Alyx Hinata 🇹🇩🚫💀 @alyx@gameliberty.club

@Eris @critical @NEETzsche
Or in other words, "human" on itself answers nothing. Again, we need a different word to easily discuss these things.

@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.

@NEETzsche @critical @Eris
Is fapping and cumming in a tissue the same as an abortion? Checking your definitions on everything now... who knows what the hell people will come up with next.

@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.

@Eris @NEETzsche @Greannach
So "the earth is flat" is on equal value to "the earth is a sphere"?

@Eris @critical
Both of you basically called me a murderer, and I'm the aggressive one.

@NEETzsche @Eris @Greannach
Command? No. A better understanding of the language, maybe.

@Eris @critical
With you? I'd rather have a discussion with your foot at this point.

@critical @Eris
I would advise against trying to argue with him. He's beyond hope. I stopped giving it a serious go a good couple of posts ago.

@Greannach @Eris
I love how you guys keep conflating stuff. He's with "person = human", you're with "fetus = baby". Keep going.

@Greannach @Eris
What purpose would it fulfill to state the distinction, if Einstein over here things his foot is a person?

@Eris @Terra_australis
Yes, something that matches the criteria for X is X, and what doesn't match the criteria for X, isn't X. Furthermore, something that is only part of X is also not X, it's only part of X.
That's how thinking works. Try it sometimes.

@Eris @Greannach
>"what even is a person anyway"
There. Fixed it for you.

@Eris @Greannach
Which can be anywhere from 1 second to 100 years. This doesn't answer anything.

@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.

@Greannach @Eris
The act of conception, the creation of a distinct DNA inherently denies the numerous other possible DNA combinations that could have occurred from the parents' DNA.

@Greannach @Eris
Your argument was that they would live on to maturity. Now you're just arguing that they will live on. For how long? This matters. Especially in early stages of pregnancy, when the risk of miscarriage is large enough to exceed the risk of a random person being hit by a car.

@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.

@Greannach @Eris
>The creation of every human requires the destruction of many haploid probabilities
Good point. And yes, conception is necessary, but surely not taking part in the act of conception, sex, destroys even more haploid probabilities than not doing so, thus stopping even more "inevitable development of mature humans".

>when a woman is impregnated the child is inevitable unless something goes wrong, you must act to stop an inevitability.
No human act is required to stop the "inevitability". Natural miscarriage happens all the time. By some accounts, miscarriage is a more common phenomenon than man-made abortions. But I wouldn't know if that's true, nor does it matter for my argument. Any amount of natural occurring miscarriage denies the "inevitability" of pregnancy resulting in a mature human being (without the human act of abortion of course).

@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.