subbie - When Does Personhood Begin?

[_subgenius]

I'd like to helpfully point out that the better pro-life arguments ditch trying to argue that a 2 month old fetus is a person. Instead they argue that potential personhood should be morally and legally relevant.

I have not made any argument with regard to "person"...i simply made statement about life (human life for the pedantic readers)...see the operating term in this context is "pro-life" not "pro-person". Your insistence that the argument be from the position of "only a person" is entitled to a right to life is entertaining, but it does not move the piece on the board.
The law is very clear on what a person is to be defined as, and that law requires a "person" to be born alive and as such removes the notion of "person" from any sort of abortion discussion...ergo, "pro-life" instead of pro-potential-"person".
The bottom line begins with one simple question - Do you believe that human gestation must involve a living human being yet to be born?

[_subgenius]

Lol, weren't you the dumb idiot who called EA's definition circular?

Yeah, a person has a right to life. But unless it shares the traits I described earlier it isn't a person. I mean, you're so dumb your definition explicitly included corpses but you want to demand they have a right to life? God you suck at thinking.

I did not ask about a person's right to life...i asked about a human being's right to life.

[_Hawkeye]

I'd like to helpfully point out that the better pro-life arguments ditch trying to argue that a 2 month old fetus is a person. Instead they argue that potential personhood should be morally and legally relevant.

I have not made any argument with regard to "person"...i simply made statement about life (human life for the pedantic readers)...see the operating term in this context is "pro-life" not "pro-person". Your insistence that the argument be from the position of "only a person" is entitled to a right to life is entertaining, but it does not move the piece on the board.
The law is very clear on what a person is to be defined as, and that law requires a "person" to be born alive and as such removes the notion of "person" from any sort of abortion discussion...ergo, "pro-life" instead of pro-potential-"person".
The bottom line begins with one simple question - Do you believe that human gestation must involve a living human being yet to be born?

EA was pointing out the better arguments for pro-life. That you have not made those arguments is hardly surprising.

[_subgenius]

EA was pointing out the better arguments for pro-life. That you have not made those arguments is hardly surprising.

that you, or EA, consider these to be "better" arguments is what is surprising, because clearly the both of you are literate enough to post on this thread.
nevertheless, EA and Honor are arguing a point that is irrelevant to my original statement(s) since pro-person and pro-life are not synonymous.

Do you believe the following statement is true?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[_canpakes]

EA was pointing out the better arguments for pro-life. That you have not made those arguments is hardly surprising.

that you, or EA, consider these to be "better" arguments is what is surprising, because clearly the both of you are literate enough to post on this thread.
nevertheless, EA and Honor are arguing a point that is irrelevant to my original statement(s) since pro-person and pro-life are not synonymous.

At least they provided an argument that supports their position.

[_subgenius]

At least they provided an argument that supports their position.

and what position is that?

[_EAllusion]

For what it is worth, I think the strongest pro-life argument is the inverse of what Jersey Girl argued. Jersey Girl reasons that you should not make activities illegal where people can reasonably disagree about their propriety. Since abortion is one of those issues where reasonable disagreements exist, it should be left to a personal decision. One side should not impose their stance on others with legal consequences.

That has some intuitive appeal, but here’s the thing: It is a widely accepted idea that it is proper to make behavior illegal if it risks killing a person. Laws against drunk driving are a good example of this. Reckless behavior is the domain of law. If it is the case that it is reasonably possible that abortion might be killing a person, then doing it is reckless. It’s reckless in the same way drunk driving is. You have to err on the side of caution.

It happens that I *don’t* think there is reasonable doubt about the permissibility of abortion in at least some circumstances like the first trimester. But to establish this argument, you don’t need to demonstrate the personhood of young fetuses or the value of potential personhood or anything like that. You just need to demonstrate my confidence is misplaced and there is a reasonable chance you could be right.

[_EAllusion]

Regarding the personhood debate, it does no good to insist something is a human life. You have to show why being a human life is something that deserves moral and/or legal respect. Not only is this not self-evident like some pro-lifers act, it’s also widely rejected. You can ignore the issue of abortion to see this. Most people are morally ok allowing to remove someone in a vegetative state from life support. They appear to believe that a living human being who has permanently lost the capacity for consciousness is not a person. Convincing otherwise requires argument, not assertion.

Or if we encountered alien life that was mentally identical, but biologically dissimilar from humans, I think most people would be inclined to consider them persons. Not only is “human life” potentially too expansive a criteria, it’s also potentially too narrow.

[_honorentheos]

Lol, weren't you the dumb ____ who called EAllusion's definition circular?

Yeah, a person has a right to life. But unless it shares the traits I described earlier it isn't a person. I mean, you're so dumb your definition explicitly included corpses but you want to demand they have a right to life? God you suck at thinking.

I did not ask about a person's right to life...i asked about a human being's right to life.

Which you defined as human = homo sapiens which is as circular as it gets. On top of which, you included dead humans.

[_subgenius]

Which you defined as human = homo sapiens which is as circular as it gets. On top of which, you included dead humans.

Not really...homo sapiens sapiens come in 2 varieties..living and dead. It seemed that the poster was confused as to what I thought a "human being"/"human" was, and so I offered the technical definition...this mainly because some posters here have been confused about the context here, like when I said right to life some thought i must surely be talking about hand bacteria.
So, it is not circular to distinguish that i consider a human to be a homo sapien, as opposed to human being defined as a a homo sapien with personhood or other such nonsense.

nevertheless, that is another poster - you still have yet to answer any of my questions.....in particular: this one -
viewtopic.php?p=1129014#p1129014