DiscussMormonism.com

subbie -

Rather than post in the tread on the Trump immigration policy or one of the Supreme Court threads, it seemed better to start a new one to ask you a question related to a post you made to Hawkeye, here:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=49289&start=89

subgenius wrote:

Hawkeye wrote:U.S. interfaith leaders urge government to #KeepFamiliesTogether

For those of you keeping score at home, on this issue One-eye is all about the government heeding the counsel of religion, but on the issue of abortion the government should 180 on the value of children/family and heed the separation of church and state.
As usual the dismal policy of the Democratic party where liberals pick/choose when a child's life, and "family" is only as important as it is politically convenient.

#abortionkills

Philosophically speaking, much of the debate around when an unborn child should be recognized as having individual rights circles the issue of when an embryo -> fetus -> person. Essentially, when does personhood begin? Using life as a threshold doesn't work because the individual sperm and egg have characteristics of life. As one tries to examine the question of when human life begins, one is forced to focus on the human side of that equation more so than the life side.

With that in mind, some questions:

Do you believe that personhood begins at conception?

What qualities do you believe qualify as necessary to have personhood?

One might go further, and ask:

1. Given that fertilised ova not infrequently fail to implant, and as a result die and leave the womb in the form of a slightly heavy period, should all used female menstrual hygiene products be collected and given reverent and proper burial rather than being casually incinerated as they are now? After all, by the standards operated by some pro-lifers there may have been several human micro-corpses in there. Stop burning dead babies!!!!

2. Given that Intra-uterine contraceptive devices such as the coil and the loop (and so on) work in part by actually detaching fertilised ova which have begun to implant in the womb wall, is this not murder, and should not all such devices be banned?

I mean, let's be consistent here. If there is a 'right to life' immediately after conception it does not just apply to the life once it has become relatively photogenic, surely?

"personhood" isn't a right. So while I appreciate your attempt at arguing some other distracting philosophy, it seems rather irrelevant to the point you credit for inspiring this thread. "Personhood" is a rather arbitrary measure as it seems to infer that only a conscious human being is living...yet we know that such subjective and fleeting notions are dangerous. Why not be consistent, contrary to current Democrat/Lib hair fires, and either believe in a right to life or not?

Now that being said, I'm not one to shy away from a frivolous argument like you are presenting here...so, perhaps you can offer some clarity that will enable me to respond properly to your OP. First, I don't believe in personhood as you are inferring, so it would be best for, and encumbent upon, you define personhood. Otherwise, my response would be simple - what is "personhood"? I've never heard of such a thing.

subgenius wrote:... what is "personhood"? I've never heard of such a thing.

I think that by that term honorentheos is simply referring to the state of being a living human being - something which some pro-lifers seem to think starts immediately after when an ovum has been fertilised. Since they think it is always wrong to bring an end to a human life, they think that termination of a pregnancy is always wrong.

When do you think human life begins?

Chap wrote:One might go further, and ask:

1. Given that fertilised ova not infrequently fail to implant, and as a result die and leave the womb in the form of a slightly heavy period, should all used female menstrual hygiene products be collected and given reverent and proper burial rather than being casually incinerated as they are now? After all, by the standards operated by some pro-lifers there may have been several human micro-corpses in there. Stop burning dead babies!!!!

2. Given that Intra-uterine contraceptive devices such as the coil and the loop (and so on) work in part by actually detaching fertilised ova which have begun to implant in the womb wall, is this not murder, and should not all such devices be banned?

I mean, let's be consistent here. If there is a 'right to life' immediately after conception it does not just apply to the life once it has become relatively photogenic, surely?

your questions here seem to have been thoroughly answered by your local catholic church, perhaps that is a better forum within which to ask them. But you bring up interesting points...so, if it's not about a basic form of "life" for you, then it must be something else...something that transcends a basic biological circumstance common to all "living" things...is it just because its "human"?, nope, clearly not the case for your position...so it must be something else...something tangible? something absolute and determinable, correct? Is it an expression?...an expression of what then? You seem to be wanting to impose a value on an expression where as in the absence of such an expression the right to life is voided....ergo, either the life never made manifest or it can not manifest "again". So, let's "take it further" instead of taking it absurdly as you seem to prefer.

Chap wrote:

subgenius wrote:... what is "personhood"? I've never heard of such a thing.

I think that by that term honorentheos is simply referring to the state of being a living human being - something which some pro-lifers seem to think starts immediately after when an ovum has been fertilised. Since they think it is always wrong to bring an end to a human life, they think that termination of a pregnancy is always wrong.

When do you think human life begins?

this thread seems to be about personhood and not about life, please do not invite me on to your derailment train.

subgenius wrote:"personhood" isn't a right.

True. But it's used as a way of defining when rights are established.

Try this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxM9BZeRrUI

subgenius wrote:

Chap wrote:One might go further, and ask:

1. Given that fertilised ova not infrequently fail to implant, and as a result die and leave the womb in the form of a slightly heavy period, should all used female menstrual hygiene products be collected and given reverent and proper burial rather than being casually incinerated as they are now? After all, by the standards operated by some pro-lifers there may have been several human micro-corpses in there. Stop burning dead babies!!!!

2. Given that Intra-uterine contraceptive devices such as the coil and the loop (and so on) work in part by actually detaching fertilised ova which have begun to implant in the womb wall, is this not murder, and should not all such devices be banned?

I mean, let's be consistent here. If there is a 'right to life' immediately after conception it does not just apply to the life once it has become relatively photogenic, surely?

your questions here seem to have been thoroughly answered by your local catholic church, perhaps that is a better forum within which to ask them. But you bring up interesting points...so, if it's not about a basic form of "life" for you, then it must be something else...something that transcends a basic biological circumstance common to all "living" things...is it just because its "human"?, nope, clearly not the case for your position...so it must be something else...something tangible? something absolute and determinable, correct? Is it an expression?...an expression of what then? You seem to be wanting to impose a value on an expression where as in the absence of such an expression the right to life is voided....ergo, either the life never made manifest or it can not manifest "again".
So, let's "take it further" instead of taking it absurdly as you seem to prefer.

Help. I have read the response by subgenius a couple of times, and I can't locate a clear proposition or question.

Can someone help me to understand what he is saying?

Chap wrote:Help. I have read the response by subgenius a couple of times, and it just seems to be a disconnected word salad expressing no clear proposition or question.

Can someone help me to understand what he is saying?

Chap. Dude. It's a subby post. You even identified its distinctive trait.

honorentheos wrote:

subgenius wrote:"personhood" isn't a right.

True. But it's used as a way of defining when rights are established.

So a non-citizen is not entitled to a right to life by our Constitution? our laws? (eg the 14th does not apply).

honorentheos wrote:You are wanting to talk about a state before birth.

No, you are - you started this thread (see also OP).

honorentheos wrote:So, when does that state fit the definition for being a person?

don't care unless you can reasonably conclude that "person" is indistinguishable from "life".

honorentheos wrote:Try this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxM9BZeRrUI

Nope, the burden is yours to post your argument here, not for me to follow some link and try to pick out some point or idea that may or may not be conveyed in a video.
If you believe that personhood is to be defined in such a manner that supports whatever end-around you're trying with the OP then do the work and type it. Otherwise be dismissed.