Yes, exactly!
It is not a scientific question but en ethical one. This question:
Is what I was referring to as simply the question of “personhood”.
This ethical question is up in the air without the guiding hand of relevant science. I was not trying to say that makes it a scientific question. However, I was trying to say that many relevant scientific questions (i.e. “what makes a conscious human”) are not sufficiently answered yet.
I do understand what you’re saying, and I mostly don’t disagree. But since I enjoy a good quibble… 
The definitions of both “conscious” and “human” aren’t really empirical questions either. The definition of consciousness is fiercely contested in neuroscience research, precisely because it isn’t a matter of objective facts. And the reason why ethicists use the term “personhood” instead of “humanity” is because of issues around animal ethics and euthanasia (eg: hypothetical comparison of an intelligent animal vs a brain-dead human).
There’s also the point that our discoveries in these areas are making these questions more complicated, not less.
Cognition and perception begins before birth. Food preferences and initial language acquisition are learnt prenatally.
OTOH, from a biologist’s perspective, you could reasonably argue that all humans are born severely premature. Our skull size has exceeded our ability for hip displacement; we come out with our brains only partially constructed, because if they were any bigger they couldn’t get out of the birth canal.
Many other animals are capable of fending for themselves within moments of birth; humans are helpless for years and incompletely mature for decades. Significant brain development continues into the 20’s.
On the consciousness and free will side, it appears that both of these things are less important than we thought. Consciousness is not the executive of the brain; it is not in the driver’s seat. Instead, it provides post-facto justifications for behaviour that was decided non-consciously. Neurologically speaking, consciousness is the narrator, not the protagonist.
It seems that the conscious mind is just a side effect of having a system built for modelling and predicting the behaviour of intelligent agents that has gone recursive.
It’s all cool stuff, but none of it tells you anything about how much respect is owed to a woman’s reproductive autonomy. 
I am more worried about my right to contract. Every time I hear about these US theocrats and their panty-sniffing fetus-licking obsessions with ladyparts, parts of me cringe and retract into my body.
But that was my point all along. Philosphical belief is no less arbitrary than religious belief, so the blood transfusion comparison is sound. Being against abortion based on “agnostic resoning” that cannot be objectively proven is no different than being against it based on religion-it’s exactly the same.
You’re conflation of religious (faith based) belief with agnostic (fact based) belief… it’s not believable.
If you want to argue those are interchangeable, meet me out on highway 51, and bring your son.
It’s considerably more arbitrary. Subjective truth and objective truth - there IS a line where one meets the other, and they don’t always get along. How much force are you going to use to reconcile them, that’s the rub.
Better than claiming words have meanings, but only the meanings you allow.
Rape cover-ups by Jehovah’s Witnesses as investigated by NBC Dateline:
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
