|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 6, 2019 12:10:04 GMT
Specifically referring to humans.
Elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Dec 8, 2019 17:02:09 GMT
Not a single life matters since the beginning of human existence.
dead; adj.
Done with the work of breathing; Done with all the world; the mad race run Through to the end; the golden goal Attained and found to be a hole! -compliments of Ambrose Bierce and Squatol Johnes
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Dec 8, 2019 18:25:59 GMT
When a human being is a person, their life matters to them. That's a guess. When a human being is not a person, their life does not matter to them. That's a fact.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 8, 2019 18:31:03 GMT
Yes.
That is why we should always consider the consequences to our actions.
As an aside, why have a locked poll?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 8, 2019 18:35:22 GMT
A fetus isn't a "person" if that's bait and switch your trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 9, 2019 4:09:17 GMT
A fetus isn't a "person" if that's bait and switch your trying to do. "Personhood" is the concept that Cody still refuses to face.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 9, 2019 5:49:09 GMT
A fetus isn't a "person" if that's bait and switch your trying to do. You're.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Dec 9, 2019 7:23:30 GMT
A fetus isn't a "person" if that's bait and switch your trying to do. If a person is a human being then a fetus is a person. It's not a dog or a rat. Corporations can be considered persons, are they also fetuses? No. Human is a species, person is a legal status.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 9, 2019 11:14:34 GMT
A fetus isn't a "person" if that's bait and switch your trying to do. If a person is a human being then a fetus is a person. So, persons are human beings. And fetuses are human beings. So....fetuses are persons.
Care to try out your reasoning elsewhere? Mice are rodents. And squirrels are rodents. So, squirrels are mice.
Sonnets are poems. Limericks are poems. So, limericks are sonnets.
Apples are fruits. Lemons are fruits. So, lemons are apples.
When you want to argue a point, it's better to avoid violating fundamental logic.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 9, 2019 11:53:13 GMT
If a person is a human being then a fetus is a person. So, persons are human beings. And fetuses are human beings. So....fetuses are persons.
Care to try out your reasoning elsewhere? Mice are rodents. And squirrels are rodents. So, squirrels are mice.
Sonnets are poems. Limericks are poems. So, limericks are sonnets.
Apples are fruits. Lemons are fruits. So, lemons are apples.
When you want to argue a point, it's better to avoid violating fundamental logic.
Mice and squirrels are a separate species though.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 9, 2019 12:07:46 GMT
So, persons are human beings. And fetuses are human beings. So....fetuses are persons.
Care to try out your reasoning elsewhere? Mice are rodents. And squirrels are rodents. So, squirrels are mice.
Sonnets are poems. Limericks are poems. So, limericks are sonnets.
Apples are fruits. Lemons are fruits. So, lemons are apples.
When you want to argue a point, it's better to avoid violating fundamental logic.
Mice and squirrels are a separate species though. And are fetuses (embryos, zygotes, too) and persons separate species of human beings? That's the issue that is being argued over. You cannot assume the answer to that as an argument for or against. (That's a recognized logical fallacy called "Begging the question", FYI)
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 9, 2019 12:11:50 GMT
Mice and squirrels are a separate species though. And are fetuses (embryos, zygotes, too) and persons separate species of human beings? That's the issue that is being argued over. You cannot assume the answer to that as an argument for or against. (That's a recognized logical fallacy called "Begging the question", FYI) A fetus and newborn baby are the same species yes. Both biologically human beings.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 9, 2019 12:22:57 GMT
And are fetuses (embryos, zygotes, too) and persons separate species of human beings? That's the issue that is being argued over. You cannot assume the answer to that as an argument for or against. (That's a recognized logical fallacy called "Begging the question", FYI) A fetus and newborn baby are the same species yes. Both biologically human beings. Which provides no argument that the fetus is also a person, and person is the category (or "species") of interest here. You posted a long entry from a Princeton scholar, scientifically showing how an embryo is a human being. But you left out the part where that scholar posed the question, "When does human personhood begin?. The beginning of personhood is not a scientific question, but a philosophical question." He recognized that. You are stubbornly unable to.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 9, 2019 12:30:20 GMT
A fetus and newborn baby are the same species yes. Both biologically human beings. Which provides no argument that the fetus is also a person, and person is the category (or "species") of interest here. You posted a long entry from a Princeton scholar, scientifically showing how an embryo is a human being. But you left out the part where that scholar posed the question, "When does human personhood begin?. The beginning of personhood is not a scientific question, but a philosophical question." He recognized that. You are stubbornly unable to.
Thats not the point I’m making here though. I was highlighting the flaw in your analogy. Mice and squirrels are distinct species. A fetus and a newborn are the same species. Now do I need to draw a picture for you? “Person” is not a category of species.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 9, 2019 13:16:59 GMT
Which provides no argument that the fetus is also a person, and person is the category (or "species") of interest here. You posted a long entry from a Princeton scholar, scientifically showing how an embryo is a human being. But you left out the part where that scholar posed the question, "When does human personhood begin?. The beginning of personhood is not a scientific question, but a philosophical question." He recognized that. You are stubbornly unable to.
Thats not the point I’m making here though. I was highlighting the flaw in your analogy. Mice and squirrels are distinct species. A fetus and a newborn are the same species. Now do I need to draw a picture for you? “Person” is not a category of species. Don't you get that "person", not being a scientific term, has no actual place in scientific discussions of species. I merely accepted the term "species" for the sake of argument, accepting "species" as a synonym for the generalized idea of "category". If A and B are both categories of the larger group C, that doesn't mean that A is B or that B is A. Now just substitute categories like "fetus" or mouse, or apple for A. And then person, or squirrel, or lemon for B. And then human being, or rodent, or fruit for C.
The failure of logic in saying that, since both fetuses and persons are human beings, fetuses are persons is clear and irrefutable.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 9, 2019 13:21:51 GMT
A fetus and newborn baby are the same species yes. Both biologically human beings. Which provides no argument that the fetus is also a person, and person is the category (or "species") of interest here. You posted a long entry from a Princeton scholar, scientifically showing how an embryo is a human being. But you left out the part where that scholar posed the question, "When does human personhood begin?. The beginning of personhood is not a scientific question, but a philosophical question." He recognized that. You are stubbornly unable to.
Besides even if a fetus is not technically a person. Do you think it is fair to end their life before it can develop the capacities of personhood? Suppose your partner fell to an unplanned pregnancy. She wanted to abort and you wanted to keep the baby. She argued the child isn’t yet a person as grounds for termination. Would you accept that as fair reason to abort your child?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 9, 2019 13:51:08 GMT
Which provides no argument that the fetus is also a person, and person is the category (or "species") of interest here. You posted a long entry from a Princeton scholar, scientifically showing how an embryo is a human being. But you left out the part where that scholar posed the question, "When does human personhood begin?. The beginning of personhood is not a scientific question, but a philosophical question." He recognized that. You are stubbornly unable to.
Besides even if a fetus is not technically a person. Do you think it is fair to end their life before it can develop the capacities of personhood? Suppose your partner fell to an unplanned pregnancy. She wanted to abort and you wanted to keep the baby. She argued the child isn’t yet a person as grounds for termination. Would you accept that as fair reason to abort your child? As long as the fetus is not a person, then it does not yet have any rights (such as the right to life) that the state must secure. So, whether anyone thinks it's fair or not, the decision belongs to the woman (and I can try to dissuade her if I want to) without interference from the state.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Dec 9, 2019 17:48:11 GMT
Corporations can be considered "persons" by the legal definition. You get it, good. The world isn't run on colloquial speech.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 9, 2019 19:58:17 GMT
You get it, good. The world isn't run on colloquial speech. Yeah, but you don't get it. A fetus is an individual human creature with independent DNA. It's a "person". But whether or not a woman can abort a "person" is an entirely different issue. She may have a legal right to abort it. But that doesn't mean it's not a person just like you and I. You do realize words generally have descriptive qualities, right? If I were to show you a picture of a fetus and a full developed human and asked you "Point at the person", even if you tried to make the argument "Well, how are you defining person?" there's a decent chance you're going to have a Pavalovian reflex and point at the developed human, because that's how language works, it's ingrained into our consciousness depending on it's connotations and usage from societal standards. When we use certain words to describe something, we typically generally do so because it fit certain criteria/parameters often agreed upon by society. It's the reason no on calls a tadpole a "frog", frog has entirely different features/connotations.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Dec 9, 2019 20:38:54 GMT
Yeah, but you don't get it. A fetus is an individual human creature with independent DNA. It's a "person". But whether or not a woman can abort a "person" is an entirely different issue. She may have a legal right to abort it. But that doesn't mean it's not a person just like you and I. You do realize words generally have descriptive qualities, right? If I were to show you a picture of a fetus and a full developed human and asked you "Point at the person", even if you tried to make the argument "Well, how are you defining person?" there's a decent chance you're going to have a Pavalovian reflex and point at the developed human, because that's how language works, it's ingrained into our consciousness depending on it's connotations and usage from societal standards. When we use certain words to describe something, we typically generally do so because it fit certain criteria/parameters often agreed upon by society. It's the reason no on calls a tadpole a "frog", frog has entirely different features/connotations.
You don't have to convince me, I'm just explaining how things really are. Go to court and make your case.
|
|