Abortion and Morality
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- In this video we discuss to what extent a fetus has personhood and the implications of that conclusion.
Next video "What does the Bible really say about abortion?"
• What does the Bible re...
Table of contents:
What gives us personhood? 3:00
Is a fetus of equal value to the mother? 8:00
Does the fetus have any value at all? 9:21
A helpful and slightly ridiculous analogy (explosions included): 10:00
Josie Cunningham example: 12:14
Our disagreement with each other: 15:00
Our agreement: 16:00
Are you taking the side of Utilitarianism? 16:20
What makes abortion unique? 16:58
Candid section where we left the camera on and I'm caught acting ridiculous: 18:05
Candid discussion continues "I wanted to say that but I didn't want to disrupt you...." 18:32
Video Responses to this video:
• Video
Links used in the analogy:
• Act of Valor
Thumbs up for the young ladies point of view.
She likes your thumbs up.
it´s good to see a video from you again! i enjoyed that very much! everything that needs to be on the table in that discussion has been mentioned (in your video), and the truck analogy gave me a new perspective on the issue.
Excellent. I'm really glad you found some if it useful.
I suspect you've already read it, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts concerning the famous Judith Jarvis Thomson essay "A Defense of Abortion." In it, she argues that even if we assume (for the sake of argument) that the fetus possesses personhood from the moment of conception, we should still view abortion as morally permissible (in a large number of cases, anyway). She employs some really famous thought-experiments in support of her view (such as the "unconscious violinist"); it would be interesting to hear your take on them.
I agree, she gave a really interesting argument.
There is another youtuber named "knownnomore" that gave a particularly fascinating response to that argument IMO.
Quite a thought provoking video, I often find myself going back and forth on this issue. On one hand aborting life can be beneficial, on the other hand it can be disastrous. It's best error on the side of caution and allow the choices to be available to all of whether to abort or not.
Thanks for the video. You mentioned that altruism is involved in continuing the pregnancy. Altruism is defined as "the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others."
I think it's helpful to note that the guardian of a toddler has an obligation to provide due care for that child, which is why child neglect is illegal. We may call housing, feeding and raising a toddler a "practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being" of the child, but if the guardian fails to do it, they're going to jail for child neglect.
Similarly, we may call refer to housing and feeding the unborn fetus as altruistic, but if the mother does abort, hasn't she violated the obligation of a parent to her child?
That does not mean we do not honor parents, especially mothers who typically do more of the work in raising children. It is both altruistic and a duty once someone creates a human being, regardless if that was their intention or not, to provide due care. It is one of those rare instances where altruism is such a compelling duty that neglect of that duty is illegal. Thanks again.
I think the bible is clear when a person becomes a soul. Genesis 2:5 says God breathed the breath of life into Adam and he became a living soul. Leviticus 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood. We know blood carries oxygen in it. So I would say from the beginning when the fetus has its own blood, that's when I consider the fetus to be a living soul.
I think an important question to ask yourself is this, what would remove the possible person-hood between one act of abortion and the other act of abortion of the fetus? If in one instance, as in self defense is acceptable form of killing in a full grown adult, then likewise it would be acceptable in forms of abortion, yet if it is not acceptable to kill a full grown adult do to the psychological damage it does to you, it would not be acceptable to kill the fetus, if said fetus has the same intrinsic value as the mother. So if we are to judge these instances on our inability to know and erring on the side of caution, then we ought to judge these acts as if they are done to individuals we know have value.
(Personally there is a good deal in your argument that I do have disagreements with, but I bring up this point for the sake of argument and getting a better understanding of the situation at hand. Interesting perspective and I'm glad to see you posting again! I have missed your videos : D!)
" if said fetus has the same intrinsic value as the mother."
This is the difference. I don't think early on the fetus does have the same value. The later on in the pregnancy, the greater the probability that the fetus is of similar value to the mother. The earlier in the pregnancy, the less that probability is.
Epydemic2020 Yes, but I am talking about your ere on the side of caution comment. If we are to properly do this then we must take all cases as cases that the fetus has intrinsic value.
Though I have to admit I disagree with your argument that we don't know whether or not it is human but that was something I decided not to argue since I thought it more proper to argue your conclusion based on ones inability to know and that we therefore must ere on the side of caution.
My brother had this to say when I talked to him about it. (Like you he is a philosophy major, I am going to go to school for early church history and minor in philosophy, anyways:) I disagree with him about it being impossible to know the intrinsic value of a fetus. It's pretty obvious, if it is human it has intrinsic value and if it isn't then it does not. If he's saying it isn't human then how so? It seems to me that your argument hinges on the Christian position of when the soul becomes part of the fetus, yet most Christians I talk to do not truly argue this, rather they argue that because it is human it has value, so if you believe it isn't then how so?
I might also add that Aquinas would argue, that the soul is a necessary part of the organism which cannot exist without the soul. (Aka, with a soul from conception.)
Sorry for the lengthy reply >.
KainL33
"I might also add that Aquinas would argue, that the soul is a necessary part of the organism which cannot exist without the soul. (Aka, with a soul from conception.)"
I disagree. Stay tuned for the video on church fathers and abortion, I will talk a great deal about aquinas and his view on souls.
" if it is human it has intrinsic value and if it isn't then it does not."
I disagree with this bit too. It is not my title as "human" that gives me value. If an alien had personhood (capacity to reason, sense pain and pleasure, etc) then I would view it as valuable. It is personhood that I care about, not so much the mere fact that you are biologically considered human.
If someone was on life support, meaning their brain was dead, yet they were still "a living human" would you find it immoral to terminate them?
If yes, I think this shows that what you would really care about is personhood rather than the mere fact that we are talking about a "living human".
Epydemic2020
Hi. I think your brain dead example is a category error. Brain dead is not same as brain in early development. Even if we take early embryo where there is no brain, it is not same as brain dead. Just like we would not call babies uneducated while we will call the adults uneducated.
Wlof25
I wasn't trying to make an analogy about abortion.
Instead I was arguing "merely being alive and human is not the reason you think people are of value" and used braindead/uethenasia cases to make that point clearer.
why does that woman look uncomfortable ? and she doesn't say much...
Welcome back, Epydemic. Here are a few other considerations you didn't mention. What if the mother lives in a barbaric or oppressed society? What if the mother is sadistic or abusive? Would that mean that the life of the fetus has higher priority over hers if the pregnancy puts her life in jeopardy, or would it mean that we should encourage her to abort to spare the child a miserable upbringing? What if the mother is irresponsible, negligent, or lacks the financial means to care for the child properly? Is it better to roll the dice and hope that a good family will adopt the child, or is it better to terminate the fetus which really has no appreciable life experience yet?
There's no inherent right or wrong answer to any of these questions because they ultimately boil down to personal value judgments. I won't bother getting into the details, but value judgments are subjective by definition. So there's really no way for me to be persuaded by the argument that we should err on the side of caution just in case the fetus _does_ have [objective] value. Let me ask you: do you believe it's possible for chocolate to have more inherent value than vanilla? If you think it isn't possible, then what differentiates that type of preference from any other preference? I value my chocolate ice cream over the life of any sadistic ISIS terrorist. Could I be objectively wrong about that? How? Even if an eternal god creator with different moral values considered it wrong, it would still only be subjectively wrong with respect to its personal goals and desires. If that same god created us to be lab rats in some sort of experiment, why should we be beholden to those goals?
See, the concepts of objective right/wrong/rational/irrational only make sense with respect to a goal. If my goal is to be considered a "moral" person or to be closer to God, then it would be objectively "wrong" for me to murder an innocent person purely for fun (according to the common conception of moral behavior). But if my goals in life are hedonistic or I want to move closer to Satan because I resent God, then it would no longer be objectively "wrong" to act immorally. The logic is similar to the classic is/ought gap; we can conceivably determine whether something "is" objectively moral or immoral by definition, but we can't determine whether people "ought" behave morally or immorally without considering their goals. God or no god, it's the goal that determines whether an act is right or wrong, and that goal is always based on a personal value judgment. So long as it's internally consistent and not in conflict with some other held goal or priority, I see no meaningful sense in which any goal can be considered intrinsically or objectively wrong. Fortunately, most of us share the same goal for a peaceful and prosperous society, so there are many things we can easily agree are objectively wrong. It's not so easy to get that consensus on abortion, though, because that decision hinges on goals and priorities that are based on very different ideas of what constitutes a valuable life.
"do you believe it's possible for chocolate to have more inherent value than vanilla?"
No.
" If you think it isn't possible, then what differentiates that type of preference from any other preference?"
If morality is "Subjective" then the word "good" refers to nothing more than a preference. This is not my position, nor the position described by any philosophers that believe in "objective morality". In short, I don't believe morality is merely a type of preference.
"Even if an eternal god creator with different moral values considered it wrong, it would still only be subjectively wrong with respect to its personal goals and desires"
I don't know of anyone alive that argues something is wrong solely because God doesn't like something.
There are efficient and inefficient ways to achieve w/e goals we have, but this doesn't tell us anything about what is objectively good or objectively bad.
"Fortunately, most of us share the same goal for a peaceful and prosperous society, so there are many things we can easily agree are objectively wrong."
Having the same goal doesn't make that goal objectively good. It does, however, make people likely to want to act in similar ways to obtain that goal.
On the Christian model with ensoulment, ensoulment at the moment the reproductive cells join to form a zygote seems unlikely given the existence of monozygotic twins as well as chimeras. In the former, two souls are required at a later stage in the development of the split zygote, in the latter two purportedly ensouled zygotes merge to form one zygote.
Awesome comment. I'm going to look into that some more. That idea might make it into a future video.
Epydemic2020 Looking forward to that possible future video. :)
Abortion and Morality I can't figure how to make a video response... so check the link here.. hope it spreads some light...
Exodus 21 in most translations sets up an OT law that punishes a man for killing an unborn human being.
Also, many verses in the Bible say that the same person outside the womb was also inside the womb. There isn't a disconnect, but it's the same person:
Psa 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb
Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
Isa_44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb…
Exodus 21 is going to be talked about a lot in the next video.
Also, the "babe" the womb in greek is translated into other words that denote value and personhood. Someone to be cherished, not aborted:
Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost
The same greek word for "babe" here is used to refer to the "babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger" (Luke 2:12), "they brought unto him also infants" (Luke 18:15) and "from a child thou has known the holy scriptures" (2 Timothy 3:15).
Don't worry, the biblical video is coming.
I think the Kant argument that a fetus does not reason fails based on Kantian ethics under the maxim of universality. That if everyone practiced abortion, then no one would exist, therefor abortion is wrong. So the "mere reason" we hold which gives us the ability to practice metaphysical ontologies like universality's obligates us to conclude abortion is wrong. Maybe this reasoning is slight circular, but i am Ok with it. (ive only watched 5 minutes so far)
to clarify: "To reason is to be a person, to reason to the conclusion a potential person is not to be a person, is to not have reason and therefore not be a person"
Basically if you come to conclusion that someone who "can potentially" have reason can be terminated, your reason fails you.
A bit of a mix of the FLO argument and Reason=person. thinking aloud.
There is only one categorical imperative. That means that all versions of the categorical imperative are saying the exact same thing. It's not possible to fail only the maxim of universality.
Abortion doesn't fail the maxim of universalizability, because although it leads to a negative consequence (the non-existence of future humans) it does not lead to a logical contradiction when trying to impliment that maxim. While it does terminate fetus's, a fetus was not a rational agent, and therefore it does not impede there ability to follow the maxim as well.
Murder is a nonsensical maxim, because obeying the maxim to murder simultaneously makes it impossible for others to obey that maxim.
The same is not true of killing non-rational creatures.
If you slip something inside someones drink that puts them to sleep and then they die so that they do not suffer at all, you have still deprived them of their life. From a utilitarian viewpoint, you don't have to cause pain in the act of homicide in order for homicide to be wrong, otherwise it's not homicide that is wrong, but the pain inflicted. If it were only the pain that mattered, punching someone would be worse than killing them through a painless method. Depriving someone of their life is wrong regardless of pain.
Multiple church fathers wrote specifically against abortion:
Jerome 384 A.D.
Letter XXII. To Eustochium
"Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder."
The Octavius of Minucius Felix (around 210 A.D.)
Chapter 30
"But the Gentiles, Both Cruelly Expose Their Children Newly Born, and Before They Are Born Destroy Them by a Cruel Abortion."
"There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth."
Writings of Athenagoras (2nd century Church Father)
Chapter 35
"And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it."
If what gives you value is your ability to reason, newborns are not persons because they cannot reason yet. Are we going to deny those humans personhood?
Only if you are a Kantian.
Epydemic2020 Agreed. I'm just showing there's a problem with basing personhood on mental ability. Actually, any line of personhood based on nervous system development or mental ability runs into a number of issues.
PrevailVideos
Iinterestingly Christians usually believe in something called "natural law". It is the soul that gives us value. However, what is a soul?
Aquinas has a very influential answer to us. He argues that a soul has 3 parts. It has the life giving part (vegitative part) the passionate part that motivates us and allows us to have appetites and desires (appetitive part) and finally the part of the soul that deals with reason (contemplative part).
St Thomas Aquinas argues that what seperates us from animals and plants and makes us "in the image of God" is our capacity for reason, moral action, etc. We are like God in that way, the way in which other animals and plants are not.
For him, a Fetus would still be of value even before it has the contemplative part of the soul fully manifest. Reason isn't the ONLY thing that makes a fetus valuable. But it certainly was part of the puzzle of what ultimately gives human moral worth.
Epydemic2020 Genesis 9:6 says the reason unjustified homicide is illegal in Gods sight is because we're made in Gods image. As there is no clear definition on what that means from Scripture, we need to look at other verses to tell us about the value of the unborn. I quoted some those verses in one of my comments here. I don't want to suggest that those guys were not intelligent, but clearly they differ and those differences are because Scripture doesn't speak to when the soul comes in. They'd have to show that the soul is necessary for one to be made in Gods image and I'm not sure even that can be proven from Scripture, let alone whether the soul is present at fertilization or after. Generally, when we have a clear concept in scripture (the value of the unborn), we consider that more than an unclear concept (when the soul comes in).
Epydemic2020 Hi. This was an interesting video. I wanted to pick your brain if you have the time. Around 13m or so you started talking about avoiding psychologically traumatic events being reasonably enough justification for an abortion. My question is do you think that having an abortion is/is not a psychologically traumatic event? Do you think coupling rape and an abortion is beneficial to a woman's psychological state or harmful? It's seems contradictory.
I appreciate any response you have time for. Take care.
I'm not sure if abortion actually helps the rape victims. I suspect in some cases it would, although I suspect my girlfriend would disagree.
I know not having the exact source doesn't help credit this statement, but I was listening to a radio station not too long ago and the gentlemen speaking was discussing statistics in regards to woman and abortions and he went on to state that a study showed that woman who have abortions (just abortions, not including the traumatic event or rape) have significantly higher suicidal tendencies and even attempts. If one were so inclined they could look up the numbers, but it seems reasonable. Here's just one link off a search:
www.life.org.nz/suicide/suicidekeyissues/abortion-and-suicide/
I think that even having the baby and giving it up for adoption comes with more relief than having an abortion. The woman at least gets to live with the knowledge that her baby is alive somewhere being nurtured and growing rather than destroyed (and in some cases dismembered) and discarded.
Thank you for the dialogue.
*****
The most powerful argument in favor of it being morally permissible for rape victims comes from philosophy IMO.
If you stick around, I'll have a video out about it.
To give a hint, it has to do with a modified version of the "violinist argument", which is a very powerful thought experiment put forward by a person who is on the pro-abortion side of things.
I'll eventually have a critique of that position, but my objections ultimately don't undermine the force of that argument against abortions in the instance of rape.
I might be spoiling a bit too much about that future video.
Hey you still exist!
Question, is it ever permissible to kill an infant if doing so spares the mother from experiencing intense psychological suffering?
My answer is at the 15 minute mark. The girl in the video and I do not agree on the answer though.
Well my question is with regards to infants not fetuses
In others words, lets say hypothetically that a newly born child somehow causes intense psychological suffering on the mother that is roughly equivalent to carrying a pregnancy to term. Would it be permissible for the mother to end the life of the child to spare herself the intense suffering?
Mido F
Oh, I missed the infant versus fetus distinction. I do not think killing an infant is morally acceptable to save the mom mere suffering.
Agreed, so if one were to establish that a newly born child has the same level of personhood as, say, a late term fetus then terminating that pregnancy,even if it would spare the mother intense suffering, would not be morally permissible right?
In Christianity, there has been some disagreement about the science of when life begins in the womb, but the church has always taught that life in the womb is a human life and abortion is always wrong. This website has some of the beliefs of the early church, and they're very consistent.
www.catholic.com/tracts/abortion
First of all, thanks for the link.
My first concessions is that biblically, whether early Christian or Jew, nobody supports abortion. The question is to what extent they are in opposition to it.
That being said, Catholics in particular are very engaged in natural law theory. While there is a tradition suggesting souls come at birth (a non-biblical tradition it seems to me after reading the Bible) both Aquinas and Augustine argue that a soul is not implanted at conception. Aquinas even had some of his views on this issue accepted as cannon, despite a general trend of the church to disagree. Aquinas, for example, argues that a fetus does not have a soul to the same extent that we do. (they only have part of the soul in fetal development).
The churches understanding of natural law is often informed by "the study of nature" or science. That being said, our science wasn't as good back then as it is now (and the science of figuring out if and when we have a soul or not is inherently difficult to do). I might make a video addressing this particular concerns as well.
The topic of my next video will focus on primarily biblical sources and their implications, as well as what Early Jews had to say about the Hebrew Bible's comments on abortion.
"What is it that makes a fetus valuable? If we don't know the answer to that question, then we're certainly not going to know for sure whether a fetus has value or to what extent they have value at 1 month and 5 days."
The burden of proof on the pro-choice side is not merely to show that there is 1.) disagreement over the personhood of the fetus or 2.) doubt over the personhood of the fetus. Once it is established that the fetus might be a person, the burden of proof on the pro-choice side is to prove that the unborn are not persons. The pro-life side doesn't need to prove the unborn are persons, but only prove that there's reason to believe they could be persons. For example:
If you're hunting and you see the bushes moving and it might be your fellow hunter (think person in the womb) or it might be a deer (think non-person in the womb), do you shoot or not shoot? The rule is, if you don't know, don't shoot.
If you're driving on a dark road and you see something in the street that could be a garbage bag blowing or a homeless person in an overcoat, do you drive over it or not? The rule is, if you don't know, don't drive over it.
If you're fumigating an elementry school with a chemical that could be lethal for a small child and you hear something that could be a child playing inside or could be animals, do you fumigate or not fumigate?
The true skeptic about the personhood of the unborn is anti-abortion just as he is anti-shooting the bush, anti-driving over the thing in the road and anti-fumigating an elementary school that may have children in it.
"If you're hunting and you see the bushes moving and it might be your fellow hunter (think person in the womb) or it might be a deer (think non-person in the womb), do you shoot or not shoot? The rule is, if you don't know, don't shoot.
If you're driving on a dark road and you see something in the street that could be a garbage bag blowing or a homeless person in an overcoat, do you drive over it or not? The rule is, if you don't know, don't drive over it.
If you're fumigating an elementry school with a chemical that could be lethal for a small child and you hear something that could be a child playing inside or could be animals, do you fumigate or not fumigate?
The true skeptic about the personhood of the unborn is anti-abortion just as he is anti-shooting the bush, anti-driving over the thing in the road and anti-fumigating an elementary school that may have children in it."
it took me forever to come up with the law rocket example... and you go and come up with 3 similar examples in no time.
are you an atheist pro-life activist?
Epydemic2020 If it makes you feel any better, I got these examples from a pro-life philosopher. I think it was Scott Klusendorf.
***** I became pro-life as an atheist based on many of the reasons I've described here. I later became a Christian, but as you can see, that's not the basis for why abortion should be illegal in most circumstances. For example, a compelling case can be made against stealing from an atheist perspective or from a religious perspective, but that doesn't mean a law against stealing is somehow violating separation of church and states. Similar with abortion. The pro-life view arises out of 1.) science and 2.) shared values that all human life has value and deserves legal protection.
"Good people were born from acts of rape" is a complete non-sequitor. I know it has initial sway and that is why pro-life individuals use the argument, but it can be flipped right around on its ear and say, "Well, really bad people were born from acts of rape." Further, if you agree that the environment a child grows up in plays a large role in determining the quality of the adult, then I would say that should a woman be forced to carry to term and raise a child, that child is less likely than a "desired" child to grow up as a positive member of society. I am honestly surprised, Epydemic, given that you are seeking to teach philosophy last I heard, that you missed that one.
That camera was left on for 20 extra minutes at the end. We hit a lot of topics, but I didn't ever phrase my objection quite like you did. That was a good one.
He looks kinda like James Franco.
Ouch.
A fetus isn't "valuable" unless someone values it. It may at some point be able to experience a value state (e.g. pain or suffer)...but considering the harm that would come about if we don't abort, which will almost always be substantially more than if we abort, it's unethical to not abort. But then again I'm a type of negative utilitarian and antinatalist. You know...a more "extreme" end of the spectrum. The end that says its unethical to not abort. ;-)
"A fetus isn't "valuable" unless someone values it."
That's a consistent thing for a utilitarian to say, but only if we posit that we are talking about before the fetus develops a nervous system.
Then again, negative utilitarianism argues that pain should be avoided more than pleasure sought.. so that would fly in the face of almost every other moral view.
Epydemic2020 - Well, strictly speaking, the word "valuable" doesn't mean anything if an agent isn't placing value upon something. It's not just just a utilitarian thing, it's what the word means.
Full disclosure: I haven't actually watched the video, I just opened the tab and looked at the comments to get a feel for what this video is about, so I apologize if I'm off topic.
Venaloid
I actually figured you might argue something like that right when I saw your name pop up.
Philosophers that believe in subjective morality use the word valuable to mean "What people value".
Philosophers that believe in objective morality use the word valuable to mean "what is factually worthy of value independently of what human beings actually do choose to value".
I, as well as the philosophers we looked at to talk about personhood (with the possible exception of some utilitarians) fall into that later camp.
Epydemic2020
_"Then again, negative utilitarianism argues that pain should be avoided more than pleasure sought.. so that would fly in the face of almost every other moral view."_
That's true, I just thought I'd give the "other end" of the "ethical view" spectrum for the topic. And unlike Venaloid I'm an ethical realist...the fetus is (at some point) "factually able to experience a value state"...rather than "be evaluated". The distinction between "intrinsic" and "instrumental" value. ;-)
...and btw so are chickens, pigs, and cows (for comparison).
Epydemic2020 - Alright then, I guess I'll have to take a look back at the discussion you had with TheoreticalBullshit. 'Bout time I got back into the fray.
You were gone for way too long.
Agreed.
my mom had 6 abortisons
So what are your thoughts about this topic?
Epydemic2020 i think its bad becouse she did it becouse she hated kids she did not kill me becouse i was 26 weeks
Sorry, I'm technologically challenged. I tried to make a video response. Apparently, You Tube is not so "user friendly" as it was in the past. Any ways... I made a reply video on my channel... hope you can check it out.
They did away with video responses! Can you believe that?
Anyway, I'll check out your video and even link it in the more info section.
I have some objections to the arguments but dont have time to write it down, plus it would be too long. I will just try to mention one.
I dont really see how personhood is important for determining who have more or less value, nor who can be killed. For example, my 5 dogs are individual persons. They all have their own behavior, they way then do things, what they like and dislike, what make them happy and what make them sad and scared,etc.
But, we dont value dogs as much as we value humans even if we are are all persons. Why is that? It seams to me, it is because they are not human and not having person hood like humans does. But, that is as I can see, literally saying that we are valuable because we are humans and we as a humans have specific abilities that only humans have. You cant have human person hood and not being human. Just because we are humans, we have human person hood . That is the one of the reasons why I see person hood issue very flimsy.
It also sound so arbitrary, like, group of people come and decide that those who have specific ability have more value then others and are worthy of life. I dont see much of a difference if group of people decide that those who have specific set of genes have more value then others and are worthy of life and others are not.