Marginal Mutterings - a place to discuss ideas from the fringe

[Bluenose]

I'm going to kick this off with some thoughts I have been pondering over for some little while.

The only thing I would ask the reader is to read all of this article before jumping to any conclusions.

What is a human being?

When I think about this subject I have a number of thoughts/ideas rather than a simple (and simplistic) definition.  In my view a complete adult human body is not the definition, because people suffer injuries or disease and lose body parts all the time and these things do not make them any less human.  I had my appendix out a few years ago ( It was actually quite an emergency, it had ruptured and yet I never felt the extreme pain that is usually associated with the condition.  Thank God I have a good surgeon.  [I am aware of the irony of that statement from a confirmed athiest, but the expression conveys the desired strength of meaning, so I will stick to it.])  Anyway, I do not consider myself to have been diminished in any way because of it.  My uncle lost his lower leg after a motor cycle accident many years ago, it certainly never made any difference that I can detect as to his "human-ness".  I am sure we can go on about all manner of similar things, people who have been born without various limbs, yet live full and fruitful lives and so on.

So it seems obvious to me that an intact body is not what makes us human.  Of course, the parts removed (or never there in the case of birth defects etc) obviously are not a human, my appendix has no existence outside my body, although it is (or more correctly was) human tissue, it could never be considered to be a human being in its own right.

What makes us human must be something to do with the "me" part of me - and to be fair, the "you" part of you too!  What is that, though? 

Well, my maternal grandmother died from Alzheimer's disease (actually it was pneumonia that eventually finished her off, but that is really quibbling).  It was pretty obvious to anyone who had known Nana that well before her physical body had died, or indeed was really physically very sick, the "Nana" part of her had departed, never to return.  We know that Alzheimer's is a disease of the brain, and similarly for people that suffer catastrophic brain injury and so on.  So it seems pretty obvious to me that "me" is a property of the brain, whatever else it may be - you may call it a soul, I call it an emergent property of the electro-chemical behaviour of the brain and nervous system.

So where am I going with this?

Today when I was driving I passed some "Pro Life" protesters outside an abortion clinic, as I often do, since it is on my way to work.  It made me think about the issues and I suppose it crystallised something in my mind.  The whole basic assumption of these people is flawed, IMHO.  They label an embryo a "baby" and then get all excited about "killing" it and call it "murder".  Now the main thing I am trying to get to here is that I think these people are neither bad people nor acting without good intentions, but they are IMHO misguided.  They are attributing to a small bunch of human cells that may not even have a nervous system at all, a property that it certainly does not have - the property of what it is that makes a human being.  Or worse, they are talking about potential.  If that is their argument then they should also be protesting about every time some couple do not have sex, or use contraceptives, because there is a lost potential to have a child.  Or what about all the spontaneously aborted embryos, which happen to be more than those which successfully carry to term?  If we talk about potential we are really getting ourselves very confused.

So we are not talking about potential, we are talking about an actual property that makes us human beings.  Does my thumb have this property?  No, of course not.  Does my arm?  It has a nervous system, but it does not have a brain or consciousness, so no it does not.  Does a new-born baby?  It is not so easy to see, but it is certain that a newborn does not have any sense of self or consciousness - if indeed it has that much- above that of say a cow or a sheep which we quite happily dispatch to the abattoir (well, at least most of us do, in any case very few people would equate a human life with that of an animal). So again no, a newborn does not have that quality that makes us human.  In fact, it does not acquire that property at least until some time after the nervous system has fully myelinated and the child has reached a point of full self consciousness.  When is this?  I don't know.  A newborn does not have this, but a normal child of 6 does.  So sometime, at a guess based on my own limited experience as a father of two now adult children, between the age of about 2 or 3 months and 6 years an infant becomes a human being in much the same sense that you and I are human beings.  My best guess is at around the age of 18 months to two years, but I am not wedded to that figure, I admit it is only a guess.

Now I am not suggesting for a single moment that we should degrade the status of newly born babies and encourage or excuse infanticide, only that I believe an intelligent and honest assessment of "humanness" must conclude that new born does not have that quality which we call a human being. Thus using the point of birth as an arbitrary point of what we legally call a human being, is safely on the side of caution, being before the child acquires that quality which we quite rightly value. Perhaps it may well be better for most purposes to use the end of the second trimester, but in extremis I have no problem with late term abortion from the point of view of destroying a human being and I think for legal purposes relating to medical procedures I think birth is a better end/beginning point.  It is just easier to use an earlier, less controversial decision point - end of second trimester - for most purposes and require some sort of review for later interventions, but we should not kid ourselves that we are doing this for any real reason other than to assuage our conscience, it does not IMHO bear up logically.

I have deliberately avoided the issues of women's reproductive rights here.  Those arguments have been made very well by many other people and do not need me to re-iterate them, except to say that I agree that those arguments have merit and i strongly support any woman who had had to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy.  I have personally known several women close to me that have made this choice and they have had my unreserved support, and still do.  No woman would place herself in this position out of choice, it is an abuse IMO to subject her to the sort of taunting and offensive behaviour that the Pro Lifers seem to go for.  Let alone those zealots that think they have the right to kill doctors who work in these places.  I am sure that they think they are acting in an entirely moral way, but anyone who equates potential with an actual living breathing human being probably with a spouse, children, parents, relatives and friends and justifies taking away the latter with all its consequent grief etc in order to protect mere potential has a very distorted view of reality IMO.

I know that this is a controversial idea, and I am fully prepared to receive a blast about it, but I just feel that the emperor has been wearing the new clothes for too long and it is high time someone pointed out the fact that in fact he is naked.  An embryo is not a human being.

Sibling Bluenose

[Sibling Chatty]

Yep. You right.

I'm adamantly pro-chooice, to the point of "viability". If you're 8 months along and decide THEN you don't want to have a baby, induce labor, sign off parental rights and go on with your indecisive self.

The entire issue of "partial birth abortion" is such a STUPID issue. An intact dilation and extraction is the proper name of the procedure. It's done in VERY rare cases, for VERY rare medical circumstances. Most OB docs go an entire career without doing one, unless it's a high-risk pregnancy facility, or a literal life and death thing.

These looneys that make it sound like someone just *decides* to have this done are criminally mentally ill. Mentally unhinged and criminally insane to think that this is a procedure of choice. When Clinton protected the ability of doctors to do the procedure, he was surrounded by women who'd had to have it done. A number of them were pro-life Republicans. This is a procedure used to remove a totally NON-viable fetus (often dead or dying in utero) before it damages the health of the 'mother'. ~One woman described the trauma it caused her to be referred to as "the mother" when she wasn't going to BE a mother, just a mourner for a fetus that died at 6 months, although her HMO wouldn't allow the testing to be done again for another 28 days.~

There's as much medical science behind the "ban of the partial birth abortion" as there is behind those wonderful medical pronouncements from World News Daily that Housework Prevents Breast Cancer and that eating tofu and other soy products gives you Teh Gay!!11!! (Oh NOEZ!!11!!!).

Besides, when it's not your body, ya don't make the medical decisions. If I can't keep somebody from using Viagra, or having cosmetic surgery, or a boob job, or a 'penis lengthening' or Botoxing their face into a frozen mask, WHY can other people make medical decisions, especially such important ones, for young women?
=============================================

Now, ya wanna hear the interesting thing about the end of the second trimester??

That's the time that's referred to in the Bible as The Quickening. Not the time when the fetus first moves, but when there's movement that's more 'determined'. (You push at the baby, the baby may push back.)

It's also about the time that is the 'practical' edge of viability. Yes, babies more premature have survived, but that's the 'early but don't have hysterical panics, just regular panic will do' dividing line.

Even tiny babies have individual personalities. They're not generally too reactive to outside stimulus until later, but there's differences.

However, i'm beginning to think that from age 11 to about age 18, they should not be allowed in public without shock collars... Two 15 year olds having a food fight in a restaurant today threw General Tso's Chicken in my hair.  Maybe just lock 'em up until they're 19? 20??

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

However, i'm beginning to think that from age 11 to about age 18, they should not be allowed in public without shock collars... Two 15 year olds having a food fight in a restaurant today threw General Tso's Chicken in my hair.  Maybe just lock 'em up until they're 19? 20??

Sam Clemens (Mark Twain) reputadely said that boys should be raised in a whiskey barrel until 18, and fed through the bung-hole.

Then, at 18, you could decide to either let him out, or drive in the bung...

______________________________

Bluenose, your very well worded thoughts, echo's much of my own thinking--and not ironically, for much of the same reason.

Something you left out of your thoughtful words, however, was mental defects.  Perhaps deliberately?

I agree-- to be human, or the essence of being human is all in the mind.

The body, although we are deeply welded to it's functioning, is just a shell-- a carrier.  Metaphysically, that is.

So.  Are those folk who's brain function is not "normal" still human? At what point?

Or, being essentially moral, ethical AND merciful folk, do we include those with limited brain function as "human" simply "because"?

It's a very, VERY, very fine line-- if we choose to include those folk, why not extend that mercy to fertilized fetus? (playing the devil's advocate, here... )

Hmmm. It IS food for thought.

But, in an attempt to cover everything I can think of, the individual with a "limited brain function" IS just that:  an individual.  Able to exist on his/her own (more or less, depending).  But, not requiring a specific other person for survival--anyone caring , willing and able will suffice. 

A fertilized human ovum is in a singularly unique situation:  it is totally dependent on another human being for it's physical existence-- and not just ANY human being, either.

So. Perhaps THAT is the distinction we (as a society) make?

[The Meromorph]

Well, my maternal grandmother died from Alzheimer's disease (actually it was pneumonia that eventually finished her off, but that is really quibbling).  It was pretty obvious to anyone who had known Nana that well before her physical body had died, or indeed was really physically very sick, the "Nana" part of her had departed, never to return.  We know that Alzheimer's is a disease of the brain, and similarly for people that suffer catastrophic brain injury and so on.  So it seems pretty obvious to me that "me" is a property of the brain, whatever else it may be - you may call it a soul, I call it an emergent property of the electro-chemical behaviour of the brain and nervous system.

While I broadly, substantially, and enthusiastically, agree with your whole post, and commend you for it, this conclusion is unjustified.
If you have a working radio receiving and playing a program, and you remove the battery, and the radio stops receiving and playing the program, would you be justified in saying the program is a property of the battery?
If you simply switched the radio off, have you switched off the program? (Think about that one  )
If the radio becomes defective, does the program become defective?

I am by no means claiming that 'the person' is an external event 'transmitted through the brain'. But that would be as good an explanation as the one you chose. (Occam's razor does not apply here, both hypotheses assume facts not in evidence.)

It does not, in my opinion, invalidate your argument, to not have a provable explanation of what personhood is. But a mere assertion of what personhood is, on shaky logical foundations, renders your valuable real argument vulnerable to irrelevant attack.

[Aggie]

I am by no means claiming that 'the person' is an external event 'transmitted through the brain'. But that would be as good an explanation as the one you chose. (Occam's razor does not apply here, both hypotheses assume facts not in evidence.)

It does not, in my opinion, invalidate your argument, to not have a provable explanation of what personhood is. But a mere assertion of what personhood is, on shaky logical foundations, renders your valuable real argument vulnerable to irrelevant attack.

Well, since this is the Marginal Mutterings thread....  if  'the person' is an external event 'transmitted through the brain', then there would be little moral opposition to smashing the radio, unless it's the particular properties of the radio that are defining the final content of the transmitted program.

[The Meromorph]

I am by no means claiming that 'the person' is an external event 'transmitted through the brain'. But that would be as good an explanation as the one you chose. (Occam's razor does not apply here, both hypotheses assume facts not in evidence.)

It does not, in my opinion, invalidate your argument, to not have a provable explanation of what personhood is. But a mere assertion of what personhood is, on shaky logical foundations, renders your valuable real argument vulnerable to irrelevant attack.

Well, since this is the Marginal Mutterings thread....  if  'the person' is an external event 'transmitted through the brain', then there would be little moral opposition to smashing the radio, unless it's the particular properties of the radio that are defining the final content of the transmitted program.

Yet this is, I think, a (simplified) description of the Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist positions on 'souls', is it not? (Please understand that this is not my position, and I rarely adopt it except for 'what if' thoughts).
I have never been able to come up with a 'workable' explanation of an interaction between the two (soul and body).


Edit: But I think we are proving my point about this detail being a major distraction from Bluenose's real point.

[Bluenose]

Well, yes, but it has relevance.

My main point (I think) was that the discussion on abortion runs aground at the first step because of the sometimes unspoken assumption that an embryo is a person.  As I stated, I don't think a child really becomes a person - in the strict sense only of what it is that makes us a human being as distinct from just another animal - until some time after birth.  Thus using the end of third trimester for most purposes and the time of birth for extreme cases, allows for a wide safety margin.

Of course the idea that a newborn baby is in someway not a human being is likely to be a controversial point and I am not suggesting any change in the legal definition of a person beyond the point of birth.  I have held my new born children in my arms and I know the sense of wonder that simple act can bring.  However, when framing ethical and indeed legal rules, we need to be more rational and base our rules on more than just the emotional responses of a few people (or even a lot).

Getting back to an earlier point, I know that in my original post I skimmed over the issue of the human identity being a product of the brain's electrochemical activity.  IMO the critical point is the concept of emergent behaviour. I recommend Douglas Hofstadter's excellent book Gödel, Escher & Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid for a full explanation of this characteristic and how complex things like the human mind can come about as the result of essentially simple activity at a lower level (although admittedly a lot of simple activity).  This is a very big book in all senses of the word and I would not do it any justice to try and explain it here.  Suffice it to say that the way that Hofstadter demonstrates how such a wonderful thingas a human mind can come about without the need to any external cause is profound in the extreme.

Now I'm off in the weeds!  To bring us back on topic, I will simply state that I have been trying to open up a new way of looking at the abortion debate that avoids the well worn arguments usually employed.  If nothing else, I hope I have opened a small window to shed a little light on a very murky subject.

Sibling Bluenose

[The Meromorph]

Bluenose,
Your point is completely valid (IMHO), And I don't think any rational person could disagree, exceept in minor details.
The real problem, (No disrespect to you, but you obviously don't encounter the rabid anti-abortionists we have over here, in the millions) is that your 'opponents are not into rational debate. They simply want to define a fertilised human zygote to have full human rights (and women to have none).
I give you an extreme example:
"[about a girl being born with mental disabilities]

This girl is like a leper so what she needs to do is try and find god

if she really believes she can be healed from this state, she will be healed from this state

Most afflictions like this are caused by sins committed while still inside the womb. If she can repent for what she does god will embrace her and make her as human as you or me but if she chooses not to she'll always be like this

god tests every one of us "

http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=25365986&highlight=#25365986

This is an (admittedly extreme) example of the kind of people you're wanting to have a rational discussion with! 

[Griffin NoName]

I am going to go a bit off topic here so I'll address on topic first.

Personal view: each individual has the right to determine what happens to their own body, including a woman who is carrying what in effect is a parasite. Viability, yes ok, but consider the new born, still unable to function without total support system; in the animal kingdom a newborn without its mother would probably die. For the woman the birth carries the issue of what happens to the baby, who cares for it. Are these pro-lifers prepared to bring up every unwanted child they insist gets born?

On the topic of what I shall refer to as personality, my two sons came ready made. Within days my firstborn asserted his own life view. In my arms he would struggle away from my body, and was only happy if I walked around with him giving him visual stimulus. He feasted his eyes on his surroundings. He found patterned wallpaper fascinating, being fully alert and studying it intently, fighting me in my arms if moved in a way that took his desired object out of view. I stress, this was at a few days old. My younger son, by contrast, was only happy if totally cuddled and snuggled like a cocoon in my arms. These characteristics continued to be observable during their childhood, altough now as adults they have transmuted somewhat !!

This is where I go off topic.

Human. Yesterday we had an almighty riot in discussion in college over the use of the word human. Is this synchronicity?

It focused around "idiot savant", ferral children, Casper Howser. The class was for regarding these as NOT human. I was angry. I asked if they dug up, years later, the skeleton of such, would they say they were not human remains? 

The Nazi's claimed Jews were not human. I think this is all very dodgy ground and it is vital to be clear about it.

The point for me is the word itself "human". I do not believe that the quality of functionality or power of thought or action has anything to do with being "human" and that other words should be used for that. Even human foetal remains are for me "human" remains. If the word "human" carries this confusion with it, then IMO it needs to be banned from use - with our current issues around what is PC, this matters as much, if not more, than all those words we are no longer allowed to use !

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Now I'm off in the weeds!  To bring us back on topic, I will simply state that I have been trying to open up a new way of looking at the abortion debate that avoids the well worn arguments usually employed.  If nothing else, I hope I have opened a small window to shed a little light on a very murky subject.

To make things murkier, the criteria we develop for one end of a person's life can apply to the other, too.

At the time, I know I felt like my father died well before his body stopped functioning.

Hmm... now I'm off in the weeds.  And a bit morbid.

Even human foetal remains are for me "human" remains. If the word "human" carries this confusion with it, then IMO it needs to be banned from use - with our current issues around what is PC, this matters as much, if not more, than all those words we are no longer allowed to use !

An arm by itself would be "human remains" as well, but I don't think there's anyone in the debate over sanctity of life who would argue that an arm is, by itself, a person.

But I do agree: sometimes words do hold baggage in their meaning that can colour the perception of an issue.

[Griffin NoName]

Even human foetal remains are for me "human" remains. If the word "human" carries this confusion with it, then IMO it needs to be banned from use - with our current issues around what is PC, this matters as much, if not more, than all those words we are no longer allowed to use !

An arm by itself would be "human remains" as well, but I don't think there's anyone in the debate over sanctity of life who would argue that an arm is, by itself, a person.

But I do agree: sometimes words do hold baggage in their meaning that can colour the perception of an issue.

Yes, that's my point. "Human" applied to remains as an adjective has a precise meaning. I don't like this word diluted in meaning. "Person" is preferable if ability is being addressed. I respect your feeling about your father. I have different feelings. My nephew, in a deep deep coma, for six years aged 17 to 23, before dying, never seemed to me to be not human.

[Bluenose]

I entirely take your point.

The problem is that I am trying to talk about a concept that is not clearly defined in the English language.  The words human and person are not exactly what I mean, but I hope I managed to convey an idea of what I mean with my no doubt imperfect usage of what is an imperfect tool.

Sibling Bluenose

[Griffin NoName]

Your bolded line at the start of the thread was "human being". I think that's a whole heap different to "human" which is what made me mad in college.

Pedantically, I think it's the deterioration of use of English that leads to imperfect transmission of meaning. But then I'm probably a prime candidate for the BBC program Grumpy Old Women (an off-shoot of Grumpy Old Men). I think you conveyed your idea fine... I was drifting off topic.

"No amount of human having or human doing can make up for a deficit in human being." - John Adams.

For light relief on the (off) topic take the Human Being/Human Doing Test

[Sibling Chatty]

What a mean test. I don't want to be driven and compassionate.

I want to be a lump. I strive for lumpitude.

[Bluenose]

A hug for my favourite lump!

Actually I was just looking for an excuse to give you hug No 101  :toadfish:

Sibling Bluenose