• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I have to ask.

The definition of life has not been established and short of both sides agreeing on that it is possible that cherries and watermelons are being compared while arguing which is a legume?

Looks like a fitting topic for a new thread to me.
 
If you read a little more into it,... I think we are not only breaking a little bit of new ground here,... but we are doing so in a quite productive way.

And if something 'doesn't matter' to you?

Where in the hell does the need to announce it come from?

Because this is a fun game of pete and re-pete :mrgreen:
No new ground, no new waves, no new understanding over any of this - no one's jumping ship on their beliefs.

I don't see why you bother - it looks exhausting.
 
Because this is a fun game of pete and re-pete :mrgreen:
No new ground, no new waves, no new understanding over any of this - no one's jumping ship on their beliefs.

I don't see why you bother - it looks exhausting.

Can you please make this your last disruption in this thread?

I actually think we are gaining some new understanding.

At least I feel that I have been.
 
I am on topic, as I am speaking not only to the rationale, the reasoning and the moral consequences,... but also to the conclusions drawn as well.

Yourself, Jallman and others arrive at the conclusion that a child's life begins at 'brain activity' and I (and my ilk) for the most part conclude that the child's life begins much earlier (conception.)

I don't see how the case can be made that we are both correct in our conclusions.

So, I'll ask again.... Are we both correct in our conclusions for when a child's life begins or is one of us factually incorrect?
Subjectively? You can both be correct. Objectively? Clearly one (or both!) of you must be incorrect.

So... is 'life of a person' subjective, or objective?
 
It's false because in this thread (and others), plenty of reasons have been given; none of which matches your version. Seeing as it's our knowledge of our reasons vs your guesses at our reasons, our knowledge wins out.

Wow, that's rather arrogant isn't it? You're side is based on knowledge and mine on, what?

Chuz clearly defined the thread, he asked why is the personhood issue so prevalent in the abortion argument. You can spout some philosophical side reasons more fitting for a turtleneck wearing cocktail party or you can discuss it in the context the thread is concerned with.

In the context of the thread, I feel the personhood issue exists solely to dehumanize a fetus allowing for terminating it with a clear conscience. Disagree with that all you like, but your disagreement doesn't make my opinion false or dishonest.
 
I am on topic, as I am speaking not only to the rationale, the reasoning and the moral consequences,... but also to the conclusions drawn as well.

Yourself, Jallman and others arrive at the conclusion that a child's life begins at 'brain activity' and I (and my ilk) for the most part conclude that the child's life begins much earlier (conception.)

I don't see how the case can be made that we are both correct in our conclusions.

So, I'll ask again.... Are we both correct in our conclusions for when a child's life begins or is one of us factually incorrect?

Subjectively? You can both be correct. Objectively? Clearly one (or both!) of you must be incorrect.

So... is 'life of a person' subjective, or objective?

As it is (for the most part) indisputable that when it is killed, you have a dead something (in an abortion),.... (whatever you choose to call the thing killed,... you can't deny it was killed...)

It's tangible, it has a body of it's own,... it was alive and now it's dead....

I'm betting "objective."

And, if I may use a poker metaphor?

"I'm all in."
 
Wow, that's rather arrogant isn't it? You're side is based on knowledge and mine on, what?

Chuz clearly defined the thread, he asked why is the personhood issue so prevalent in the abortion argument. You can spout some philosophical side reasons more fitting for a turtleneck wearing cocktail party or you can discuss it in the context the thread is concerned with.

In the context of the thread, I feel the personhood issue exists solely to dehumanize a fetus allowing for terminating it with a clear conscience. Disagree with that all you like, but your disagreement doesn't make my opinion false or dishonest.
We're talking about my reasons for making an argument. I know what my reasons are - after all, they are mine. You don't know what my reasons are; you can only speculate. As such, I'm fully qualified to say when your speculation of my reasons doesn't match up to what my reasons actually are. That's not arrogant, it's simple fact.

I don't own any turtlenecks. I'm totally up for cocktails, though.

Chuz said:
As it is (for the most part) indisputable that when it is killed, you have a dead something (in an abortion),.... (whatever you choose to call the thing killed,... you can't deny it was killed...)

It's tangible, it has a body of it's own,... it was alive and now it's dead....

I'm betting "objective."
If you wish to believe that life is objective, then I'll (temporarily; I'm still undecided) treat it as such. In which case - either you, Jallman, or both of you must be wrong about when a person's life begins.
 
Last edited:
We're talking about my reasons for making an argument. I know what my reasons are - after all, they are mine. You don't know what my reasons are; you can only speculate. As such, I'm fully qualified to say when your speculation of my reasons doesn't match up to what my reasons actually are. That's not arrogant, it's simple fact.

I don't own any turtlenecks. I'm totally up for cocktails, though.


If you wish to believe that life is objective, then I'll (temporarily; I'm still undecided) treat it as such. In which case - either you, Jallman, or both of you must be wrong about when a person's life begins.

I've read your reasons, remember? We've discussed them, and from what I can tell, unless you've left something out, they all point back to justifying abortion. Which is why the issue is so often invoked in abortion arguments.

Knob Creek and cola?
 
I've read your reasons, remember? We've discussed them, and from what I can tell, unless you've left something out, they all point back to justifying abortion. Which is why the issue is so often invoked in abortion arguments.

Knob Creek and cola?
They really don't all point back at justifying abortion. You tried to twist them to do so, and failed. If you feel like another attempt at succeeding, I suggest you have another go in the appropriate thread.
 
They really don't all point back at justifying abortion. You tried to twist them to do so, and failed. If you feel like another attempt at succeeding, I suggest you have another go in the appropriate thread.

I didn't need to twist anything, the only reasons you listed that weren't directly related to justifying abortion didn't require a definition of personhood to exist anyway.
 
If you wish to believe that life is objective, then I'll (temporarily; I'm still undecided) treat it as such. In which case - either you, Jallman, or both of you must be wrong about when a person's life begins.

Isn't that Pretty much what I tried to say several posts ago?
 
I didn't need to twist anything, the only reasons you listed that weren't directly related to justifying abortion didn't require a definition of personhood to exist anyway.
Again, in your opinion. And very few of them were related to justifying abortion - one (and possibly a second at a stretch) were.

As I said a few minutes ago; who do you think is better at knowing how I think? You, or me?

Isn't that Pretty much what I tried to say several posts ago?
Not really, because at that point we were still talking about the realm of subjectivity. In fact, we still kinda are; we're using subjective arguments (or at least, subjective weighting of arguments) to try and find an (apparently) objective truth.
 
Isn't that Pretty much what I tried to say several posts ago?

Not really, because at that point we were still talking about the realm of subjectivity. In fact, we still kinda are; we're using subjective arguments (or at least, subjective weighting of arguments) to try and find an (apparently) objective truth.

I am not using subjective arguments for anything. And neither was I speaking of subjective arguments when I said;

I see,.... well unless you are claiming we are both correct in our conclusions,... I fail to see how you are not making the suggestion I mentioned (that one of us is incorrect).
 
Last edited:
I am not using subjective arguments for anything. And neither was I speaking of subjective arguments when I said;
It wasn't that which was being disagreed with (at least, that's how I read it). It was your earlier inferrence that, because there was a disagreement, Jallman must think that you are irrational/amoral/etc.

As I said, I may disagree with your reasons (in fact, as long as I still disagrre with your conclusions, it's more of a must), but that doesn't mean that I think you're irrational. You just give different things different importances that I do.
 
It wasn't that which was being disagreed with (at least, that's how I read it). It was your earlier inferrence that, because there was a disagreement, Jallman must think that you are irrational/amoral/etc.

As I said, I may disagree with your reasons (in fact, as long as I still disagrre with your conclusions, it's more of a must), but that doesn't mean that I think you're irrational. You just give different things different importances that I do.

Since you are making far less sense now that you were earlier,... I will clarify MY comments again.

Two people can not (in my opinion) claim to use reason, rationale and give consideration to the moral consequences,... come to seperate (opposite) conclusions for when a child's life begins and BOTH be objectively correct.
 
Disagree with that all you like, but your disagreement doesn't make my opinion false or dishonest.
You are right, but of course you left out the important characteristic, being correct and that you are not. How is it possible to use personhood to dehumanize when it only applies, in this debate to humans?
 
Since you are making far less sense now that you were earlier,... I will clarify MY comments again.

Two people can not (in my opinion) claim to use reason, rationale and give consideration to the moral consequences,... come to seperate (opposite) conclusions for when a child's life begins and BOTH be objectively correct.
Except if both are rather subjective and thus are arguing different ideas.
 
Except if both are rather subjective and thus are arguing different ideas.

Again, I am talking about the conclusions,.... Not the means of reasoning.

Either a child is a child or it is not. Either it is alive or it is not. Either it's life began at conception or it did not.

These (above) are not subjective conclusions.
 
Since you are making far less sense now that you were earlier,... I will clarify MY comments again.

Two people can not (in my opinion) claim to use reason, rationale and give consideration to the moral consequences,... come to seperate (opposite) conclusions for when a child's life begins and BOTH be objectively correct.
If the reason, rationale and morals are subjective, then both people can use their own versions to come up with a different (objective) answer - one of which will be objectively incorrect.

I'm still not convinced that personhood is objective, however.
 
If the reason, rationale and morals are subjective, (a notion that has not been confirmed or substantiated) then both people can use their own versions to come up with a different (objective) answer - one of which will be objectively incorrect.

I'm still not convinced that personhood is objective, however.

Neither did a significant part of the U.S. population during the time of slavery.

Aparently, it is more objective now than it was then.
 
Last edited:
Neither did a significant part of the U.S. population during the time of slavery.

Aparently is more objective now than it was then.
That's a non-sequiter; it's irrelevant. I'm not sure it's true, either, though I have little interest in finding out.

Are you going to get around to responding to the posts which you said you would? I think we've been moored in pointless subjectivity for long enough now, if you're veering off into sidelines on slavery.
 
That's a non-sequiter; it's irrelevant. I'm not sure it's true, either, though I have little interest in finding out.

Are you going to get around to responding to the posts which you said you would? I think we've been moored in pointless subjectivity for long enough now, if you're veering off into sidelines on slavery.

Were it not for the plethera of posts that followed that thread, I would have already gotten to that.

Do you care to slow down long enough on this other stuff, for me to go back and review it?
 
Again, I am talking about the conclusions,.... Not the means of reasoning.

Either a child is a child or it is not. Either it is alive or it is not. Either it's life began at conception or it did not.

These (above) are not subjective conclusions.
But the conclusions are arrived at on different basis. I understand what you are saying and am fully aware of your position on this. However consider this and I am only speaking for myself here.
As you know I do not dispute that the fetus IS alive as it is the result of "live matter" and life can not originate from dead matter. So yes it is living, alive as defined by just about any scientific standard. Yet and here comes the kicker, I believe that a child's life starts at birth. Why? because to me life is more, a lot more than biological function. That is why I do not have an issue with disconnecting terminally ill from life support. That is why I have DNR instructions with me all the time. I define life, human life, as the interaction we have with each other and our environment. Ever use or hear the expression "I feel so alive" after some particular event someone experienced? Did they feel dead before? No, but life IS more than just metabolizing nutrients and ejecting waste. What would you consider your life if all that is dear to you was taken away, not harmed or anything like that, but you deprived of it?

Do you see not that the conclusions can be different based on different underlying reasons?
 
Back
Top Bottom