💀
@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?
@Eris
In that case we have a fundamental different understanding of what constitutes personhood. As such, this discussion cannot proceed any further. Also, you'll have some explaining to do when humanity discovers intelligent extraterrestrials, of our level or higher.
>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
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 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.
@critical @Eris
I think I'm gonna. I was looking to see if there's any other interesting post I'm interested in replying to, but there's not really. The closest is one where he proves he doesn't even know how Christians think on the topic and why they say they value life so much (hint: it's because they believe in souls granted to each of us by god, and as god is sacred, then the soul must be sacred, and if the soul is sacred, than the human life that was given a soul is sacred).
@Eris @critical
Your argument is "a foot is a person". I think I've stated clear enough why that is ridiculous. There is nowhere further to take this. Heck, I've said there's no where this discussion can go as soon as you equated being a person to being human.
When definitions are fundamentally different, any further discussions cannot occur, because we'll simply misunderstand what the other person is trying to say. This is why I started this by scoping out what your definition of person is, because my arguments regarding abortion are around personhood. I believe the human status on it's own is simply not a solid enough ground to defend either a ban on abortion or abortion itself (and I believe the human status is not good enough, because even a single strand of hair, from a long ago dead person can still be human, but we wouldn't care that much about someone trying to kill them now).
We need something fundamentally different, something "higher" to base our arguments on. I believe Christians would choose "the soul" as that something. I choose personhood. In my view of the concept, personhood shares traits of "soul". For instance, while a human being, the body, could be duplicated through cloning, the personhood or a soul would be distinct and unique, each and every time. Also, while a foot is human, it would not be a person and it would not have a soul.
>I think I've stated clear enough why that is ridiculous
I don't think you have. I don't think you've really stated it at all, let alone clearly.
>Heck, I've said there's no where this discussion can go as soon as you equated being a person to being human.
Why is that a terminal point in the conversation to you? It's a perfectly reasonable statement.
>When definitions are fundamentally different, any further discussions cannot occur, because we'll simply misunderstand what the other person is trying to say.
That's silly. It's very easy to have such a discussion. I'm doing it with you, why can't you do it with me?
>and I believe the human status is not good enough, because even a single strand of hair, from a long ago dead person can still be human, but we wouldn't care that much about someone trying to kill them now).
Sure we would. If you tried to kill any person that a hair belonged to, that would be killing a person.
@Eris @critical
If you think you can have a discussion, when the individuals involved start from different premises because their definitions are inherently different, you are deluded.
If I think the grass is green and you think the grass is blue, we clearly have different definitions of either grass or the colors blue and/or green. As such, a discussion about the color of grass would go nowhere and it would be a waste of time.
>If you think you can have a discussion, when the individuals involved start from different premises because their definitions are inherently different, you are deluded.
I do it all the time. It's called a disagreement. We were doing it just fine before you arbitrarily decided to stop for no apparent reason.
If you think anything I have said is absurd, say how. Stop playing retard games and engage or leave the thread like a man.
@alyx >and I believe the human status is not good enough, because even a single strand of hair, from a long ago dead person can still be human, but we wouldn’t care that much about someone trying to kill them now
You are now conflating something being “human” with it being “a human.” My clipped finger nails are not human beings, they just come from one. A human zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being. I thought you had this superior understanding of the English language. What happened? Did your DMT wear off?
>You are now conflating something being “human” with it being “a human.”
Yes this has been a big part of his linguistically constructed gaslighting.
@NEETzsche @critical @Eris
Is a dead body a human?
Yes, saying "a human" is indeed better. I still prefer "person". In my view, "a human" simply takes "person" and makes a subcategory for "person with human DNA".
Also, I don't feel like "a human" inherently evokes humanity's ability to reason or their individuality, like "person" does. We say things like "a human body" all the time, but "a human body" is not necessarily alive, which is a key factor in an abortion discussion. Meanwhile, we don't usually say that a dead human body is a person, we say that they were (past tense) a person. Note that being alive is one of the key factors of what being a person is.
>Is a dead body a human?
Yes. It's also a person.
>I still prefer "person". In my view, "a human" simply takes "person" and makes a subcategory for "person with human DNA".
Is it really a subcategory if it's 1:1?
>We say things like "a human body" all the time, but "a human body" is not necessarily alive,
But it is necessarily both human and a body.
>which is a key factor in an abortion discussion.
It is extremely hard to argue that a fetus is not alive. I welcome you to try it instead of just implying the argument and hoping you will auto-win just for referencing it.
Show your work.
>Meanwhile, we don't usually say that a dead human body is a person,
Please don't include us in your "We" and presume to speak for what I think. You pre-empt with these hypotheticals and just assume you'll get the answer that you want.
As mentioned a fetus will inevitably become a full human, which you have defined as possessing reason and so on. To say it is inevitable is to say, within the scope of knowledge available to the actor (the potential aborter), a healthy pregnancy without the action of a third party will be carried to term and go on to complete the life cycle of a human.
It is true the pregnancy could fail, but so too could the child die or the adolescent die or the adult die. This has never been a justification for taking action to kill that person preemptively. You have made the argument that life is more fragile during pregnancy (that miscarriage rates are higher than child mortality?) but the fragility of life has no bearing upon the justice of murder. It is not more appropriate to murder someone in a more dangerous environment, for example.
