Republican: Fetus is the largest organ in the body

[WOOO]

How is this relevant to my original point about human beings (organisms) versus persons?

semantics

i am in favor of abortion rights

but i am not dumb enough to believe in some mystical belief system

the instant that sperm and egg become one, it's a person

just a really small, funny looking person with very few rights

[syntaxmachine]

semantics

i am in favor of abortion rights

but i am not dumb enough to believe in some mystical belief system

the instant that sperm and egg become one, it's a person

just a really small, funny looking person with very few rights

I don't know what you're referring to when you say a "mystical belief system," so I can't comment on that any further -- perhaps you can clarify. I'm also not sure precisely what it is you're labeling 'semantics,' though I do know that your defining the human organism that results immediately after conception a 'person' is an example of it.

[whork]

Babies are parasites and they don't stop becoming parasites until they're well in their 20s.

 

[WOOO]

I don't know what you're referring to when you say a "mystical belief system," so I can't comment on that any further -- perhaps you can clarify. I'm also not sure precisely what it is you're labeling 'semantics,' though I do know that your defining the human organism that results immediately after conception a 'person' is an example of it.

person & human organism = same thing

mystical belief system = anything resembling a souls based system

[chadstallion]

Man, nobody ever gives skin the credit it deserves!

best and truest answer yet!  thank you, sir!

[avxo]

by strict definition no as a baby isnt attached to the host in any way but to think that a baby isnt as dependent on a caregiver as a fetus is stupid. Even more so as childs shelter isnt a given as it is in the womb.

I don't disagree - a baby clearly is dependent on a caregiver; it is unable to survive on its own. I don't think anybody disputes that. But a baby and a fetus are dependent in different ways and those different ways matter, at least when you are discussing whether a fetus qualifies as a parasite (whether it ought to be considered one is another story) or not.

Ummmm....a unborn baby!!!

How many cells does it take to have an "unborn baby?" A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many cells does it take? And how many cells do you slough off daily as you go about your everyday business? The simple fact is tat you are drawing artificial lines based on your own preconceptions and morals; and that's fine in a sense, but the question then becomes what makes your artificial lines better than the artificial lines of someone else who has different preconceptions and different morals?

i am in favor of abortion rights

Really?

the instant that sperm and egg become one, it's a person

If you believe that, then you aren't in favor of abortion rights - you are in favor of murder. Which leads me to suspect you don't really believe that.

just a really small, funny looking person with very few rights

If you believe that, then you aren't in favor of abortion rights - you are in favor of murder.

Tell me WOOO, what specific criteria for personhood do you consider that lead you to believe that a clump of cells is a person?

person & human organism = same thing

So a human organism that is artificially kept alive despite being brain dead is a person? That's an interesting definition of person. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about WOOO.

[tonymctones]

I don't disagree - a baby clearly is dependent on a caregiver; it is unable to survive on its own. I don't think anybody disputes that. But a baby and a fetus are dependent in different ways and those different ways matter, at least when you are discussing whether a fetus qualifies as a parasite (whether it ought to be considered one is another story) or not.


How many cells does it take to have an "unborn baby?" A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many cells does it take? And how many cells do you slough off daily as you go about your everyday business? The simple fact is tat you are drawing artificial lines based on your own preconceptions and morals; and that's fine in a sense, but the question then becomes what makes your artificial lines better than the artificial lines of someone else who has different preconceptions and different morals?


Really?

If you believe that, then you aren't in favor of abortion rights - you are in favor of murder. Which leads me to suspect you don't really believe that.


If you believe that, then you aren't in favor of abortion rights - you are in favor of murder.

Tell me WOOO, what specific criteria for personhood do you consider that lead you to believe that a clump of cells is a person?


So a human organism that is artificially kept alive despite being brain dead is a person? That's an interesting definition of person. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about WOOO.

what traits do you think ought to be associated with personhood AV?

you mentioned dreams, wishes, fears etc...but a person in a comma or even some elderly could be said to not posses those, shoot even a new born could be said to not possess those

so what attributes do you associate with personhood?

[avxo]

what traits do you think ought to be associated with personhood AV?

That depends on what you mean by traits; more on that in a second.

you mentioned dreams, wishes, fears etc...but a person in a comma or even some elderly could be said to not posses those, shoot even a new born could be said to not possess those

I don't think I mentioned any of those things; I certainly didn't in this thread.

so what attributes do you associate with personhood?

Personhood is a topic that has been debated for centuries, and it's still not entirely settled - that is, there is no "bright line" that we can draw past which one is a person such that we all agree. Personally, I think that self-awareness, self-consciousness and self-determination are critical components of personhood. I'm not prepared to say that lacking those things automatically implies one is not a person, but if you asked me to distill what I think the defining characteristics of a person are in my opinion, those three would be my answer.

In a sense I'd rather err on the side of caution and ascribe personhood to a non-person instead of the opposite. That is my first instinct when it comes to fetuses too. I may not necessarily be convinced that they are persons and therefore, I should err on the side of caution. But instincts can't be the basis of a rational decision that we want others to adapt. "I feel it" doesn't cut it. It's important that we be rational and be able to justify and defend our decisions logically.

As I said before, these are difficult and deeply philosophical questions. They are questions that we may not be able to answer sufficiently in our lifetimes - or perhaps, ever.

I would be curious - what is your position? What constitutes a person, in your view and how do you distinguish a person from a non-person?

[MCWAY]

How many cells does it take to have an "unborn baby?" A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many cells does it take? And how many cells do you slough off daily as you go about your everyday business? The simple fact is tat you are drawing artificial lines based on your own preconceptions and morals; and that's fine in a sense, but the question then becomes what makes your artificial lines better than the artificial lines of someone else who has different preconceptions and different morals?

What artificial lines? My son was born on March 21, 12:35 EST. He was born a month early, scheduled for late April. Am I to believe that at 12:34 EST, he wasn't a baby?

Or at 12:30, he still wasn't a baby? Or at 11:30pm, March 20, he wasn't a baby, and thus potentially subject to dismemberment?

[syntaxmachine]

I don't think I mentioned any of those things; I certainly didn't in this thread.

You and I are one and the same to him (this isn't the first time he's confused us); probably, part of the reason is we apparently agree on so much. 

[avxo]

What artificial lines? My son was born on March 21, 12:35 EST. He was born a month early, scheduled for late April. Am I to believe that at 12:34 EST, he wasn't a baby?

Or at 12:30, he still wasn't a baby? Or at 11:30pm, March 20, he wasn't a baby, and thus potentially subject to dismemberment?

Your appeals to emotion won't work with me and don't help clarify the situation any. Neither will your silly attempt to draw me into an argument by implying that my position means that his premature status would mean that he could be "potentially subject to dismemberment". Hard as it may be for you to imagine, I'm not for dismembering babies - I don't particularly care for abortion as a matter of fact, although I would never presume to tell others what to do, especially on such an intimate and difficult subject.

With that aside, you may think that your son magically became a person the moment when a sperm and an egg combined but what rational proof of that fact do you have and how do you support that contention? What specific, articulable attribute of personhood did he acquire at that time and how did you verify that? Hmm? Let's hear it.

[MCWAY]

Your appeals to emotion won't work with me and don't help clarify the situation any. Neither will your silly attempt to draw me into an argument by implying that my position means that his premature status would mean that he could be "potentially subject to dismemberment". Hard as it may be for you to imagine, I'm not for dismembering babies - I don't particularly care for abortion as a matter of fact, although I would never presume to tell others what to do, especially on such an intimate and difficult subject.

That's not an appeal on emotion. It's a tangible example, one of which I can obviously relate firsthand.

With that aside, you may think that your son magically became a person the moment when a sperm and an egg combined but what rational proof of that fact do you have and how do you support that contention? What specific, articulable attribute of personhood did he acquire at that time and how did you verify that? Hmm? Let's hear it.

Now, you're contending that, if I'm not sure or can verify when he became a person or obtained personhood, he was subject to being aborted without it being infanticide.

I don't have a way of detecting such. Therefore, I have two options. Either I believe he was a person upon conception OR I believe he wasn't a baby until he popped out of the womb and thus was fair game to be destroyed at any time in the womb.

Obviously, I believe the former.

[avxo]

That's not an appeal on emotion. It's a tangible example, one of which I can obviously relate firsthand.

It is. You're screaming "look at this precious little child!" as if that, somehow, magically makes your point. You are counting on me to say, "Aww, all life is precious. How could I possibly suggest that this precious child isn't a person?!? HUGS ALL AROUND!"

Now, you're contending that, if I'm not sure or can verify when he became a person or obtained personhood, he was subject to being aborted without it being infanticide.

No. That's not what I'm contending. I'm contending that you cannot provide us with some event, prior to which there are no characteristics of personhood and after which there are. I assert that there is no such event - it is a continuum, a process the end result of which is a person.

I don't have a way of detecting such. Therefore, I have two options. Either I believe he was a person upon conception OR I believe he wasn't a baby until he popped out of the womb and thus was fair game to be destroyed at any time in the womb.

Another logical fallacy - bifurcation. You falsely assert that you only have two choices. You clearly don't.

Obviously, I believe the former.

The problem isn't that you believe the former - you are free to believe what you want even if your belief is irrational. The problem is that you think that your unsubstantiated and irrational belief constitutes logical proof and that your position should be binding on others.

[MCWAY]

It is. You're screaming "look at this precious little child!" as if that, somehow, magically makes your point. You are counting on me to say, "Aww, all life is precious. How could I possibly suggest that this precious child isn't a person?!? HUGS ALL AROUND!"

At some point, you believe what's in the womb goes from being a non-baby to a baby. My question to you was WHEN that occurs. I simply used the best example to which I could personally relate: My own son, who happened to have been born a month earlier than expected.

No. That's not what I'm contending. I'm contending that you cannot provide us with some event, prior to which there are no characteristics of personhood and after which there are. I assert that there is no such event - it is a continuum, a process the end result of which is a person.

And when do we get that "end result"? That's what I asked of you, using the little guy (currently munching Pringles, that he's not supposed to be eating) as an example. Excuse me a second.

Another logical fallacy - bifurcation. You falsely assert that you only have two choices. You clearly don't.


The problem isn't that you believe the former - you are free to believe what you want even if your belief is irrational. The problem is that you think that your unsubstantiated and irrational belief constitutes logical proof and that your position should be binding on others.

As opposed to your position, which leaves the door open to baby-killing anytime for any reason, as long you can somehow assert that it's not a person.

[Mr. Magoo]

Looks to be a lot of effort in this thread

I predict no one will yield

[WOOO]

1. If you believe that, then you aren't in favor of abortion rights - you are in favor of murder. Which leads me to suspect you don't really believe that.
2. If you believe that, then you aren't in favor of abortion rights - you are in favor of murder.
3. Tell me WOOO, what specific criteria for personhood do you consider that lead you to believe that a clump of cells is a person?
4. So a human organism that is artificially kept alive despite being brain dead is a person? That's an interesting definition of person. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about WOOO.

i've numbered your points to make my answers easier to understand:

1. i am in favor of murder in certain circumstance: abortion, soldiery, capital punishment, etc...
2. same as answer #1
3. person = human organism which begins at conception
4. of course it's a person... just a person with limited faculties that i may agree to murder




you could never beat me in an argument

ever

[tu_holmes]

Looks to be a lot of effort in this thread

I predict no one will yield

No one ever does on the Interwebz

[Shockwave]

i've numbered your points to make my answers easier to understand:

1. i am in favor of murder in certain circumstance: abortion, soldiery, capital punishment, etc...
2. same as answer #1
3. person = human organism which begins at conception
4. of course it's a person... just a person with limited faculties that i may agree to murder




you could never beat me in an argument

ever

I like your style canuck.

[avxo]

At some point, you believe what's in the womb goes from being a non-baby to a baby. My question to you was WHEN that occurs. I simply used the best example to which I could personally relate: My own son, who happened to have been born a month earlier than expected.

Again, I believe it is a continuum - with no one point in the process capable of clearly serving as a demarcation point. Immediately after conception you have one cell - is that one cell a person? What characteristic of personhood does this cell have? I can agree that it's a new, unique human cell but it seems a stretch to me to assign personhood to that single cell.

To explain the continuum analogy a bit better - assume it's raining and a puddle begins to form. At which point does this puddle become a pond, and at which point does the pond become a lake?

And when do we get that "end result"? That's what I asked of you, using the little guy (currently munching Pringles, that he's not supposed to be eating) as an example. Excuse me a second.

That was, in a sense, my question to you as well. The difference is that you set some arbitrary line marked by a physical event - which by the way occurs at an unknown and unspecified time and pretend that a single cell and a person are the same thing.

Tell me - is it the case is each cell, individually, a person? If not then are all the cells together a person? How many are needed to maintain personhood? How many can be lost before personhood is lost? These are all important questions that I suspect you cannot answer.

As opposed to your position, which leaves the door open to baby-killing anytime for any reason, as long you can somehow assert that it's not a person.

Now now... do you really think you can misrepresent my position to me and convince me that your misrepresentation accurate?

[avxo]

1. i am in favor of murder in certain circumstance: abortion, soldiery, capital punishment, etc...
2. same as answer #1

Interesting.

3. person = human organism which begins at conception

So one cell is a person? Then surely, if I kill you and leave one cell alive and cultivate it in a Petri dish I haven't murdered you. Right?

One more thing - for shits and giggles - you contend that at the moment of conception there's a new person that was magically created. Tell me then, if that fertilized ovum then splits into two identical twins do you have one person still? Two half-persons? Two different persons? If you contend that personhood occurs at conception, then clearly in this case there's something else that happens slightly later as well.

4. of course it's a person... just a person with limited faculties that i may agree to murder

You assume that there is an equivalency between a human organism and a person. There isn't.

you could never beat me in an argument ever

A man can dream... A man can dream.

[WOOO]

I like your style canuck.

It's a balanced perspective.

[24KT]

Man, you guys are sooooo easily distracted by stupid wedge non-issues. Y'all really do need some Ritalin!

Focus, Focus, FOCUS!!!!!!

AND

Know Your Parasites!