subbie - When Does Personhood Begin?

[_canpakes]

Second, personhood can be afforded to non-humans,

not reasonably, some quacks are trying but these are the sorts of people that want to bring their therapy rooster on a plane.

already is to a partial extent with some animals,

no its not.

and is believed by plenty of people to apply to non-human things.

irrelevant. lots of people believe lots of things, that does not make anything valid in this context, does it?

You need to keep up on current events. ; )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

[_subgenius]

You need to keep up on current events. ; )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

So do you, the "broad and universal" context for this discussion has already been dismissed by these posters (see also my apparent use of the word "life"). Also i dismissed the "corporate" distraction long ago...keep up.


perhaps thread context is something you should keep up on ;)

[_canpakes]

So do you, the "broad and universal" context for this discussion has already been dismissed by these posters (see also my apparent use of the word "life"). Also i dismissed the "corporate" distraction long ago...keep up.

I’m not sure what this garbled passage is supposed to be saying; are you imploring us to ‘keep up’ with your ongoing slow murder of the language, or your attempts to reject facts and reality when they don’t jive with your babbling?

[_EAllusion]

you're the one making the claims, slick.

Nah. You're the one arguing that being a living human being is a necessary and sufficient condition of deserving moral and/or legal status associated with human rights. You're doing a lot of violence to language in the process, so I can see why you'd forget that, but it's your stance. That you reject the legal and philosophical jargon to discuss this is your block-headed prerogative, but it doesn't change the underlying position you are refusing to defend. You probably have no clue to how to even begin to defend it, so I get what you are doing. You know, from an emotional perspective.

[_honorentheos]

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.

Interesting taxonomy there, subbie. Did you learn that in Sunday school?

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.

That is your idea of a technical definition? Saying the common name equals the taxonomical classification? Or do you mean we need to infer from the "context" that you want to use the Linnaean taxonomy for your definition of personhood? 'Cuz EA has been schooling you pretty hard on that topic even if it isn't getting through.

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.

Your answer was absolutely circular unless the question was, "What is the linnaean taxonomical classification for humans?" Which, as you know, it wasn't.

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

Your not liking or understanding the answer is not the same as it not being answered. As pointed out multiple times, having human DNA does not equate to having a right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Otherwise, your skin cells have a right to liberty AND life because that makes perfect sense. Or your great-grandfather's corpse has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or...anyway, it's silly.

I gave you the definition I use for generally assessing whether someone/something should be treated as a person with rights. It has it's problems but it works well enough to be relatively consistent and addresses your complaint regarding how some may wish to see immigrant children treated compared to a fetus in early stages of development. It doesn't matter that you don't like it, or even that you don't seem to get it. As noted in the thread to Bach, it's clearly above your level.

[_canpakes]

As pointed out multiple times, having human DNA does not equate to having a right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

There was a thread some time back in which subs maintained that it was perfectly fine to end up with innocent Palestinian women and children being killed during Israeli air strikes responding to any given Hamas missile strike. His definition of, and respect for, fully formed human life, is as ‘flexible’ and no less ‘immoral’ than any person advocating for abortion rights.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Do we all agree that it is wrong to let a conscious human die?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Nah. You're the one arguing that being a living human being is a necessary and sufficient condition of deserving moral and/or legal status associated with human rights.

Should a conscious human have rights? If yes, then are you certain that consciousness doesn't begin before birth?

[_DoubtingThomas]

But I just can't believe that Roe v. Wade is the center of Supreme Court debate. I highly doubt our country is ever going to have extreme anti-abortion laws. Why can't the debate be about Citizens United? How is abortion the most important issue in our country? It just feels like a big distraction.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Or do you currently hold the position that no, human life does not deserve said respect because it has not been "shown to me" yet ?

Do you believe the fetus is a person? Who is more important the mother or the fetus? If both the mother and the fetus are equally important, then does that mean a woman shouldn't have an abortion even if her life is in danger?