subbie - When Does Personhood Begin?

[_EAllusion]

Look at it this way Themis. Would you agree that ending a person's life with a gun can and sometimes is a more humane way to die than many alternatives? A quick gun-shot to the head can be a relatively painless way to go compared to being stabbed in the abdomen, no? But if we banned guns, then at least some people would murder others using more painful means than they otherwise would have. Ergo, we ought not to ban guns as a harm reduction strategy.

You recognize this as a garbage argument, right? That's because you know that I'm dismissing the overwhelming consideration of how gun bans affect how many people die.

[_Gadianton]

To be as simple as possible, at risk of being overly simple, a person's definition for what makes someone or something a human being with recognized rights is essentially their definition for personhood.

So the question is how subbie would define a human being in relation to the argument liberals are inconsistent when they exclude unborn early stage fetuses from being human beings while including toddlers who are being separated from their parents by the government of the US.

I don't disagree. But Subs apparently either doesn't agree with you or more likely, doesn't understand what you're saying.

His responses aren't internally consistent. I think the thrust of his objection is that by using the term "personhood" you're presuming a high standard for what constitutes an x that has a right to life.

But then he objects to EA with:

circular much?

Yes -- what EA said was circular, as it's a definition. The definition of a square is circular too. And by offering the definition EA did of personhood, one that is circular in the particular way in which EA made it circular, we're protected against the term referring to a "conscious adult" -- which is what Subbs was originally upset about -- merely by definition.

We have a sentence: x has a right to life.

What is x? By definition, a *person* is an x that has a right to life. But we don't know what a person is yet beyond that, it is merely how we're framing the question. We could get rid of the term "person" and talk about x -- what "x" has a right to life?

Would he be happier with that? Well, enter more inconsistency, where he seems to want to talk about a "right to life" without an "x" at all -- perhaps in the same sense as a Jain Monk practices Ahimsa. Life intrinsically should live.

I went back and saw that Chap already called him on the question I raised: What is life? All he's really doing is moving the same discussion into different terms. We can either talk about Xs that have a right to live, or supply examples of living things that by definition should live.

Suspecting he's outclassed, he shut Chap down and said he didn't want to derail this thread by talking about what constitutes life, but his response to H is that X (or personhood) misses the point -- the point is about the sanctity of life itself. And so with a finger plugging up each ear canal, he's ready to have a discussion the way right-wingers do it best.

[_EAllusion]

I thought subs criticized me for being circular because I used the word personhood in my definition of personhood. I subsequently cleared up what was referred to there on the assumption he can't read. If he was going for the argument you said Gad, lol.

[_Themis]

Look at it this way Themis. Would you agree that ending a person's life with a gun can and sometimes is a more humane way to die than many alternatives? A quick gun-shot to the head can be a relatively painless way to go compared to being stabbed in the abdomen, no? But if we banned guns, then at least some people would murder others using more painful means than they otherwise would have. Ergo, we ought not to ban guns as a harm reduction strategy.

You recognize this as a garbage argument, right? That's because you know that I'm dismissing the overwhelming consideration of how gun bans affect how many people die.

You mean Chap right?

[_EAllusion]

Look at it this way Themis. Would you agree that ending a person's life with a gun can and sometimes is a more humane way to die than many alternatives? A quick gun-shot to the head can be a relatively painless way to go compared to being stabbed in the abdomen, no? But if we banned guns, then at least some people would murder others using more painful means than they otherwise would have. Ergo, we ought not to ban guns as a harm reduction strategy.

You recognize this as a garbage argument, right? That's because you know that I'm dismissing the overwhelming consideration of how gun bans affect how many people die.

You mean Chap right?

I suppose you can read it too

[_Jersey Girl]

For either of you, does the door to choice remain open for late term abortions?

Would you mind defining your use of the term "late term" for me? There are differing views on where to draw the line on this that may/may not effect my answer.

[_honorentheos]

For either of you, does the door to choice remain open for late term abortions?

Would you mind defining your use of the term "late term" for me? There are differing views on where to draw the line on this that may/may not effect my answer.

I laugh because that is exactly the point with the discussion about personhood. But since you asked, let's push it way out and say after week 32. That's not where I would put the threshold, by the way. I'm just asking for the sake of illustrating the underlying premise in the OP.

[_Jersey Girl]

I laugh because that is exactly the point with the discussion about personhood. But since you asked, let's push it way out and say after week 32. That's not where I would put the threshold, by the way. I'm just asking for the sake of illustrating the underlying premise in the OP.

You are laughing at me? FYI, I didn't read the OP, Mr. Smartass. I started by reading the thread backwards until I decided to comment.

I need a minute here to think.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm ready.

I feel strongly that I have to stand on principle. I think you can tell that I dislike this topic. I think you can probably tell that I believe that life begins at conception. It doesn't matter to me if you or others believe that or not. That's what I believe. Still, I cannot impose my beliefs on those who believe differently. The moment I deny a woman her right to choose is the day that I take away her personhood.

Therefore I think that the door to choice must remain open in all cases, regardless of gestational stage of development. The choice belongs to the woman.

I hate that decision, however, it best represents what I believe to be true and ethical.

All of it.

[_Hawkeye]

Sorry. There is a 4th argument for pro-choice that is common enough to describe it as "major." I find it to be terrible and it doesn't appear in applied ethics much at all to my knowledge, but it none-the-less is deployed a fair amount by ordinary people. It goes something like:

4) If you make abortion illegal, even if it is wrong to commit abortions, women will still find means to have abortions, but their chosen methods will be much less safe. The aggregate harm from this is greater than the harm from legally accessible abortions, therefore abortion should be legal on pragmatic grounds.

I'm curious as to why you think this is a terrible argument. It does have the advantage of being supported by history. I mean, we already know what America looks like when abortion is illegal. It ain't pretty. The Right Wing zealot's attempt to legislate behavior has always been a fool's errand.