Your source is not credible, and you keep ignoring it in favour of ad hominems against me. I am not twisting anything, and I pointed out why. Stop lying troll. Your source is a diatribe from some retarded Catholic who is too stupid to take seriously. Why?
For everyone in this thread, I will demonstrate the quality of source material Fantasy Girl uses to "refute us."
Statements in Article:
1. Science is what should govern decisions in ethics--she prides herself on being "scientific" and everyone else isn't. THen, however, she states these gems:
1. Pigs and Dogs are "higher primates," and thus have personhood. Not only is this scientifically inaccurate, it's a complete strawman of ethical theories. No theory of ethics claims this. This is the exact quote, both inaccurate scientifically and a logical strawman of the positiosn she's attacking:
therefore they should be substituted for the higher primates, e.g., dogs, pigs, gorillas, etc. - who are persons
Since when are dogs and pigs primates? Oh wait! They aren't. Your source is lying deliberately in order to convince the audience.
2. If sentience is a governing factor for personhood (ability to experience and feel pain), then teens cannot be considered persons, as well as newborns. feel pain. Wtf? DId you scrape the bottom of the barrel searching for these sources, or are you just a dishonest twat?
If either "sentience" (the ability to feel pain and pleasure) or "rational attributes" (willing, choosing, loving, self-consciousness, the ability to relate to the world around us, etc.) are the rationale for human "personhood", then newborns, young children, Alzheimers and Parkinson patients, alcoholics, drug addicts, street people, runaways, the mentally ill and retarded, the depressed, the frail elderly, comatose patients, paraplegics and other patients with paralysis, patients in a persistent vegetative state - perhaps even teen-agers or politicians - (to name but a few) are not "persons" either, and thus, by the same logic, could be "disposed of" or experimented on at will. In
A. Foremost, the idiot who wrote this ratcrap article is actually arguing that people in a vegetative or perma-comatose state with liquid brains deserve human rights like someone who is normal. That's absurd. You can be living off of your brainstem, and still qualify as a person according to this asshat.
B. She then claims that anyone who is mentaly ill or retarded can be disposed of at will. This is false, and a complete distortion of many ethical positions. Mental retardation does not = dispose of. It depends on the severity.
B. Runaways? What the hell? Total nonsequitor. Runaways have nothing to do with personhood. SHe's an imbecile.
C. Young children? Teens? They are persons too, according to the REAL critera, not the bogus, strawmen put up by this argument.
D. Street people? Has nothing to do with autonomy and self-awareness. It's obvious they are aware, since they are asking you for money. Shut up dumbass.
E. Teens and politicians? Please, this article is laughable.
Essentially, the article is lying about:
1. Personhood
2. Criteria for personhood (Love is not a factor, unlike what she says.)
3. Consequences of personhood
-----------------------------------------------
3. However, when a human embryo or human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be determined by scientists. When a human person begins is a philosophical question.
This clearly refutes Fantasy-girls bullcrap statement denigrading Personhood concepts and her call for science. Personhood is not science, but philosophy. Ethics is not science, but philosophy. Fantasy-girl consistantly IGNORES her mistake, yet continues to repeat the same crap like a retarded parrot. SCIENCE CANNOT DETERMINE MORALITY! GET IT! so stop saying "prove" ethics scientifically.
It's easy to justify; you just don't agree. Creationists don't agree with evolution either. I don't give a shi.t, really.
