---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** http://www.GOANET.org ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy New Year Twenty-Ten
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post appended below commits many gaping blunders on the issue of
personhood, in paraphrasing what I have stated in this forum and elsewhere, and
the context in which I have stated it. Let me just enumerate them below.
1. The said post conveniently fails to mention that my objections were directed
solely against the following original statement of its author on Goanet:
"The vast majority of medical opinion holds that a human embryo or foetus is a
distinct human person. This should be obvious to anyone with common sense."
....Shri A. L. D'Souza
Please see my earlier post at:
http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-December/187686.html
So it was not me, but the author in question who invoked what he believed to be
the wisdom of medical professionals and medical science to support what he
calls his "philosophy". And now he wants you to believe that "The medical
establishment has become a major threat to health", after finding out from me
that medical science does not support his "philosophical" statement, after all.
If he had not made the bogus claim about the definition of "human person" on
behalf of the vast majority of medical professionals, and had said instead that
it was simply his religious belief or his "philosophy", I would have had no
problem with his statement.
2. Averthanus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>One argument advanced the view that a human being is not a “person” until
>>some time after birth.
>
This is false. I stated that a fetus at some stage in gestation (perhaps,
around 22 weeks) is likely to satisfy the neuroscientific definition of a
person.
3. Averthanus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>He evaded the pointed question, however, whether these two cases >represented
>only partial “personhood” since they did not entirely fit >into his own
>definition.
>
False. I clearly indicated that Christopher Reeve and Stephen Hawking possessed
full personhood.
4. Averthanus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>According to this absurd logic, if the patient dies without regaining
>>consciousness, the surgeon can claim that he did not kill a “person”but >that
>he merely destroyed a human being.This is consistent with the claim >that
>destroyingembryos or foetuses does not constitute murder.
>
False. In the above, the political campaign tactic of misplaced extrapolation
and demonization is being used. I have clearly stated that science has nothing
to do with defining murder, and that in secular law the definition of murder is
not necessarily tied to the definition of personhood, as is clear from the fact
that killing of soldiers and innocent bystanders in war, killing in
self-defense and judicial executions are not considered murders.
BTW, the legal definition of murder is unlawful killing of a human being, not
person. Please see the quote and link below:
QUOTE
The US Code, at Title 18, defines murder as:
"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought."
UNQUOTE
http://duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/Murder.aspx
5. Averthanus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The good doctor went onto assert that some (higher) primates had >developed
> “almost” complete personhood, while some of the lesser >primates, such as
> baboons and chimpanzees,had acquired “a great deal” of
> personhood.
>
Chimpanzees are not lesser primates.
6. Averthanus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Neither does he explain at what stage such an animal would qualify to be
>>described as a “human” being.
>
False. I have already stated that a human being is an animal belonging to the
genus Homo.
7. The said post contains utterly confused assertions about intelligence, which
as nothing to do with personhood from a scientific, or for that matter,
philosophical standpoint. According to modern philosophy, a person is a
self-conscious being.
8. There is also a confusion between the definition of "human" and the
definition of "person". A self-conscious being does not have to be human.
9. A totally irrelevant argument about limitations of science is presented
while conceding my scientific argument, but ignoring the fact that my objection
in its entirety had to do with science in the first place. I have no problem
with the supernatural or metaphysical beliefs of other people.
10. The Nazis are invoked to demonize people who disagree with the author's
view. I wonder what the Jews would have to say about this, because according to
their religion a baby becomes a full human life only at the time of birth, and
they support embryonic stem cell research and abortion for medical reasons.
11. Finally, self-perceived arrogance and condescension in my candid responses
are generalized to indict the entire medical community, and a sense of despair
is expressed for not being able to engage in a healthy debate because of them.
I guess comparing us with the Nazis and murderers is more conducive to a
healthy debate.
Cheers,
Santosh
P.S. BTW, I know a little bit about the history of ideas regarding personhood,
and how modern philosophers and medical ethicists view that question. I will
try to write something on it when I have some free time.
--- On Tue, 1/5/10, Averthanus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The discussion (rightly)focused on the vital question of
> whether an embryo or a foetus was a person or not.One
> argument advanced the view that a human being is not a
> “person” until some time after birth.The contributor
> (presumably a medical doctor) contended that a person is a
> human who is fully (please note)self conscious, who has an
> awareness of the world around him, and who freely exercises
> his will.
