Justice Kennedy to retire

[_honorentheos]

Looks like the real issue ended up being that you aren’t able to even define your own criteria.

my criteria? i did not start the thread bruh...and when i asked the Oposter to clarify what exactly he was asking me, his response was for me to clarify his position.....yeah, right.

All you needed to do was explain your view of what defined personhood. You were given sources, definitions, links, and even clearly did some reading on your own. But rather than engage in discussing how your view of personhood supported a claim that liberals were inconsistent when it came to the treatment of children you kept dodging. If I didn't know better, I'd think you only care for trolling rather than actually engaging in meaningful dialog.

[_subgenius]

All you needed to do was explain your view of what defined personhood.

No, that thread claimed to be inspired by my comment about "life", and then the poster asked me to explain their insertion/substitution of personhood. Mt post and subsequent comment on that separate thread did not claim personhood, in fact it was dismissed.

You were given sources, definitions, links, and even clearly did some reading on your own.

So what? none of those were relevant to my original claim and none were my burden in that context...i was not obliged to define a concept that the poster introduced...in fact when i asked the poster to clarify what they were asking of me - the response was "you tell me what i am asking you".

But rather than engage in discussing how your view of personhood

I was asked about personhood in a specific context, but when i requested "which personhood" is being asked about, the poster side-stepped and simply replied "you pick"...well, not my problem to define the poster's argument or question for them.

supported a claim that liberals were inconsistent when it came to the treatment of children you kept dodging.

and here is the basic failure of that post...i never said anything about personhood...i specifically mentioned "life", it was the poster that introduced "personhood" and then dodged the substance of their own claim. The OP clearly cites my position, and that position makes no mention of personhood.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you only care for trolling rather than actually engaging in meaningful dialog.

If you knew better, then you would actually know better...but you do not.

1. i wrote : 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.
2. which you then wrote an OP: 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.
So, here you admittedly recognize that "life" is not the same as personhood, and that i was - in fact - only asserting life....so, you dismissed my position for "life" and proposed that "personhood" should be the measure (ergo your burden to clarify any inquiries about what YOU define personhood as)
3. You then ask me: Do you believe that personhood begins at conception? - What qualities do you believe qualify as necessary to have personhood?
4. I then respond with: "personhood" isn't a right. ... 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. (emphasis added)

5. Your only response to my request are to post some video that you expect me to click and watch (as opposed to you actually responding with your own thoughts/words), and I note: 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.

and, then eventually you offer this little glimpse, albeit not an answer to my many requests for clarification - because one can't just say it's about life. It's clearly about life with certain other qualities.

which merits my response of: you yourself still have not defined personhood or how such a definition is inextricably linked to "life" inasmuch as one is afforded legal protection - or even moral protection.

6. And then you finally jump the shark (over the moved goal post i might add)...just compare what you say here with your veiled question(s) in the OP: How one defines what constitutes personhood affects everything that follows. That's why I asked you to provide what you believe constitutes personhood since it is fundamental to the discussion regarding whether or not a person is being consistent in how they seek to see rights applied.

You asked how i defined personhood and my first post answered it. viewtopic.php?p=1126837#p1126837
cI then clearly stated if you were wanting to discuss a new premise (as formed by the OP) then it was up to you to define personhood, because i clearly answered the OP question...but post after post you avoided:
defining personhood as it applies to your premise;
and/or how such a definition is inextricably linked to "life" inasmuch as one is afforded legal protection - or even moral protection.

so complication and criteria seem to have confounded you guys once again...let me know when you sort out what you are really asking, because my answer was pretty clear and pretty simple.

[_honorentheos]

So, you want to claim that life is the only threshold? Just to be clear? You'll note that in that thread you refused to discuss what defined life with Chap because you apparently prefer rhetoric to dialog. But if you want to acknowledge that both are one and the same for you, and this is where you ground the argument that liberals are inconsistent, then raise your hand to the square, bow your head and say, "yes".

[_subgenius]

So, you want to claim that life is the only threshold?

I did not claim anything about thresholds.

Just to be clear?

Clear? why is clarity everyone else's burden but yours...how about sticking with your own argument rather than moving on when your own position is exposed.

You'll note that in that thread you refused to discuss what defined life with Chap because you apparently prefer rhetoric to dialog.

That is irrelevant to what we were discussing, and Chap was trolling. Furthermore, it was not my burden to define life, because the that thread was about personhood (see also that OP).

But if you want to acknowledge that both are one and the same for you,

My first response on that thread clarified my position quite clearly. And i have never claimed that they are the same.

and this is where you ground the argument that liberals are inconsistent, then raise your hand to the square, bow your head and say, "yes".

Huh?...are you reading some other topic's posts?...my statement about inconsistency was pretty straightforward...."personhood" was a topic you introduced and one that not only did you refuse to define but insisted was my burden.
Dude, asking me a question and then insisting that i explain your question to you is not a great strategy.

[_honorentheos]

Dude, asking me a question and then insisting that i explain your question to you is not a great strategy.

subbie, what was meant by personhood was explained at multiple points in that thread, while it was also explained that what criteria a person believed is required for something/someone to have personhood is where the debate exists around when a fertilized human egg should be recognized as a person with rights.

So, to make another attempt at it, please explain what makes something/someone a human being? Specifically. As noted in that other thread, it gets complicated to say its defined by possessing human DNA or self-awareness or the ability to exist in a metabolically active state independently. Each definition brackets things based on what you choose to prioritize.

So when you claimed that liberals are being inconsistent when expressing concern regarding children being separated from their parents but are ok with a woman choosing to have an abortion, you made a claim about personhood whether you recognize it as such or not.

If a person believes in a definition of personhood that requires criteria that would exclude developing cells before they reach a certain stage and believes a woman should have the right to end the development of those cells before they achieve personhood, they would be consistent in expressing concern over a child while supporting a woman who chose to end a pregnancy before the conditions of personhood were achieved by the developing cells.

So you disagree. I'd be interested in seeing your concept of personhood spelled out to see how consistent IT actually is.

[_subgenius]

Dude, asking me a question and then insisting that i explain your question to you is not a great strategy.

subbie, what was meant by personhood was explained at multiple points in that thread, while it was also explained that what criteria a person believed is required for something/someone to have personhood is where the debate exists around when a fertilized human egg should be recognized as a person with rights.

1. Yes, i got that...every time you pound it. But let us assume you did not ignore my initial response viewtopic.php?p=1126837#p1126837
oh wait, we can't because you did. How are you confused by what i wrote there and how are you unable to clarify your own position with your own question to me?
2. Personhood, with regards to the OP question was never defined as i requested.
3. And while you linked some video for me to ignore (as was explained), you still offered no distinction with regards to the OP inquiry.
again - viewtopic.php?p=1126837#p1126837

So, to make another attempt at it, please explain what makes something/someone a human being?

why do i need to explain that to you?, i did not make a claim about human being...if it is your premise then it is for you to explain what makes something/someone a human being.
Here is your "argument" so far:
1. Subbie says "life"
2. Honor says "oh, for me life is a human being - therefore Subbie has to tell me what a human being is" *as Honor reaches for presupposition.
3. Subbie says "why is that my problem?"
4. Honor says "because i said so".

Specifically. As noted in that other thread, it gets complicated to say its defined by possessing human DNA or self-awareness or the ability to exist in a metabolically active state independently. Each definition brackets things based on what you choose to prioritize.

I understand your point here, but since it was your premise it is up to you to provide what you chose to prioritize in the context of your question...otherwise if my answer chooses another priority than the one you secretly chose for your original question....then your rebuttal becomes some odd game of "aha, you chose differently than me so you are wrong and i am right".

So when you claimed that liberals are being inconsistent when expressing concern regarding children being separated from their parents but are ok with a woman choosing to have an abortion, you made a claim about personhood whether you recognize it as such or not.

nope, i made a claim about life...even specifically used the word "life". You then chose to substitute "personhood" as a synonym for life, and did so without justifying their equal definitions. And i even addressed that issue at first post - viewtopic.php?p=1126837#p1126837

If a person believes in a definition of personhood that requires criteria that would exclude developing cells before they reach a certain stage and believes a woman should have the right to end the development of those cells before they achieve personhood, they would be consistent in expressing concern over a child while supporting a woman who chose to end a pregnancy before the conditions of personhood were achieved by the developing cells.

well, that is great...convoluted, but great...and all of it is irrelevant to what i said as was cited in the OP. See you created a new argument with premises of your own design stating that they were inspired by a claim i made...but then you went full ahead with your "new design" as being some sort of translation of my claim and therefore proceeded to pick apart your own premise (a.k.a. your premise for what you believe to be my premise)....and i hink we both know what this sort of argument creation is called, inasmuch as it accompanied Dorothy and had a fear of fire).

So you disagree. I'd be interested in seeing your concept of personhood spelled out to see how consistent IT actually is.

Yes, because even though you introduced the topic personhood and my assertion never relied upon nor mentioned personhood, it is somehow my burden to define it for your argument.
Ok, since we are giving things "another attempt" - viewtopic.php?p=1126837#p1126837

[_honorentheos]

So you disagree. I'd be interested in seeing your concept of personhood spelled out to see how consistent IT actually is.

Yes, because even though you introduced the topic personhood and my assertion never relied upon nor mentioned personhood, it is somehow my burden to define it for your argument.
Ok, since we are giving things "another attempt" - viewtopic.php?p=1126837#p1126837

"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?

Because you don't believe all things everywhere in all circumstances have the same right to life all the time. You just don't and you know that. You don't treat using hand sanitizer that kills the bacteria on your skin the same way you would treat someone taking up a gun and shooting up a school. Well, actually...

Feel free to go to the other thread not about Justice Kennedy and answer the question what traits are necessary for something to be recognized as a human being.