KellyJay: "Who gets to say who rates the title personhood?"
We do, Kellly, we do.
..or at least medical counsels, learned members of society and legislative bodies do.
This is why abortions are allowed at different stages of pregnancy in different countries in the world.
Such "lines drawn in the sand" are typical of all moral and ethical considerations. Society decides what is acceptable and moralistic and this can be reviewed and altered in light of new evidence.
Of course, this is an anathema to most religious believers, who believe that morals come down from on high as dictated by God.
Christians believe in absolutes, not shades of grey when it come to what is right and wrong.
This is probably why many Christians are Pro-lifers. You exhibit a similar trait when you struggle to understand the "what defines a person" question, Kelly.
It is so easy to get all your opinions from one book...
To never have to grapple with a philosophical problem...
Just turn to chapter 54 verse 666 to read what to think....
Unfortunately, REAL life is not that simple....
It is much more complicated..
and so much more rewarding!
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou'll basically wade through about 50 threads of ChessExpress saying "It's a baby cuz I SAY SO!"
It's inconvenient that there are two threads on this.
An embryo is alive, and it has all the DNA it needs to be human. So it is human life.
As far as the question of consciousness goes, my take on it is that if it is wrong to kill a person who has been knocked unconscious for some reason, then it is wrong to kill an embryo. Both an unconsci ...[text shortened]... on this topic in the debates abortion thread. This is where the majority of my posts have been.
No answer on the funeral. No answer on the "conception day". At least CE admits if he gets his way woman who have abortions, doctors who perform them, people who drive the woman to the doctor to get an abortion, people who lend money to the woman to get an abortion, anybody that knows she's going to get an abortion and doesn't report her to the FBI, etc. etc, etc. etc. all these folks will be doing hard time. That's what you have to look forward to if these fanatics get their way.
BTW, every cell in my drool has all the DNA it needs to be human, too. Can I still wipe it off my shirt?
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's too late....
You'll basically wade through about 50 threads of ChessExpress saying "It's a baby cuz I SAY SO!"
No answer on the funeral. No answer on the "conception day". At least CE admits if he gets his way woman who have abortions, doctors who perform them, people who drive the woman to the doctor to get an abortion, people who lend money to the w ...[text shortened]... ry cell in my drool has all the DNA it needs to be human, too. Can I still wipe it off my shirt?
Once spittle leaves the boy it is as good as dead.
In future, please ensure that all spit remains inside the body where it is safe.
Murderer.
Originally posted by NemesioI would think that, if people truly guard the Sanctity of Life with sincerity
Note I said 'nearly no funerals.'
I would think that, if people truly guard the Sanctity of Life with sincerity
(that is, felt that a 1 day old zygote was a person), they would:
1) Desire to prosecute those who have abortions as murderers; and
2) Hold funerals for those who miscarry.
If someone is Pro-Life and does not do these things, then t ...[text shortened]... t is because
you are a person. You have interests, you have goals, you have rights.
Nemesio
(that is, felt that a 1 day old zygote was a person), they would:
1) Desire to prosecute those who have abortions as murderers; and
2) Hold funerals for those who miscarry.
If someone is Pro-Life and does not do these things, then they are hypocrite,
because they are not treating all life (and all taking of life) equally. It is not
'Sanctified' in their mind.
You’re not looking at the practical side of this. A zygote is too small to see or notice. Women get pregnant and miscarry without ever realizing it. So what do you propose?
If we are talking about a fetus, then I agree with both your points.
And, they reason it matters is because to say that human life is valuable is
an arbitrary thing.
Arbitrary? Poor choice of words. Humans have value because they exist, and because of what it is to be human.
If, for example, an alien race came and populated the
earth, and they started killing humans because in their moral view, only aliens
are sacred, wouldn't you object? Of course you would. Because it isn't that
because you are human that makes you worthy of consideration. It is because
you are a person. You have interests, you have goals, you have rights.
I’m trying to grasp your point here. To be human is to be conscious. Help me out.
Originally posted by NemesioBecause something is Alive does not make it a Person.
Because something is [b]Alive does not make it a Person.
And, it is not whether the enity is conscious, but has the capacity for consciousness.
This is what Lemonjello is expressing.
A first trimester embryo does not have that capacity. A person KO'd in a boxing match
does.
Nemesio[/b]
True, frogs are not people.
And, it is not whether the enity is conscious, but has the capacity for consciousness.
Neither an unconscious adult or an embryo have the immediate capacity for consciousness. Both have the potential capacity for consciousness.
So both are the same in this way.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
You’re not looking at the practical side of this. A zygote is too small to see or notice. Women get pregnant and miscarry without ever realizing it. So what do you propose?
If we are talking about a fetus, than I agree with both your points.
Women miscarry knowingly all the time. Do they mourn as they do with a child,
even a newborn? By and large, no they do not? Do you suggest that they do not
have a reverence for life?
Arbitrary? Poor choice of words. Humans have value because they exist, and because of what it is to be human.
No. My words are precise. It is arbitrary to say humans have value because they
exist because it fails to define it. Wouldn't you agree that if I said 'fish have value
because they exist,' and left it at that, it would be the height of foolishness?
Of course it is, because it is 'arbitrary.'
Give a reason why humans have intrinsic value, would you?
I’m trying to grasp your point here. To be human is to be conscious. Help me out.
You aren't paying attention to even your own argument. Is a man in a coma human?
Yes. Consciousness is not a requiste for humanity. The capacity for consciousness
is one of the requistes for personhood.
Nemesio
Originally posted by The Chess Express
And, it is not whether the enity is conscious, but has the capacity for consciousness.
Neither an unconscious adult or an embryo have the immediate capacity for consciousness. Both have the potential capacity for conscious.
So both are the same in this way.[/b]
An unconscious adult has the neural connections for consciousness, and embryo does not.
One has capacity, the other only potential.
So they are not the same.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "The capacity for consciousness
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]You’re not looking at the practical side of this. A zygote is too small to see or notice. Women get pregnant and miscarry without ever realizing it. So what do you propose?
If we are talking about a fetus, than I agree with both your points.
Women miscarry knowingly all the time. Do they mourn as t ...[text shortened]... nity. The capacity for consciousness
is one of the requistes for personhood.
Nemesio[/b]
is one of the requistes for personhood."
You present this as a fact, but this is merely an element of Neo-Kantian (Bbarr's) personhood theory.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou'll basically wade through about 50 threads of ChessExpress saying "It's a baby cuz I SAY SO!"
You'll basically wade through about 50 threads of ChessExpress saying "It's a baby cuz I SAY SO!"
No answer on the funeral. No answer on the "conception day". At least CE admits if he gets his way woman who have abortions, doctors who perform them, people who drive the woman to the doctor to get an abortion, people who lend money to the w ...[text shortened]... ry cell in my drool has all the DNA it needs to be human, too. Can I still wipe it off my shirt?
I’ve never once said that, but that seems to be all you are capable of understanding.
No answer on the funeral. No answer on the "conception day".
Thanks for giving me all of five minutes.
At least CE admits if he gets his way woman who have abortions, doctors who perform them, people who drive the woman to the doctor to get an abortion, people who lend money to the woman to get an abortion, anybody that knows she's going to get an abortion and doesn't report her to the FBI, etc. etc, etc. etc. all these folks will be doing hard time. That's what you have to look forward to if these fanatics get their way.
Calm down, take your blood pressure medication, and stop being so fanatical. If abortions were against the law than they would be a crime as they were for a long time in this country. Each case would be tried on an individual basis, and the number of abortions would decrease.
Explain to me how killing babies is sane, and wanting to save them is insane.
BTW, every cell in my drool has all the DNA it needs to be human, too. Can I still wipe it off my shirt?
You just don’t get it. Skin cells for example are not programmed to be humans, zygotes are.
Originally posted by ivanhoeDo you wish to provide an argument against it?
Nemesio: "The [b]capacity for consciousness
is one of the requistes for personhood."
You present this as a fact, but this is merely an element of Neo-Kantian (Bbarr's) personhood theory.[/b]
I ask this because Bbarr has provided clear arguments for it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWhy should we make demands on whether an undamaged unborn human being has certain capacities to grant him personhood and the accompanying rights ?
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]And, it is not whether the enity is conscious, but has the capacity for consciousness.
Neither an unconscious adult or an embryo have the immediate capacity for consciousness. Both have the potential capacity for conscious.
So both are the same in this way.[/b]
An unconscious adult has the neura ...[text shortened]... not.
One has capacity, the other only potential.
So they are not the same.
Nemesio[/b]
You are treating the Neo-Kantian personhood theory as the true theory. Why ?
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou need to learn how to articulate an argument.
You just don’t get it. Skin cells for example are not programmed to be humans, zygotes are.
Before you said: An embryo is alive, and it has all the DNA it needs to be human. So it is human life.
This is a poorly articulated position for the reasons demonstrated.
Then you said: To be human is to be conscious. Help me out.
This is also a poorly articulated position for the reasons given.
You may understand in your own head what you mean, but you aren't communicating it
effectively in your posts.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Why should we make demands on whether an undamaged unborn human being has certain capacities to grant him personhood and the accompanying rights ?
Because, as Bbarr says, if it doesn't have interests, things cannot get better or worse
from its point of view.
You are treating the Neo-Kantian personhood theory as the true theory. Why ?
Because it is the only cogent theory presented so far. I beg of you or anyone to provide
an argument against it.
I will ask you directly, Ivanhoe: Is a 10-day zygote a person? If so, why? If not, why
should it have rights?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioSee the above post. I do not see any argument to divide the human family into persons and unborn non-persons, since the unborns do not have any bodily or brain damage they should be treated as persons. Why do we have to screen undamaged unborn human beings in order to grant them personhood. The only reasons I can come up with are ideological reasons like bbarr provides them.
Do you wish to provide an argument against it?
I ask this because Bbarr has provided clear arguments for it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAn unborn undamaged human being is a person with all the human rights from the moment of conception. Everything is in its DNA. The only things the unborn being needs is time, safety, warmth and food to grow. There is no need or reason, except maybe ideological needs or reasons, to make any demands about capacities.
Is a 10-day zygote a person? If so, why? If not, why
should it have rights?
Nemesio[/b]