When is it a person?

[OKgrannie]

He was "biologically speaking" not "practically speaking".

Physical distance between individuals is not necessary for those individuals to be distinct from one another.

A fetus is not just "touching" the pregnant woman, or "leaning against her". The fetus is ATTACHED, and depends upon that attachment for its very life. It is INSIDE the pregnant woman, not just in close proximity. A fetus is not INDIVIDUAL.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am not defending abortion. I am a celibate male with no need for an opinion.

Is that all it takes to cop-out?

Iwish you would have told me that sooner!

In fact, I wish the Constitution would make that more clear in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments!

Frankly, I don't really care who you kill, though I am generally against the violation of someone else's rights.

WOW

That's very profound.

You don't by any chance know anything about multiple personality disorders,... do you?

Intellectually, my preferred solution is to remove the in-tact embryo and see if it can survive on its own, whether by god or by science.

But here I am just looking for answers to the question at hand: When is it a person?

Seriously, How much research have you conducted in your efforts to answer this for yourself?

 

[Goobieman]

A fetus is not just "touching" the pregnant woman, or "leaning against her". The fetus is ATTACHED, and depends upon that attachment for its very life. It is INSIDE the pregnant woman, not just in close proximity. A fetus is not INDIVIDUAL.

As has been noted before...
A tapeworm is inside, not part of, its host; it, and in a similar manner, a fetus, is indeed an individual.

Individuality is not determined by where you live or how you get your food.

 

[reefedjib]

A fetus is just meat. No murder there. It is not a person.

 

[Tsunami]

I don't need to ask a question. I refuted your points. If you do not want to defend your points, that's up to you I guess, but then, to continue to think you are right without producing any valid answers shows you are closed-minded and trolling.

What point have you ever refuted of mine? I was just trying to find out your position, something you continue to keep secret.

That's not what I said.
I said that:
You absolutely have the right to take a human life when that human life puts your life in a condition of clear, present and immediate mortal danger -- with the implication that if said threat does not exist, you do not have said right.

Sounds like self defense to me. What is the difference? You don't think war or the death penalty is justifiable?

That's also not what I said.
I said that:
I do not believe I have made a disctinction between a zygote and those who may be braid dead -- both are human, both are alive, and thus, both are human lives.

So how is that different from what I said? Is there a distinction and you just refuse to enlighten us? Or is there a difference between a 'human life' and a 'person'? Or what?

Thats simple enough -- the same as the difference between the individual parts from the whole. You already agreed that a wart is not a human life unto itself, so it appears you get it.
So...?

I get that they are different, we are discussing how they are different and when they become different. For me, it is mostly about brain function, though it may be as early as gastrulation. I have already posted my reasoning. I have yet to see yours. Perhaps I missed it?

 

[Chuz Life]

A fetus is not just "touching" the pregnant woman, or "leaning against her". The fetus is ATTACHED, and depends upon that attachment for its very life. It is INSIDE the pregnant woman, not just in close proximity. A fetus is not INDIVIDUAL.

CELL;
"In biology, the basic unit of a living organism. It is the smallest unit capable of independent existence."

So,... let's get this right.

An individual skin cell can independently exist.

A single blood cell or sperm or egg cell,.... likewise.

But if a sperm and egg cell unite,... become a new organism, begin cell division, form themself into a human fetus.....

That fetus can NOT "independently exist" because the fetus (unlike the skin cells, blood cells, etc....) is somehow more attached than all the other cells in the woman's body are....

Is that about it?

Really?

 

[Goobieman]

What point have you ever refuted of mine?

Our conversation has been replete with them.

I was just trying to find out your position, something you continue to keep secret.

Not at ALL sure how you can say that.

Sounds like self defense to me. What is the difference?

You used incorrect terminology when stating my psotion.
My position has nothing to do with having the right to take the life of a person.

So how is that different from what I said? Is there a distinction and you just refuse to enlighten us? Or is there a difference between a 'human life' and a 'person'?

Clearly, yes. Have you not paid attention at all?

I get that they are different, we are discussing how they are different and when they become different. For me, it is mostly about brain function, though it may be as early as gastrulation. I have already posted my reasoning. I have yet to see yours. Perhaps I missed it?

MY position is that the "person" argument is meaningless as all it does is create a subjective point which those that who wish to end a human life decide that it is OK to end that human life.

 

[Tsunami]

CELL;
"In biology, the basic unit of a living organism. It is the smallest unit capable of independent existence."

So,... let's get this right.

An individual skin cell can independently exist.

A single blood cell or sperm or egg cell,.... likewise.

Wrong. As I've already stated last time you pasted this definition: Some cells can independently exist, such as an amoeba or other single-celled organisms. But human skin cells cannot survive without the functions of the rest of the entire human organism to maintain them.

Seriously, How much research have you conducted in your efforts to answer this for yourself?

Evidently more than you if you think a skin cell can survive independently.

 

[Goobieman]

A fetus is just meat. No murder there. It is not a person.

How is "personahood" the relevant standard?
How is "human life" NOT a relevant standard?

 

[prometeus]

It took you nearly a dozen posts over a period of three days to say that none of this (about the mother/fetus relationship) means anything to you?



Whatever.

Are you going to Bogart that bong all day?

Stupid remarks will not bolster your credibility. In case your forgot the topic of the thread was personhood and your irrelevant and factually flawed side show about the relationship between a pregnant woman and the fetus inside her have no bearing on the topic.

 

[Tsunami]

MY position is that the "person" argument is meaningless as all it does is create a point which those that who wish to end a human decide that it is OK to end that human life.

You cannot say the "person" argument is meaningless and then continue to use the term "human life" the same way some of us use the term "person". The same question applies no matter what terminology you use. What is the difference between what you call "human life" and a wart or other living human tissue?

 

[prometeus]

He was "biologically speaking" not "practically speaking".

Physical distance between individuals is not necessary for those individuals to be distinct from one another.

But the ability to sustain one's life with one's own organs is.

 

[prometeus]

In fact, I wish the Constitution would make that more clear in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments!

It looks as the Constitution is not your strong suit either.

 

[Goobieman]

But the ability to sustain one's life with one's own organs is.

That's not at all the case. All kinds of people live with artificial support replacing any number of organs -- are these people somehow not individuals?

 

[prometeus]

As has been noted before...
A tapeworm is inside, not part of, its host; it, and in a similar manner, a fetus, is indeed an individual.

Individuality is not determined by where you live or how you get your food.

But as also has been noted before, the tape worm is complete and only takes food and shelter. Why do you choose to ignore that? Is it because it refutes your assertion?

 

[Goobieman]

You cannot say the "person" argument is meaningless and then continue to use the term "human life" the same way some of us use the term "person"

Sure you can. "Person" and "human life" are different things, with the latter being more inclusive.

The same question applies no matter what terminology you use. What is the difference between what you call "human life" and a wart or other living human tissue?

And, again, the difference between the body part and the whole, the whole being made up of all the body parts (or, at least, those sill remaning).

 

[misterman]

And they're STILL fighting over a worthless prize.

 

[Goobieman]

But as also has been noted before, the tape worm is complete and only takes food and shelter. Why do you choose to ignore that?

Because of its lack of contextual relevance?
There is a difference between "part of" and "inside". Both the tapeworm and the fetus are "inside" and not "part of".

Individuality is not determined by where you live or how you get your food.

 

[Goobieman]

And they're STILL fighting over a worthless prize.

But, I'm winning!
:mrgreen:

 

[prometeus]

That's not at all the case. All kind of people live with artificial support replasing any number of organs -- are these people somehow not individuals?

Of course it is the case. First, personhood is gained. Do you believe that a comatose person would be allowed to vote?

Second, can you name a single case in which a person did not have ANY organs functioning and yet lived?

 

[reefedjib]

How is "personahood" the relevant standard?
How is "human life" NOT a relevant standard?

To me, person = human being, and the distinguishing factor between simple human life and a person is consciousness/soul. A fetus is human life and not a person. Human life is not the relevant standard because of the definition of murder:

Main Entry: mur·der
Pronunciation: \ˈmər-dər\
Function: noun

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

 

[prometeus]

Because of its lack of contextual relevance?
There is a difference between "part of" and "inside". Both the tapeworm and the fetus are "inside" and not "part of".

Individuality is not determined by where you live or how you get your food.

Clearly yo can not understand the simplest concepts about the basics of life.
Let me repeat in the hope you getting it this time.

A TAPE WORM HAS ALL ITS ORGANS AN ITS LOCATION IS NOT RELEVANT SO TI SI NOT THE COUNTER ARGUMENT. ITS ABILITY TO SUSTAIN ITS OWN LIFE WITH ITS OWN ORGANS IS.

 

[Goobieman]

Of course it is the case. First, personhood is gained. Do you believe that a comatose person would be allowed to vote?
Second, can you name a single case in which a person did not have ANY organs functioning and yet lived?

I said:

Physical distance between individuals is not necessary for those individuals to be distinct from one another

YOU said:

But the ability to sustain one's life with one's own organs is (necessary for those individuals to be distinct from one another).

No. It is not.

 

[Goobieman]

Clearly yo can not understand the simplest concepts...

Says he who does not understand the difference between "inside" and "part of".

 

[prometeus]

I said:

YOU said:

No. It is not.

So life then is not important? What are you arguing for then?