[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Michel Meilleur]

I mean for personhood to be a thing a person does need to be a person. It is kinda in the definition.

That'd be if you're using a person as the base to define personhood rather than attempting to use personhood as a way to define a person. The difference is quite marked and really slippery.

[Neutraligon]

I mean for personhood to be a thing a person does need to be a person. It is kinda in the definition.

That'd be if you're using a person as the base to define personhood rather than attempting to use personhood as a way to define a person. The difference is quite marked and really slippery.

From what I can tell people in this thread are doing the former. A fetus is not a person and so has no personhood. Not that either of those matter in an abortion debate.

[Arlenton]

The government clearly does have gun control in effect currently, so yeah. They do do it.

I am not arguing in favor of a "should" I am arguing that they "do".

and they should because i am personally offended

Ok. Now all you have to do is get enough power in government to make it happen. Just like the pro-life people are doing.

[JAPANBLOX]

My axiom is the current :

Preserve the life , reduce the sufference and serch a compromise and repeal the euthanasia !

[Michel Meilleur]

That'd be if you're using a person as the base to define personhood rather than attempting to use personhood as a way to define a person. The difference is quite marked and really slippery.

From what I can tell people in this thread are doing the former. A fetus is not a person and so has no personhood. Not that either of those matter in an abortion debate.

A fetus is a person because he is an human. That he is incapable of recognizing himself as a person, which is the concept of personhood, doesn't make him less of a person nor does it makes him not human. A lot of peoples on this thread are doing the later and suspiciously aping Nazi rhetoric in the process which is quite saddening and honestly suspicious.

[Necroghastia]

From what I can tell people in this thread are doing the former. A fetus is not a person and so has no personhood. Not that either of those matter in an abortion debate.

A fetus is a person because he is an human.

So a corpse is a person?
also
>an human

[Neutraligon]

From what I can tell people in this thread are doing the former. A fetus is not a person and so has no personhood. Not that either of those matter in an abortion debate.

A fetus is a person because he is an human. That he is incapable of recognizing himself as a person, which is the concept of personhood, doesn't make him less of a person nor does it makes him not human. A lot of peoples on this thread are doing the later and suspiciously aping Nazi rhetoric in the process which is quite saddening and honestly suspicious.

I do not consider humanity as part of being a person. For instance a sentient and sapient alien would be a person, while a human who is dead/ brain-dead is not a person. No one in this thread says a fetus is not human, they disagree if they are a person due to the lack of both salience and sentience.

[Michel Meilleur]

A fetus is a person because he is an human.

So a corpse is a person?
also
>an human

A corpse is a dead person, yes.

Not sure what's the greentext arrow is for, regarding a fetus being an human.

[Senkaku]

A fetus is a person because he is an human.

If we’re expected to believe a water-breathing creature the size of a grapefruit with a primitive vascular system and a brain smaller than a squid’s is a person just because it possesses a certain genetic similarity with the rest of us, that raises some unsettling questions of what other creatures we might have to include in this definition of personhood, both right now among existing organisms and in the future as genetic engineering becomes more advanced and widespread. Depending on how early in pregnancy you think abortion should be restricted, those questions only become more pronounced— if life begins at conception, for instance, what rights should our closest relatives among the protists have? Unless, of course, this is all stemming from a religious view of human exceptionalism, in which case restricting abortion is basically asking an entire society to chuck religious pluralism out the window and restrict half the population’s access to medicine on the basis of particular sects’ ancient dogmas… in which case, it’s a safe bet they’re not going to stop there.

[Vassenor]

From what I can tell people in this thread are doing the former. A fetus is not a person and so has no personhood. Not that either of those matter in an abortion debate.

A fetus is a person because he is an human. That he is incapable of recognizing himself as a person, which is the concept of personhood, doesn't make him less of a person nor does it makes him not human. A lot of peoples on this thread are doing the later and suspiciously aping Nazi rhetoric in the process which is quite saddening and honestly suspicious.

Remember, believing that women should have control over their bodies is Nazi rhetoric, but demanding that women be forced to squirt out as many babies as possible (as in the Kinder part of Kinder, Küche, Kirche) isn't.

[Senkaku]

A fetus is a person because he is an human. That he is incapable of recognizing himself as a person, which is the concept of personhood, doesn't make him less of a person nor does it makes him not human. A lot of peoples on this thread are doing the later and suspiciously aping Nazi rhetoric in the process which is quite saddening and honestly suspicious.

I do not consider humanity as part of being a person. For instance a sentient and sapient alien would be a person, while a human who is dead/ brain-dead is not a person. No one in this thread says a fetus is not human, they disagree if they are a person due to the lack of both salience and sentience.

It’s definitely worth thinking long and hard about the continuum of sentience/sapience and what rights that entails extending to humans, other creatures, and hypothetical aliens— unfortunately, the religious right which is the primary driver of the anti-abortion movement in the US is not interested in actually collaborating in that investigation; it’s just used as a wedge to keep their opponents fighting amongst themselves. It doesn’t matter to them what secular people consider sapient or not, they have a religious belief as to when life begins that they believe must be imposed on the rest of us regardless of its relation to the facts. Even if the most extreme pro-lifers were right and we discover someday that zygotes are somehow aware through a 6th sense from the moment of conception, the same religious right would have zero interest in investigating whether this also applies to other species— for the same reasons of religious dogma. Abortion restrictions are therefore not really about some universal moral consideration for the suffering of living beings; they’re the thin end of the wedge for the religious right to try to exercise political dominance over society.

[Michel Meilleur]

If we’re expected to believe a water-breathing creature the size of a grapefruit with a primitive vascular system and a brain smaller than a squid’s is a person just because it possesses a certain genetic similarity with the rest of us, that raises some unsettling questions of what other creatures we might have to include in this definition of personhood, both right now among existing organisms and in the future as genetic engineering becomes more advanced and widespread. Depending on how early in pregnancy you think abortion should be restricted, those questions only become more pronounced— if life begins at conception, for instance, what rights should our closest relatives among the protists have?

Do you happen to have a degree in a STEM field or is that just typical "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" shit that humanities graduate love to fap themselves over?

Unless, of course, this is all stemming from a religious view of human exceptionalism, in which case restricting abortion is basically asking an entire society to chuck religious pluralism out the window and restrict half the population’s access to medicine on the basis of particular sects’ ancient dogmas.

[HISPIDA]

So a corpse is a person?
also
>an human

A corpse is a dead person, yes.

Not sure what's the greentext arrow is for, regarding a fetus being an human.

probably because "human" isn't a word that "an" can be used for

"an" is used to precede words that begin with a vowel sound, i.e. "apple," "hour," or "item". the word "human" distinctly starts with an "h" sound, which is a consonant

unless you say "an ooman" in which case are you a yautja

[The New California Republic]

Every woman is good.

No, really really not.

[Senkaku]

If we’re expected to believe a water-breathing creature the size of a grapefruit with a primitive vascular system and a brain smaller than a squid’s is a person just because it possesses a certain genetic similarity with the rest of us, that raises some unsettling questions of what other creatures we might have to include in this definition of personhood, both right now among existing organisms and in the future as genetic engineering becomes more advanced and widespread. Depending on how early in pregnancy you think abortion should be restricted, those questions only become more pronounced— if life begins at conception, for instance, what rights should our closest relatives among the protists have?

Do you happen to have a degree in a STEM field or is that just typical "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" shit that humanities graduate love to fap themselves over?

Would either answer make you any likelier to actually engage with that line of thinking?

Unless, of course, this is all stemming from a religious view of human exceptionalism, in which case restricting abortion is basically asking an entire society to chuck religious pluralism out the window and restrict half the population’s access to medicine on the basis of particular sects’ ancient dogmas.

So stop pretending to have some interminable, winding argument about “personhood” on secular terms with people, it’s insufferable. If God made all humans (and only humans) special, including all unborn ones, and you think we should run society the way God told us to in a specific text, then just say that instead of all this dishonest pussyfooting.

[Michel Meilleur]

probably because "human" isn't a word that "an" can be used for

"an" is used to precede words that begin with a vowel sound, i.e. "apple," "hour," or "item". the word "human" distinctly starts with an "h" sound, which is a consonant

unless you say "an ooman" in which case are you a yautja

Oh well...

[Michel Meilleur]

Would either answer make you any likelier to actually engage with that line of thinking?

Yes, the latter. I do not have sufficient knowledge in biology to argue about the fine points of it with a dude who got a master in that field. If it's just amateur interest, then there is more point to it.

So stop pretending to have some interminable, winding argument about “personhood” on secular terms with people, it’s insufferable. If God made all humans (and only humans) special, including all unborn ones, and you think we should run society the way God told us to in a specific text, then just say that instead of all this dishonest pussyfooting.

One doesn't exclude the other. I believe that we are made in the image of God and that is a moral standpoint, but that doesn't stop me from being able to discuss personhood from an ethical one.

[HISPIDA]

probably because "human" isn't a word that "an" can be used for

"an" is used to precede words that begin with a vowel sound, i.e. "apple," "hour," or "item". the word "human" distinctly starts with an "h" sound, which is a consonant

unless you say "an ooman" in which case are you a yautja

Oh well...

fair tbh

[Thepeopl]

Every woman is good.

No, really really not.

Finally! You recognize me as being bad!! Yay!

[The New California Republic]

No, really really not.

Finally! You recognize me as being bad!! Yay!

[Stellar Colonies]

Every woman is good.

No, really really not.

Sun hasn't heard of Valerie Solanas.

[Neutraligon]

No, really really not.

Sun hasn't heard of Valerie Solanas.

I already mentioned Jane Toppan

[Stellar Colonies]

Sun hasn't heard of Valerie Solanas.

I already mentioned Jane Toppan

Ah, jumping ahead.

[Sundiata]

No, really really not.

Sun hasn't heard of Valerie Solanas.

I have, I don't like her or her opinions but I don't hate her. Everyone's good at a human level.

Sun hasn't heard of Valerie Solanas.

I already mentioned Jane Toppan

Her I don't know.

[The New California Republic]

Sun hasn't heard of Valerie Solanas.

I have, I don't like her or her opinions but I don't hate her. Everyone's good at a human level.

What does that even mean?