💀
@Eris
Is a fetus a person? And at what stage of pregnancy does a fetus receive personhood status?
@Eris
Why is it a person? What makes someone a person?
>In that case we have a fundamental different understanding of what constitutes personhood.
In that case you are insane and all your arguments are incoherent. Thank you for proving my point.
@Eris
I didn't even make an argument. I only asked some question to gauge your level of intelligence and open mindedness to see if it's even worth making an argument.
@Eris
I asked about personhood, not humanity.
@Eris
Nope. You can call a strand of hair human, but you can't call it a person.
@Eris
Now who's making bad arguments...
@Eris
Congrats, you just agreed with me that "person" is not the same as "human". As you just discovered yourself, "human" is a subclass of "person".
@Eris
Saying "human object is part of person" excludes the other way around being possible. Which makes it impossible for person = human.
>Saying "human object is part of person" excludes the other way around being possible.
No it doesn't. My hair is a human. It is a person. That person is me.
@Eris
You hair is a person? You've reached peak idiocy, just so you can refuse to admit that you're wrong about an inconsequential thing that doesn't even necessarily threaten your abortion argument.
>You hair is a person?
Yes. My foot is also a person: me.
>You've reached peak idiocy
Are you implying these statements are idiotic? They are true.
@Eris
You literally started with "person is a DISCRETE human being" and ended up with "hair is person" JUST so you don't admit you could be wrong about something.
@Eris
You gaslight yourself in changing your own definition of "person".
You are pre-emptively saying "your argument is ridiculous" without saying how and assuming i will just agree. Very silly way to behave.
@Eris
You've started our discussion by stating that distinct human beings is what constitutes a person.
Now you're stating that body parts of a human (as opposed to a full distinct human being) is what constitutes a person.
You're contradicting yourself.
Not to mention that the first thing people will think about when hearing "person" is a distinct individual functioning mind. It's why we don't really call a skeleton or a putrefying body a person anymore. And last I checked, your foot doesn't have a mind of it's own.
>You've started our discussion by stating that distinct human beings is what constitutes a person.
Yes.
>Now you're stating that body parts of a human (as opposed to a full distinct human being) is what constitutes a person.
Yes.
>You're contradicting yourself.
How? What's the contradiction? Both are true. The latter is an elaboration of the former.
@Eris
A slice of cake is a slice of cake. It is not a distinct individual cake. A slice of cake does not share all properties of the full cake. Yes, it does share some properties, but not all of them.
>A slice of cake is a slice of cake. It is not a distinct individual cake.
I didn't ask if it was a distinct individual cake. I asked if it is cake.
If it is cake (it is) then it is necessarily part of some distinct individual cake.
@Terra_australis @Eris
The intelligence aspect is a difficult question to answer, one that exceeds my abilities.
When it comes to humans, I choose to draw the personhood line at the point in the fetus development when the neural system has grown enough to where it can experience sensations (like feeling pain). I believe that this is the point we can be most certain that the fetus has the "equipment" it needs to act as a distinct person.
> I choose to draw the personhood line at the point in the fetus development when the neural system has grown enough to where it can experience sensations (like feeling pain).
This is how category-brains think. You establish some set of criteria X and anything that meets criteria X qualifies as X.
It's a retarded way to see the world.
>Deja vu