- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 27,656
- Reaction score
- 12,050
- Location
- Over the edge...
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.Neither did a significant part of the U.S. population during the time of 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?
...as does marking it at conception and killing sperm. I've been over that before.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.
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.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 think that you mean "that's only significant when...." It's true, even if you don't place equal value on the two.That's only true when, for the purpose of your argument, you place equal importance on sperm and zygote.
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 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.
Indeed - I put practically no value on either sperm or zygotes (possibly very slightly more on zygotes, as they're rarer).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.
No, still not.I am correct
So are you, as you are trying to make the fetus so important as to render abortions illegal.and you place far too much importance on the right of one human to judge the importance (significance) of another.
Clearly, as limited to this debate, outlawing abortion. Am I mistaken on that?What is my motivation....since you know me so well?
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.
This is a lie. It's getting towards a deliberate lie, what with the number of times I've explained the following to you.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.
No, still not.
So are you, as you are trying to make the fetus so important as to render abortions illegal.
Clearly, as limited to this debate, outlawing abortion. Am I mistaken on that?
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.it's your only intention to deny personhood in favor of the mother's right to personal sovereignty.
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 '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?
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 you still are though.wrong
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?Wrong. Defining human life as beginning at conception removes the moral justification for one human to decide the worth and fate of another.
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.Now we are limiting our comments to the debate at hand?
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.
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?
One's children is the term I'd use.You mean, as applies to minors?
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.allowed to die? You sound very much like someone railing against God.
The rest is pointless....
You brought it up; I'm responding to you, not the other way around.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.
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".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.
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?
Fantastic!I certainly would. My answer should be obvious, however we could discuss reasoning.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?