When is it a person?

[EpicDude86]

Then on what basis do you object to murder?

I don't want to go to jail.

 

[reefedjib]

When you say "born" do you mean as in "brought into existence" or "pulled from a vagina?"

pulled from a vagina

 

[Goobieman]

Bigtime FAIL!

This is just another example of what I said, that your predispositions prevent you from acceptance of what is presented to you.

What you fail to realize is that MY psotion is that no one on the opposing side has substantiated THEIR position -- I'm still looking for the substantiation for the "personhood" threshold; as noted before, this is an arbirtary, subjective condition created to allow those that want to do the kiling to determine who it is OK to kill.

To this end, I have said repeatedly that I am still waiting for the argument as to how "personhood" (et al) is -the- sound, relevant, objective standard when determining when it OK to take human life, to the exclusion of all other standards.

You, specifically and generally, have failed to present this argument.

If you cannot present this argument, why then do you cling to the tenet? Surely, an intellectually honest person sees the fallacy in that.

 

[EpicDude86]

pulled from a vagina

don't forget C-sections.

 

[Chuz Life]

don't forget C-sections.

The more they talk, the worse they look.

I love it.

:rofl

 

[Goobieman]

I'll grant you that it is not objective. An objective standard does not exist. It is arbitrary and subjective. It is the one we have from judicial decision. It is law.

So, you admit that the 'personhood' standard is is unsound and based on an appeal to authority. Why then do you support it, and why do you oppose other standards that are more sound? Is that what an intellectually honest person does?

Or, do you accept that standard simply because it allows you (sic) so justify doing what you (sic) want to do regarding abortion?

Any determination of personhood will be arbitrary and subjective...

And thus, "personhood" is not a valid determiner.

 

[reefedjib]

So, you admit that the 'personhood' standard is is unsound and based on an appeal to authority. Why then do you support it, and why do you oppose other standards that are more sound? Is that what an intellectually honest person does?

Or, do you accept that standard simply because it allows you (sic) so justify doing what you (sic) want to do regarding abortion?


And thus, "personhood" is not a valid determiner.

I suppose personhood is more than just the law, it is also tradition for lack of a better word. You do not name a fetus, only a child born. Age starts at birth as does the birthday.

I didn't say it was unsound. I only said it was arbitrary and subjective. I don't think there are other standards that are more sound or less arbitrary.

I do think it important to allow abortion.

I do think that personhood is a valid determiner.

 

[OKgrannie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie
There is only one instance of a life being physically dependent upon another, and that is during gestation. All other instances of people being dependent are social dependents. In no other instance other than pregnancy is someone forced to risk his/her own life and sustain damage to his/her body because of that dependency.

And so., this means that it is OK to kill someone that is physically dependant on others... how?

Most of us do not even consider a zef to be a "someone". A woman has a right to control her own body, if killing something inside it is involved, so be it.

Quote:
The fetus, or zef, has no right to life.

Based on... what?

Based on the fact that it has not been shown that anyone has a right to life, much less a potential person.

Quote:
It has everything to do with saving "human life"...

Which is not the issue here. Thus, red herring.
.

"Saving human life" is NOT the issue here? Wow, just wow! I suspected that, but never expected to hear a pro-lifer admit it.

 

[Chuz Life]

Based on the fact that it has not been shown that anyone has a right to life, much less a potential person.

:sinking:

Yeah,.. welcome to the list.

 

[OKgrannie]

This is not necessarily true. You yourself posted that embryos can be transplanted in cattle or horses. I see no reason why the same couldn't eventually happen in humans, or why science couldn't some day create an artificial womb to gestate an embryo.

It's possible that could happen someday. I'm pretty sure that someday will not be soon. In the meantime....we must deal with the situation as it is, not as it could be.

I doubt it will ever be financially feasible to provide artificial wombs for all unwanted fetuses. However....I have read about implanting embryoes in the male abdomen. Perhaps science is closer to making that a reality. I'm sure all the pro-life men on the forum will want to be first in line for this technology. You know, saving all those human life zefs.

The Science of Male Pregnancy

 

[reefedjib]

You know, saving all those human life zefs.

Sorry, I have a stupid question....What in hell is a zef?

 

[OKgrannie]

Sorry, I have a stupid question....What in hell is a zef?

zygote/embryo/fetus

 

[OKgrannie]

:sinking:

Yeah,.. welcome to the list.

Is Chuz talking to anybody except fellow pro-lifers?

 

[prometeus]

It appears you DO realize that your 'independent' argument is doomed to failere. Good!

Nothing of the sort, just trying to help you past this semantic impasse.

 

[prometeus]

And so., this means that it is OK to kill someone that is physically dependant on others... how?

By not forcing someone to supply their body as life support.

How does the right to convenience surpass the right to life?

The right to life does not exist.

 

[prometeus]

Another intentionally dishonest statement by you.
That's three. Buh-bye.

Your dismissals only underscore the lack of depth of your arguments. Clearly you can not refute any points so you resort to this dishonest tactic.

 

[prometeus]

Then on what basis do you object to murder?

Safety and order in society.

 

[prometeus]

why do you oppose other standards that are more sound?

What standars and what is the basis of that standard?
What makes that standard better?

And thus, "personhood" is not a valid determiner.

Of course it is valid. You denying it does not invalidate it.

 

[ewm90]

What standars and what is the basis of that standard?
What makes that standard better?

Of course it is valid. You denying it does not invalidate it.

You guys may get some thing from another topic I posted.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...latforms/62115-we-read-each-others-minds.html

--

On the topic of A person

You may wont to look at these:


personality - definition of personality by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

er·son·al·i·ty (pûrs-nl-t)
n. pl. per·son·al·i·ties
1. The quality or condition of being a person.
2. The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person.
3. The pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person: Though their personalities differed, they got along as friends.
4. Distinctive qualities of a person, especially those distinguishing personal characteristics that make one socially appealing: won the election more on personality than on capability. See Synonyms at disposition.
5.
a. A person as the embodiment of distinctive traits of mind and behavior.
b. A person of prominence or notoriety: television personalities.
6. An offensively personal remark. Often used in the plural: Let's not engage in personalities.
7. The distinctive characteristics of a place or situation: furnishings that give a room personality.

---

Personality Definition | Definition of Personality at Dictionary.com

–noun, plural -ties.
1. the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others: He has a pleasing personality.
2. a person as an embodiment of a collection of qualities: He is a curious personality.
3. Psychology.
a. the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual.
b. the organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of the individual.
4. the quality of being a person; existence as a self-conscious human being; personal identity.
5. the essential character of a person.
6. something apprehended as reflective of or analogous to a distinctive human personality, as the atmosphere of a place or thing: This house has a warm personality.
7. a famous, notable, or prominent person; celebrity.
8. application or reference to a particular person or particular persons, often in disparagement or hostility.
9. a disparaging or offensive statement referring to a particular person: The political debate deteriorated into personalities.

 

[EpicDude86]

The more they talk, the worse they look.

I love it.

:rofl

The more who talks? Them or Me? or all of us?

You should probably keep an open mind and a closed ignore list when truly debating here.

 

[prometeus]

That was the first time I ever saw someone's vision get blurred by information rather than their horizon expanded.

 

[EpicDude86]

That was the first time I ever saw someone's vision get blurred by information rather than their horizon expanded.

:lol: I can't tell what you're referring to. I am confus.

 

[prometeus]

Chuz was saying that we look worse as we talk. I take that as an indication that his vision is being blurred instead of his knowledge being expanded. The again narcissists like that always think they are better than the rest.

 

[EpicDude86]

Chuz was saying that we look worse as we talk. I take that as an indication that his vision is being blurred instead of his knowledge being expanded. The again narcissists like that always think they are better than the rest.

ahhhhh ok.

 

[Chuz Life]

The more who talks? Them or Me? or all of us?

You should probably keep an open mind and a closed ignore list when truly debating here.

Sorry for the confusion, Dude.

I thought my giving thanks to your post would have been enough to let you know that I wasn't lumping you in with the others.

My bad.