💀
@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 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.
@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.
@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.
>Is fapping and cumming in a tissue the same as an abortion?
No, of course not.
A sperm cell is human, but which human is it? If you kill the sperm cell, does that human die?
A fetus is human, but which human is it? If you kill the fetus, does that human die?
Life begins at conception (the Church's teaching) is the most logically coherent. You either believe that or you are basically ok with infanticide. No one can ever explain exactly when life begins, because any other answer like "At birth" or "when a heartbeat is detected" is so variable it becomes absurd.
@Samhydeigger @critical @NEETzsche @Eris
The only reason that works for Christians is because they add in the concept of the soul at the same time. It's not just the "life" part that is important for them, it's that the life has a soul that is critical. Of course this brings in a lot more theological problems that Christians are usually unaware of, like how do twins' souls work, or do the countless miscarried pregnancies also have souls?
And not to mention that this goes out the window when you're talking with either a non-believer, or someone who's religion is far too different than mainstream Christianity.
@Samhydeigger @critical @NEETzsche @Eris
Life begins with each and every cell division.
@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
That's something I need to ask you. Or rather Samhydeigger I guess, but you can answer too.
@Samhydeigger @critical @NEETzsche @Eris
What do you mean by "a human life"? Do you mean the life of something with human DNA? The life of a person that is human? Or something else.
@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
To establish that we have the same definition of words, so that we can proceed with a discussion while avoiding misunderstandings that can occur because of different definitions of words.
@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
You've already proved that we have very different understanding of some very basic words.
@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
Believe what you want.
Hint: If the start of your argument depends on a lie like pretending to not know what a human is, it's not very coherent.
@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
How is it a lie, when I don't understand your definitions of "human" and "person"? Again, I started this very discussion making sure we had the same definitions for these words, and it's been clear from the beginning that we don't.
>How is it a lie, when I don't understand your definitions of "human" and "person"?
You know what a human and a person are. You don't need them defined for you.
>Again, I started this very discussion making sure we had the same definitions for these words, and it's been clear from the beginning that we don't.
Definitions? Dude. Do you really need to consult a dictionary to tell you what a human is? Why do you even need a definition in the first place? What kind of robot-person are you?
Just talk to me like a real person.
@Eris @critical @NEETzsche @Samhydeigger
>Just talk to me like a real person.
Am I supposed to use my definition of "person" here, or yours?
Is that a question you ever actually need to ask, practically?
I cbf going through this thread but I figured I'd driveby and drop something.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that life begins at fertilization.
Oh yeah. But I just don't want this be yet another discussion where both sides mistakenly assume the scientific consensus favours progressive poz. I had to drop this shit on Spinsters when I was a week one fediverse scrub and didn't know how to deal with Emma threads.
I try to keep "scientific consensus" out of any argument I make.
I don't like arguments from genetics because it implies anyone before the discovery of genetics didn't know what a human is, and that's just silly.
Fair enough. I'm just too used to arguing from a dissident standpoint and I know that evidence from outside of the "cathedral" is dismissed.
The arguments pro-aborts make are arbitrary and absurd. Why does a fetus gain ontological status after birth? Neonates are hardly capable of self-thought, and -- according to pro-aborts themselves -- nociception is contentious even after birth! They, moreover, require enormous amounts of external aid to survive.
Also funny is the fact that one loses "personhood" when they go to sleep or into a coma; you're barely a person depending on which REM cycle you're undergoing.
Lot's of inconsistencies, far more than the anti-abortion side.
I wish he would actually make any of these arguments so I could argue against them but instead we're playing weird fag games and meta-discussion.
