• 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.

Neither did a significant part of the U.S. population during the time of slavery.
You are forgetting or missing something. Personhood was a tool back then used to an end. If that particular tool did not exist some other tool would have been used, the end having been the same. It was not personhood that changed allowing an end to slavery.
 
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?

I am correct. Defining personhood at any point later than conception grants a period of time (in the pro-choice mindset) where the life can be terminated without cause, since it is less than a person. That's really not all that difficult to grasp.
 
I am correct. Defining personhood at any point later than conception grants a period of time (in the pro-choice mindset) where the life can be terminated without cause, since it is less than a person. That's really not all that difficult to grasp.
...as does marking it at conception and killing sperm. I've been over that before.
 
...as does marking it at conception and killing sperm. I've been over that before.

That's only true when, for the purpose of your argument, you place equal importance on sperm and zygote.
 
I am correct. Defining personhood at any point later than conception grants a period of time (in the pro-choice mindset) where the life can be terminated without cause, since it is less than a person. That's really not all that difficult to grasp.
You are not correct if you care to look beyond your motivation and see just a bit bigger picture. Persons can be and are killed all the time. it is not personhood that motivates and justifies abortion but the lack of significance of the life of the fetus. Do you believe that pregnant women who abort, legally or illegally ever consider the personhood of the fetus they carry? All they know is that they do not want it so it is not important, it is insignificant. Otherwise they would not abort.
 
Last edited:
That's only true when, for the purpose of your argument, you place equal importance on sperm and zygote.
I think that you mean "that's only significant when...." It's true, even if you don't place equal value on the two.

Seeing as I do place equal value on them, however, it's both true and significant for me.
 
You are not correct if you care to look beyond your motivation and see just a bit bigger picture. Persons can be and are killed all the time. it is not personhood that motivates and justifies abortion but the lack of significance of the life of the fetus. Do you believe that pregnant women who abort, legally or illegally ever consider the personhood of the fetus they carry? All they now is that they do not want it so it is not important, it is insignificant. Otherwise they would not abort.

I am correct and you place far too much importance on the right of one human to judge the importance (significance) of another.

What is my motivation....since you know me so well?
 
I think that you mean "that's only significant when...." It's true, even if you don't place equal value on the two.

Seeing as I do place equal value on them, however, it's both true and significant for me.

If you place equal value on both, then the value you set must be very low, or irrelevant, in order to justify being pro-choice. I'll admit, I'm assuming you are pro-choice.
 
If you place equal value on both, then the value you set must be very low, or irrelevant, in order to justify being pro-choice. I'll admit, I'm assuming you are pro-choice.
Indeed - I put practically no value on either sperm or zygotes (possibly very slightly more on zygotes, as they're rarer).

I do, however, put value on a womans right to rid herself of either; or to prevent them from being in her in the first place.
 
Indeed - I put practically no value on either sperm or zygotes (possibly very slightly more on zygotes, as they're rarer).

I do, however, put value on a womans right to rid herself of either; or to prevent them from being in her in the first place.

and therefore all your arguments are focused on dehumanizing the fetus, and justifying abortion. Your arguments relating to defining personhood are dishonest as it's your only intention to deny personhood in favor of the mother's right to personal sovereignty.
 
I am correct
No, still not.

and you place far too much importance on the right of one human to judge the importance (significance) of another.
So are you, as you are trying to make the fetus so important as to render abortions illegal.

What is my motivation....since you know me so well?
Clearly, as limited to this debate, outlawing abortion. Am I mistaken on that?
 
Indeed - I put practically no value on either sperm or zygotes (possibly very slightly more on zygotes, as they're rarer).

I do, however, put value on a womans right to rid herself of either; or to prevent them from being in her in the first place.

and therefore all your arguments are focused on dehumanizing the fetus, and justifying abortion. Your arguments relating to defining personhood are dishonest as it's your only intention to deny personhood in favor of the mother's right to personal sovereignty.

In short, Ian...

You have no objectivity.

In fact, you have a bias towards a pre-determined outcome. You have already demonstrated this with comments like "when life begins doesn't matter" and the like.

It's kind of ridiculous to argue for a child's right to their life with someone who denies the relevance of when their 'life begins.'

Dontcha think?
 
Last edited:
and therefore all your arguments are focused on dehumanizing the fetus, and justifying abortion. Your arguments relating to defining personhood are dishonest as it's your only intention to deny personhood in favor of the mother's right to personal sovereignty.
This is a lie. It's getting towards a deliberate lie, what with the number of times I've explained the following to you.

Firstly, there are other reasons for putting 'personhood' as starting at a point other than conception; not least of which being: it's the truth!
Secondly, to imply that my purpose takes away any sort of credibility from my arguments is an ad hominem fallacy of 'attack the messenger'; this has been pointed out to you a great many times over the last few days.
Thirdly, 'dehumanise the foetus' is only true from your point of view: I see it as me telling the truth, and you trying to personify a clump of cells.
 
No, still not.

wrong

So are you, as you are trying to make the fetus so important as to render abortions illegal.

Wrong. Defining human life as beginning at conception removes the moral justification for one human to decide the worth and fate of another.

Clearly, as limited to this debate, outlawing abortion. Am I mistaken on that?

Now we are limiting our comments to the debate at hand?
 
it's your only intention to deny personhood in favor of the mother's right to personal sovereignty.
While I can only speak for myself, I do not want fetuses claimed as dependents while all other persons are. Nor do I want representatives chosen to represent them, or for them to be parties ownership or contracts.
 
In short, Ian...

You have no objectivity.

In fact, you have a bias towards a pre-determined outcome. You have already demonstrated this with comments like "when life begins doesn't matter" and the like.

It's kind of ridiculous to argue for a child's right to their life with someone who denies the relevance of when their 'life begins.'

Dontcha think?
You agree with me that 'personhood' is the most important thing, and that compariatively 'life' is an irrelevant factor when deciding on the legality of a particular situation. At least, if you don't, you should. See my 'four five questions' from the other thread, to summarise: both sperm and a zygote are alive, but you only believe a zygote to be a person, therefore it's personhood, not life, which dictates your different treatment of the two.

As for 'objectivity': I've said it several times that I'm waiting for you to respond to questions with an objective (dictionary) grounding. The fact that you've ignored it and are focusing on personal attacks implies that its' not me who should be worried about objectivity.
 
This is a lie. It's getting towards a deliberate lie, what with the number of times I've explained the following to you.

Firstly, there are other reasons for putting 'personhood' as starting at a point other than conception; not least of which being: it's the truth!
Secondly, to imply that my purpose takes away any sort of credibility from my arguments is an ad hominem fallacy of 'attack the messenger'; this has been pointed out to you a great many times over the last few days.
Thirdly, 'dehumanise the foetus' is only true from your point of view: I see it as me telling the truth, and you trying to personify a clump of cells.

You may disagree, but that doesn't make it a lie.

None of the reasons you've given or exist for defining the starting point for personhood at any point are any better served than defining it as starting at conception. That makes your point dishonest, or at the very least, misleading.

What is or what is not true from my point of view is in no way any less true than what is or what is not true from your point of view in regards to anything that is not clearly defined. Like personhood. All that you offer as defining personhood, is no more than your opinion, based on whatever facts you wish to offer.
 
No you still are though.

Wrong. Defining human life as beginning at conception removes the moral justification for one human to decide the worth and fate of another.
You are joking yes? That is why millions of people, born people, are allowed to die for too numerous reasons to list because their life started not at conception?

Now we are limiting our comments to the debate at hand?
I could only answer the question in the context we are debating. Clearly not knowing you I have no other basis. But by all means, please tell us anything you wish to share.
What else can we limit, or should, our comments to, but the debate we are engaged in?
 
While I can only speak for myself, I do not want fetuses claimed as dependents while all other persons are. Nor do I want representatives chosen to represent them, or for them to be parties ownership or contracts.

You mean, as applies to minors?
 
No you still are though.

You are joking yes? That is why millions of people, born people, are allowed to die for too numerous reasons to list because their life started not at conception?

I could only answer the question in the context we are debating. Clearly not knowing you I have no other basis. But by all means, please tell us anything you wish to share.
What else can we limit, or should, our comments to, but the debate we are engaged in?

allowed to die? You sound very much like someone railing against God.

The rest is pointless....
 
allowed to die? You sound very much like someone railing against God.

The rest is pointless....
I asure I have nothing against God and if I did I certainly would not debate it on a public forum. Some things are just too personal.
 
Mac said:
None of the reasons you've given or exist for defining the starting point for personhood at any point are any better served than defining it as starting at conception. That makes your point dishonest, or at the very least, misleading.
You brought it up; I'm responding to you, not the other way around.

What is or what is not true from my point of view is in no way any less true than what is or what is not true from your point of view in regards to anything that is not clearly defined. Like personhood. All that you offer as defining personhood, is no more than your opinion, based on whatever facts you wish to offer.
I'd love to discuss when personhood starts with you. I've been trying to manouver that for a while now - the same with Chuz. Instead, as soon as I get close, I'm met with regressions to "but it's life that matters", or "you're just not objective enough".

If I were to start a new thread asking for peoples opinions on when personhood started, would you be willing to participate?
 
You brought it up; I'm responding to you, not the other way around.

I'd love to discuss when personhood starts with you. I've been trying to manouver that for a while now - the same with Chuz. Instead, as soon as I get close, I'm met with regressions to "but it's life that matters", or "you're just not objective enough".

If I were to start a new thread asking for peoples opinions on when personhood started, would you be willing to participate?

I certainly would. My answer should be obvious, however we could discuss reasoning.
 
I certainly would. My answer should be obvious, however we could discuss reasoning.
Fantastic!

I shall do so in the morning. It's dangerously close to getting light outside here, I should have slept hours ago. If you can't wait, feel free to start without me!
 
Back
Top Bottom