Maybe that's why they let the employees do it.

I don't know. I just couldn't believe that after the first four years, anyone would elect Obama - and I was seriously wrong. I was sitting next to Dick Morris on Prediction Row.

Let me answer the question this way: it should.

KC- So essentially what you're saying is that it's okay for you to use "creation" and "civil rights" colloquially, but not for me to use "self-evident" colloquially, right?

This is silly. I was explaining why your use of the term "self-evident"  is colloquial and carries no weight epistemologically. 

[I apologize for the italicized quotes, but it seems my connection to Ricochet has lost the ability to "Quote."]

"If it is possible for the blastocyst to be five seperate human beings how is it accurate to call it a human being?"

Because whatever they are, they are developing into human beings on their own biological self-direction. Whatever they are, they are no longer merely material of the mother's uterus. They are a new independent entity.

After all, the whole logic of placing the beginning of life at the moment of conception is that until then, neither the sperm nor the egg can grow into a human being on its own. An egg alone doesn't start growing; sperm alone doesn't start growing. But as soon as the egg is fertilized, it does start growing, the first steps on the process of becoming a card-carrying libertarian. 

Logic only requires that the fertilized egg be an independently growing entity from the mother. 

However, in pure practical terms, let's face facts. The latest it splits is only a few hours after fertilization, long before the mother is even aware of being pregnant. 

"How is creation self-evident then?"

There is not nothing. Things exist. That's what we intend by the term [creation]. The idea that there is existence in the first place is simply observed. Existence is self-evident.

If you're suggesting that the term "creation" instead of "existence"  is pre-loaded to assume a creator, may I remind you that you introduced the term into this discussion to explain your use of the term "self-evident."

No, but that itself is still a judgment derived from an observation. It would be self-evident only if you observed the creator.

You're using the phrase "self-evident" to be synonymous with "taken for granted." In colloquial conversation that's fine, but it matters in epistemology, i.e., when you're trying to assert it as knowledge.

You've claimed that it's self-evident that a fertilized egg isn't a human being because it doesn't have a nervous system, or doesn't have organs, etc. But that's not what "self-evident" means, and instead of making an argument on observation, you're really making an argument based on things you take for granted. Well, just because you take it for granted doesn't mean that it's true, and in this case, those assumptions are indeed debatable.

"The difference between a legal person [..] and a human being is that a legal person is whatever the law says it is."

If you want that definition to be based on reason, rather than pure politics or public whim, you have to give some reason for it. That's what the discussion is about.

---

"The question of at what point a fertilized egg has developed enough to be considered a human being ... "

That assumes that [there is] some point where a fertilized egg "becomes" a human being. That's like asking when Clark Kent "becomes" Superman; admittedly the appearance may change, but Clark Kent is always Superman. There's no difference. Ever wonder why we can't "find" that threshold when the fetus "becomes" a human being? It's because there is no threshold to find.

In the case of having multiple embryos, suppose it splits into 5 of them? So what? They're all human beings.

As for whether they have organ development, again, why does that count as being necessary? Many born adults lack particular organs, so why would any organ be a necessary quality of civil rights?

No. An assumption is an inference. It is not itself "self-evident."

Something self-evident is confirmed by observation (i.e., evident). How is it possible to "observe" how a nervous system (or any other of the distinctions you adhere to) is required for civil rights?

And again, I'd rather you answer this question before any other: what quality does a legal person have that a human being doesn't?

It isn't. Creation is self-evident; the explanation of creation by a creator is inferred.

That doesn't explain why this factor was relevant.

That's because the distinction is silly. A skin cell is a part of a being, not a being in entirety by itself. The argument about "life from the moment of conception" is that this is the point at which a distinct being in itself begins.

To claim that civil rights only apply to legal persons is to claim that there's some distinction between living human beings and legal persons. Logically, that implies that a legal person must have some quality that a "mere" human being doesn't have. Can you identify (and justify) what that quality might be?

Much appreciated.I know you by now, Duane. I have no doubt of your sincerity. We don't always agree, but so what?

I agree that we should avoid addressing abortion as a theological argument. I say it's a moral argument, grounded in science but in which science isn't the judge of morality.

No, that's not a candidate for self-evidence. You can't just say that something is self-evident because you simply don't have any further analysis for your conclusion.

In fact, your argument rests on an assertion that isn't self-evident at all: namely, that a nervous system is necessary for something to qualify for civil rights.

Why?

The knowledge or awareness of one's rights isn't necessary for one to have them. A six-month old baby has no grasp of the notion of rights.

In what way is a nervous system necessary to have civil rights?

How ironic that an Administration accused of abusing power for political advantage is claiming that the criticism of that behavior is ... "political!"

Well, this is an interesting conversation on its own. It calls for reflection on a topic that Jesuits (among many others) spend a great deal of time on. I posted about it a few months ago.

We can start by looking at a word Jeff used above: "yet." That word is disjunctive. It says that whatever came before it is contradicted by whatever comes after. The assertion, then, is that the pursuit of the truth is contradicted if you must hold what the church holds.

That can only be asserted if you also hold that an individual has a right to withhold judgment until the truth has been proved to him personally, i.e., to his individual satisfaction.

That's a debatable proposition.

I loved that show, but I see your point. As I recall, Burke was trying to argue that these small innovations lead to bigger innovations, which make bigger discoveries possible. So far so good.

But these small innovations happen when something causes us to look at our assumptions and question things we hadn't questioned before. The willingness to go back and question assumptions, of course, is the essence of philosophy - that's probably why I loved that show.

Still, the best you can do is be prepared for discovery when it comes. You can't manufacture it. Donald Rumsfeld was right, we don't know what we don't know. We only learn it through experience, of re-examining assumptions when things break down.

We're hard-wired for prejudice, assumptions, and taking a lot for granted. That's because with the sheer volume of things we need to know, we can't re-examine every idea, every time we need it. We don't have time. Assumptions are necessary time-savers.

I have no trust in creating a universal assumption tester, because it can't possibly work. We don't have time.

I will testify to the idea that the notion of the Evil One and the prince of this world is part of Jesuit spirituality.

I just went through a book by the great theologian Karl Rahner reflecting on St. Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises (called, of all things, Spiritual Exercises.) It's a book I recommend; I've read it a handful of times, and each time, I discover something new and useful.

Throughout Ignatius' Exercises, The Enemy plays an important role. So much of Ignatian spirituality is based on the believer's role in the world, and the world's role in the believer's soul. That's a highly dynamic relationship, and the devil's role in trying to unravel that dynamic is worth reflection.

[Note: Francois Guy's comment in #11 is much appreciated.]

By the way, we used to laugh; why didn't anyone make a movie out of being lector, or porter, or altar boy?