which has a personality, but isn't a person?
That is a valid question but it is a question that must be argued in the future because it creates a paradox related to the Inalienable Rights of the Person. There cannot be a conflict between the Inalienable Rights of Persons. For example the Woman is a Person and as a Person has the Inalienable Right of Self. The Right of Self of the Woman as a Person cannot be in conflict with the Right to Life of a Fetus if the Fetus is a Person. The conflict cannot exist. We must remember that the understanding of the Inalienable Rights of the Person is rather recent historically while the understanding that the "preborn" were never considered "persons" historically is documented for thousands of years. We're asking for a change in historical precedent related to "personhood" so the arguments must be compelling to support that change. We also have to apply it related to our understanding of the Inalienable Rights of a Person because of a change in the definition of "person" that would occur. The bottom line is that there is a paradox related to "persons" and "inalienable rights" if both occupy the same body. As I've often mentioned I'm a Libertarian with an undying belief in the Inalienable Rights of the Person and I find this paradox of the fetus and woman to be problematic to resolve. I don't have a solution per se and perhaps there is no perfect solution but there can be a pragmatic solution to the paradox. It won't be perfect but it can be pragmatic but it has to be supported by compelling argument.
Historical precedent is the primary difference. Historically "person" has always been a human being established at birth and which ends at death. We are unquestionably the highest life form on Earth and have been for tens of thousands of years. Of course there is much that goes along with that such as the superior intelligence of the human species where we can make informed decisions related to our actions that lower intelligence species are often unable to make. We are intelligent enough to understand the effects of our actions where the typical primate is incapable of that.
If the above attributes are intrinsic to personhood, then a fetus cannot be a person, since it lacks them.
Question everything is always a good principle to follow. While there is a historical precedent that establishes "personhood" as beginning at birth and ending at death is it correct? Once again I'll refer to an analogy that I've presented to libertarians and that is our concept of "land ownership" that was really established under the "divine right of kings" where the king owned everything, including the people, based upon the belief that God gave the King this Right of Ownership. In reality we have "nomads" and "settlers" that each have an equal Right to Use the Land but our laws don't represent that fact. Our laws related to the ownership of land were based upon the "divine right of kings" that we inherited from our European ancestors. There is a paradox related to the use of land when addressing the Rights of the Person because it addresses the same "land" just as a paradox exists related to a fetus and a woman that occupy the same body. It is a paradox but that doesn't imply it's not something we should ignore. History is not always right.
It ties into abortion for one very simple reason, it shows the hypocrisy of some pro-lifers who insist on "person at conception" being a reason to ban abortion while siting idly by and allowing submissive chimera twins to be removed and killed .. both the fetus and the submissive twin meet all the criteria some pro-lifers use, as follows; 1. Human 2. Unique DNA 3. Stage of development, irrelevant 4. Brain development, irrelevant 5. Attachment to another to live, irrelevant 6. No threat to the host 7. Viability, irrelevant Thus I conclude that some pro-lifers use "person at conception" as a tool to achieve their real goal of controlling others based primarily on their religious views. and this doesn't even look at the hypocrisy concerned with abortion and IVF. now to be a little more specific on your replies; I wasn't referring to the legal definition, otherwise it would include some companies as well as "humans" .. I would prefer for the discussion to remain based on science, and so I offer the medical definition of person per·son (pûrsn) n. 1. A living human. 2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self. 3. The living body of a human. 4. Physique and general appearance. Does a fertilized egg adhere to all the medical definitions of a person? So all that is asked is that you accord the same respect to the opinion of the doctors in abortions, they are the professionals are they not? and again how is this different from a women seeking an abortion for reasons such as poverty, is the doctor not giving her a better chance at life, even though, just as the chimera twin, it cost a life? So again should not each abortion request be hinged on the professional judgement of the doctor on how reasonable or unreasonable it is, and not left to the state to decide, when in reality they have no real knowledge of each individual case. Certainly they do, those that society considers as having a certain quality of life that is.
How am I being hypocritical when I readily admit that some abortions (but not all) can be justified and some surgeries to remove a dependent twin can also be justified? Also, please don't let your desire to find hypocrisy in your opponents blind you to any of the valid points in their arguments. I'm sure that I can find times when you have contradicted yourself... (like when you call a child in the first days of their life a 'potential' person and an existing 'member of their species' in the same comment)... but I try to look past your contradictions and to remain considerate of anything else you might have to say.
Just to point out that I didn't say you were a hypocrite, this discussion has actually been a decent one (for a change), and I do see your valid points .. though I don't necessarily agree with them. BTW. I updated the post you replied to in order to answer some of you points more specifically.
Thanks. I'm curious as to what 'valid' points were made that you still can't agree with? I can't imagine myself disagreeing with any 'valid' points made by yourself or by someone else.
This from someone who has NEVER posted a single piece of evidence to support a single thing they have ever said, you are so so funny. I also have to admit to making a mistake as I had firstly thought the girl was still alive, however she died aged two. For your perusal http://www.skewsme.com/twoheadedbaby.html#axzz2ZWEV2y00 (about half way down the page) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4848164.stm
Well one would be elective abortion should not be legal (or something like that), while I admit it is a valid point in this specific discussion I don't agree with it due to other considerations that need to be taken into account, ones which would be off topic in this thread.
Okay, I don't understand why you think that is even a point - much less a 'valid' point. I've barely expressed in words as a claim. I don't want to get too far off topic... so we can end it there I suppose. I'll just explain what I think is the difference. In my view, claims are essentially conclusions and conclusions are essentially based upon specific 'points.' I've never had anyone confuse the two before.
Hey Chuz ... where have you been ? Speaking of "valid points". Have you come up with a valid rational that proves (or at least gives a coherent explanation) why a zygote is a human ? Still have yet to hear one from the anti-abortionists.
I believe that Chuz has been banned .. shame really he/she was one of the few that could put together a (semi) coherent argument.
They don't stand a chance ! Too many good posters showing them the facts! I gotta admit I have to help you and Fugazi out with the more technical stuff ...but we all do our part..
Yeah, and the ones who do post make comments like the chemicals etc produced by the zygote that suppress the woman's local immune response are 'gifts' from the man and woman, or they make wild assertions such as abortion was 100% illegal in the USA at one time posting a link to try and prove that assertion and the very link the post actually disproves what they say, and when that is pointed out to them it takes them numerous comments to actually admit it. They make it far to easy to show them for the ill informed people they are. - - - Updated - - - We all do our bit to try and keep women free to decide their own medical decisions.
