Personhood is not something that is added to someone, in any case. You recognize something as a person or not, but your calling it a person does not change what it is. It affects the person recognizing the other, because it affects the way he behaves towards the one recognized as a person.
You've just destroyed your whole position. Remember when I said personhood is not defined by any physical thing, but rather is conferred?
That's exactly the conclusion you've come to here using different words and a different (and wrong) reason.
Kian, you are hopelessly out of your depth. It's time you stopped asserting what you want to be true and started listening to the truth. People are important because their rights come from God.
Quote:
The pieces may be there, but the value is not in the pieces existing. It would be like not bothering to solve a puzzle, because "Well, the pieces are all there. No value is added by finishing the puzzle."
I've been trying to stick as closely as possible to whether a baby is a person, as you asked me to focus on one point at a time. It may shock you to discover that no, even though I argue a lot about the definition of personhood, I don't in fact think much of persons, or believe in the existence of inherent rights.
I don't even think a born baby, full term, nine months old, is a 'person'. Killing the baby would not be a crime against the person of the baby. It would be a horrible crime, but not because you're killing a person.
When does someone become a person is a complex matter, and not so much about physical development as mental. Ok, mental development depends a lot on physical development, but the situation isn't clear cut. I'd say, however, it is some time after birth, and definitely by the time they can speak.
And before you get confused, something not being a person doesn't mean killing it is ok. Not even for convenience.
This is stupid and evil.
You want both worlds. You want to condemn the people who murder their kids, but you don't want them guilty of murder.
Quote:
I made my definition of person clear enough to answer these questions, even if I did not give an exhaustive definition. The presence of a human (loaded word, handle with care) mind plays an important part in the definition. I can't really get into the specifics without getting more wordy. I will admit that I was surprised by at how early a fetus develops its central nervous system, but as I said, my definition never rested on that. It simply made it a necessary, not sufficient, requirement.
Human is not a loaded term. Even a three year old can tell you what is and isn't a person. You've made things so confusing for yourself that you've been forced into accepting something simple in order to maintain an argument. Unfortunately you've chosen a really stupid position that says killing a 2 year old is not murder.
You've just destroyed your whole position. Remember when I said personhood is not defined by any physical thing, but rather is conferred?
That's exactly the conclusion you've come to here using different words and a different (and wrong) reason.
I don't see how. You claim personhood is conferred. I said it is recognized. They are two fundamentally different arguments.
Quote:
Kian, you are hopelessly out of your depth. It's time you stopped asserting what you want to be true and started listening to the truth. People are important because their rights come from God
If that is the reason people are important, then people aren't important. They just have rights.
Quote:
This is stupid and evil.
See, I prefer to think people have the value we give them, not a value given by some higher entity most don't recognize.
Quote:
You want both worlds. You want to condemn the people who murder their kids, but you don't want them guilty of murder.
I don't think abortion is murder, but I don't think it is good for anyone involved. However, I also feel that a fundamental requirement of freedom is the freedom to make mistakes. I don't condemn people who 'murder their kids', I feel sorry for them.
Quote:
Human is not a loaded term. Even a three year old can tell you what is and isn't a person. You've made things so confusing for yourself that you've been forced into accepting something simple in order to maintain an argument. Unfortunately you've chosen a really stupid position that says killing a 2 year old is not murder.
How do you sleep nights?
And we all know how aware of the world 3-year-olds are.
Also, when did I say killing a 2 year old is not murder? Infanticide might be a more appropriate term, though.
Stripe, you don't believe a newborn baby should vote, do you? You don't think they should be allowed to buy alcohol, smoke, drive, be tried as adults, consent to sex, etc. Why do you think this is? Might it not be because you recognize that they're not really people in the same sense that adults are people? If they are everything they ever need to be since conception, why do you acknowledge their rights incrementally and not all at once? What is it that is changing?
Kian. With your last post you have just lost all credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
I don't see how. You claim personhood is conferred. I said it is recognized. They are two fundamentally different arguments.
It's conferred by God and everyone has the capacity to recognise it. Everyone except those trying to justify the killing of others, that is...
Quote:
If that is the reason people are important, then people aren't important. They just have rights.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard for a while. How do you figure that? God thinks we are important which makes us not important?
Quote:
See, I prefer to think people have the value we give them, not a value given by some higher entity most don't recognize.
That's nice. Except your value of people goes out the window upon silly measurements like height or location. Next you'll be telling us that black people aren't people...
Quote:
I don't think abortion is murder, but I don't think it is good for anyone involved. However, I also feel that a fundamental requirement of freedom is the freedom to make mistakes. I don't condemn people who 'murder their kids', I feel sorry for them.
Do you feel sorry for rapists as well? Do you think all they need is a nice big hug?
Quote:
And we all know how aware of the world 3-year-olds are.
Aware enough to know that killing their little brother is bad.
Quote:
Also, when did I say killing a 2 year old is not murder? Infanticide might be a more appropriate term, though.
Oh. So now you know when a person becomes a person. When is that and where is your evidence?
Quote:
Stripe, you don't believe a newborn baby should vote, do you? You don't think they should be allowed to buy alcohol, smoke, drive, be tried as adults, consent to sex, etc. Why do you think this is? Might it not be because you recognize that they're not really people in the same sense that adults are people? If they are everything they ever need to be since conception, why do you acknowledge their rights incrementally and not all at once? What is it that is changing?
You're right. People who are babies are somewhat limited as compared to people who are adults.
People without arms can't juggle, Kian.
Your standards are a mess and you can't string together more than a few points on a consistent moral foundation.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard for a while. How do you figure that? God thinks we are important which makes us not important?
No, what makes us not important following that reasoning is that there is nothing that makes us important. Only God's opinion, which we don't know on what it is based (or at least, you didn't specify it). What is it that makes God think we're important? If you don't know, then by your reasoning, you can't explain why we're important. It doesn't matter if you think we're important or not, if you can't explain it. It's a meaningless statement.
Quote:
That's nice. Except your value of people goes out the window upon silly measurements like height or location. Next you'll be telling us that black people aren't people...
This is either a pack of lies, or a deep misunderstanding of my posts. I claimed development as having an impact, yes. However, I never said the fetus was valueless. You want to put everything in terms of black and white. Something either has an absolute right to live that can't be crossed for any reason, or it has no value at all.
My position is not this. I recognize the new being has a value at conception. I just don't think this value is greater than the right of the woman to decide her fate.
Quote:
Do you feel sorry for rapists as well? Do you think all they need is a nice big hug?
Yes, I do feel sorry for rapists, as well as for their victims. I don't think a hug would do much to help them. And I don't see how killing them would do anything for anyone.
Quote:
Aware enough to know that killing their little brother is bad.
Oh, please. Have you ever seen a small child? They're the most selfish beings in the world. And in my experience, they lack an understanding of what death means.
Quote:
Oh. So now you know when a person becomes a person. When is that and where is your evidence?
You keep asking for evidence. Evidence of what? I said that someone was a 'person' sometime after birth and definitely by the time they could speak. Speech develops at varying rates, first words being spoken at around 1 year, 2 words sentences at around 2 years, there's really no clear cut point when they become a 'person'.
The thing you need to understand is that them not being a person doesn't mean I think they have no value at all. A chair and a dog are both not persons, but I give them different value. I'd throw a chair in a wood chipper, but not a dog.
Quote:
You're right. People who are babies are somewhat limited as compared to people who are adults.
People without arms can't juggle, Kian.
Yes, because they lack arms. Give them arms, and they could juggle.
What is it that limits these baby people? What do they lack? They have everything they need to be people, what else do they need?
This is either a pack of lies, or a deep misunderstanding of my posts. I claimed development as having an impact, yes. However, I never said the fetus was valueless. You want to put everything in terms of black and white. Something either has an absolute right to live that can't be crossed for any reason, or it has no value at all.
No, this is everything that is important about this thread. You are willing to see children dead for the sake of convenience. You try to justify this perversion and have been shown up. But like any good fish, caught in a net, you continue to struggle.
A baby has every right to life just as you do. You believe otherwise on no evidence. You've tried to invent evidence, but there isn't any that backs up a lie.
Oh, please. Have you ever seen a small child? They're the most selfish beings in the world. And in my experience, they lack an understanding of what death means.
What is it that limits these baby people? What do they lack? They have everything they need to be people, what else do they need?
They lack nothing. What is lacking is what should lie within you. You should have a conscience and you should recognise that killing a child is the most egregious act a man could commit. But you want to invent categories and ignore facts so that you might have an excuse to turn your head when women decide to do exactly that.
You're the one claiming that people without certain things are not people...
And you're the one claiming that they are people because they are everything they'll ever need to be since conception.
Only you just compared them to the situation of someone lacking arms. As in, it's obvious they lack something. I'm just curious what it is they lack, when they already are everything they need to be.
And you're the one claiming that they are people because they are everything they'll ever need to be since conception.
Only you just compared them to the situation of someone lacking arms. As in, it's obvious they lack something. I'm just curious what it is they lack, when they already are everything they need to be.
You obviously do not know what you are talking about. Personhood is not defined by any trait or ability. It is conferred by God. It is you that claims babies to be too small or lacking in something to be considered people. It is a challenge to your position that a person with no arms cannot do everything that other people can do.
You obviously do not know what you are talking about. Personhood is not defined by any trait or ability. It is conferred by God. It is you that claims babies to be too small or lacking in something to be considered people. It is a challenge to your position that a person with no arms cannot do everything that other people can do.
Let's leave aside the matter of personhood for a second. It is a simple question. What do babies lack, that you would compare them to someone who's lost his arms?
Let's leave aside the matter of personhood for a second. It is a simple question. What do babies lack, that you would compare them to someone who's lost his arms?
I didn't compare babies and armless people. I pointed out that a person with no arms cannot juggle.
I did this because you used the fact that babies cannot do certain things as evidence for their absent personhood.
My armless person observation was meant to show how stupid it is to assess personhood based on the ability to do things.
Slogan/motto:
Of course you realize this means war! ~ Bugs Bunny
Reputation:
November 6th, 2008, 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kian
Let's leave aside the matter of personhood for a second. It is a simple question. What do babies lack, that you would compare them to someone who's lost his arms?
Lemme see ... you will probably state that up until later in a pregnancy that the unborn lack sentience ... which is true.
However, what isn't addressed is the very fact that every BORN person was not always sentient but STILL given the chance to develop that characteristic. Why would it be okay to take away a right that *you* had and took advantage because pregnancy is inconvenient?
"Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated." ~ George Bernard Shaw
I didn't compare babies and armless people. I pointed out that a person with no arms cannot juggle.
I did this because you used the fact that babies cannot do certain things as evidence for their absent personhood.
My armless person observation was meant to show how stupid it is to assess personhood based on the ability to do things.
I did not use the fact that they could not do certain things as evidence that they are or not persons. I have already established why I don't think they're persons. I don't need to provide examples.
Go back again, and read it. I asked you how YOU justified that 'people' are given their rights incrementally. Your answer was that 'yes, they are limited' and further, 'people without arms can't juggle.'
Now, I've made it clear that my position is that personhood is related to the mind, not so much the body. I even made the point when I started explaining my position that a person can have an accident that cripples them and still be the same person, while someone cracking his skull and getting extensive retrograde amnesia is clearly not the same person as before (not less of a person, just a different person). Even if they are otherwise physically fit.
Given this, if indeed you used the example of the person missing his arms to point out how wrong my position is, your aim was way off and it betrays that despite my attempts to present my position, you fail at basic reading comprehension.
Worse still, if the example wasn't part of your answer, you then avoided the question. You conceded that babies are limited. Yet you argued that even at 3 years old they can make valid moral judgments (they know killing their brother is wrong). So, can you explain how it is that they are everything they ever need to be, can make valid moral judgments, yet they are not granted rights and responsibilities that other persons have? How are they limited, in your words?
Linear Mode
