Is a fetus a person

[Galloism]

Again, dictionary definition of a human:

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Doesn't help us much, though, as if we're going to stick with such a stringent definition as yours, we'd be treating dead humans the same as alive ones, by virtue of their humanness.

Well, they would both be humans, but not both be persons - as person is defined as a "living human."

[KiloMikeAlpha]

I don't consider a fetus a person. It can't do any of the acts we do; it can't even think properly. It's an almost human, which is why abortions shouldn't be performed willy nilly, but should always be allowed to whoever, wants one, whenever.

So a mentally retarded person or somone recovering from a massive head trauma could be aborted for the same reason?

[Saint Clair Island]

I don't consider a fetus a person. It can't do any of the acts we do; it can't even think properly. It's an almost human, which is why abortions shouldn't be performed willy nilly, but should always be allowed to whoever, wants one, whenever.

So a mentally retarded person or somone recovering from a massive head trauma could be aborted for the same reason?

Well, no, since they're out of the womb already. Only pregnancies can be aborted.

You could kill them, I guess, but why would you want to?

[DaWoad]

I don't consider a fetus a person. It can't do any of the acts we do; it can't even think properly. It's an almost human, which is why abortions shouldn't be performed willy nilly, but should always be allowed to whoever, wants one, whenever.

So a mentally retarded person or somone recovering from a massive head trauma could be aborted for the same reason?

no both those cases are capable off thought.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

The problem lies in that even on this forum, which is a small subset of the population, people cannot agree on wheter a fetus is a person. How can we possibly agree globally.

If we cannot agree globally, then ew must err on the side of caution.

However, in your argument, you must FIRST define a fetus and define a person.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

I don't consider a fetus a person. It can't do any of the acts we do; it can't even think properly. It's an almost human, which is why abortions shouldn't be performed willy nilly, but should always be allowed to whoever, wants one, whenever.

So a mentally retarded person or somone recovering from a massive head trauma could be aborted for the same reason?

no both those cases are capable off thought.

Buffet says that they cant think "Properly" or do "any of the acts we do". Neither can the above mentioned persons.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

I don't consider a fetus a person. It can't do any of the acts we do; it can't even think properly. It's an almost human, which is why abortions shouldn't be performed willy nilly, but should always be allowed to whoever, wants one, whenever.

So a mentally retarded person or somone recovering from a massive head trauma could be aborted for the same reason?

Well, no, since they're out of the womb already. Only pregnancies can be aborted.

You could kill them, I guess, but why would you want to?

Not according to Obamas Science Czar who believes that babies can be aborted until they reach 2 years old, for precisely the same reasons.

[Saint Clair Island]

The problem lies in that even on this forum, which is a small subset of the population, people cannot agree on wheter a fetus is a person. How can we possibly agree globally.

If we cannot agree globally, then ew must err on the side of caution.

Golden mean fallacy.

[Chumblywumbly]

Doesn't help us much, though, as if we're going to stick with such a stringent definition as yours, we'd be treating dead humans the same as alive ones, by virtue of their humanness.

Well, they would both be humans, but not both be persons - as person is defined as a "living human."

I'd say that dead people are still persons.

[Galloism]

Doesn't help us much, though, as if we're going to stick with such a stringent definition as yours, we'd be treating dead humans the same as alive ones, by virtue of their humanness.

Well, they would both be humans, but not both be persons - as person is defined as a "living human."

I'd say that dead people are still persons.

The dictionary wouldn't.

[DaWoad]

Not according to Obamas Science Czar who believes that babies can be aborted until they reach 2 years old, for precisely the same reasons.

see this is the kind of post I mentioned in the OP back up that stastement or lose it

[Saint Clair Island]

So a mentally retarded person or somone recovering from a massive head trauma could be aborted for the same reason?

Well, no, since they're out of the womb already. Only pregnancies can be aborted.

You could kill them, I guess, but why would you want to?

Not according to Obamas Science Czar who believes that babies can be aborted until they reach 2 years old, for precisely the same reasons.

Again, you can't abort a baby that's already been born. You can kill it, but not abort it.

And killing a baby before it has developed self-awareness is a crime no greater than killing a puppy. Until their brains have developed to the point they are capable of sapience, they are no different from other infant animals. That's not exactly relevant, though.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

The problem lies in that even on this forum, which is a small subset of the population, people cannot agree on wheter a fetus is a person. How can we possibly agree globally.

If we cannot agree globally, then ew must err on the side of caution.

Golden mean fallacy.

How is this middle compromise.. I say the extreme is the best answer.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Not according to Obamas Science Czar who believes that babies can be aborted until they reach 2 years old, for precisely the same reasons.

see this is the kind of post I mentioned in the OP back up that stastement or lose it

I will find the evidence.... gimme a bit of time

[Chumblywumbly]

The dictionary wouldn't.

Fuck the dictionary.

It isn't the be-all and end-all of arguments, especially for a term with such moral and political significance as 'person'.

[Galloism]

The dictionary wouldn't.

Fuck the dictionary.

It isn't the be-all and end-all of arguments, especially for a term with such moral and political significance as 'person'.

It's the be-all end-all for the meaning of words, and this question is regarding the meaning of the word "person" as it relates to a "fetus." Therefore, a dictionary definition is quite relevant.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Not according to Obamas Science Czar who believes that babies can be aborted until they reach 2 years old, for precisely the same reasons.

see this is the kind of post I mentioned in the OP back up that stastement or lose it

I will find the evidence.... gimme a bit of time

First I found
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

[DaWoad]

The problem lies in that even on this forum, which is a small subset of the population, people cannot agree on wheter a fetus is a person. How can we possibly agree globally.

If we cannot agree globally, then ew must err on the side of caution.

Golden mean fallacy.

How is this middle compromise.. I say the extreme is the best answer.

lol"bacause not everyne agrees you have to take MY point of view" that is possibly the worst argument ever. in that it sounds reasonable right up until you try to apply it to ANY other argument. 199% of people wouldn't agree that Rape is wrong so we must err on the side of caution right?

[Saint Clair Island]

The problem lies in that even on this forum, which is a small subset of the population, people cannot agree on wheter a fetus is a person. How can we possibly agree globally.

If we cannot agree globally, then ew must err on the side of caution.

Golden mean fallacy.

How is this middle compromise.. I say the extreme is the best answer.

You seem to present it as an issue wherein the two sides have equally valid legal claims. That is not the case; one side has legally valid claims, and one side is wrong.

Personhood is a legal definition. According to the legal definition, a fetus [is, is not] a person -- I believe it's currently not considered to be a person in most places, but I could be wrong; I haven't done the research since I don't think it's at all relevant to the abortion debate.

[Maurepas]

The dictionary wouldn't.

Fuck the dictionary.

It isn't the be-all and end-all of arguments, especially for a term with such moral and political significance as 'person'.

Perhaps an Encyclopedia is in order...maybe a Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person#Who_is_a_person.3F

Human beings - In contemporary global thought, once human beings are born, personhood is considered automatic.

[Galloism]

The dictionary wouldn't.

Fuck the dictionary.

It isn't the be-all and end-all of arguments, especially for a term with such moral and political significance as 'person'.

Perhaps an Encyclopedia is in order...maybe a Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person#Who_is_a_person.3F

Human beings - In contemporary global thought, once human beings are born, personhood is considered automatic.

Quote the whole section bub. Don't cherrypick:

Exceptions: - Exceptions to this are often emotive and controversial. Some people have given opinions that fetuses, the disabled, the profoundly and long term brain damaged, those in coma or other persistent vegetative states, may be dubious as regards personhood. Such views are strongly debated from both sides. Historically, personhood has been denied to women, perceived other races, the mentally disabled, and in many tribal societies, all people not from the tribe.

Animals - Some philosophers and those involved in animal welfare, ethology, animal rights and related subjects, consider that certain animals should also be granted personhood. Commonly named species in this context include the Great Apes and possibly cetaceans or elephants, due to the acknowledged intelligence and intricate societies of such species. In animistic religion, animals, plants, and other entities may be persons or deities.

Certain societal constructs - certain social entities, are considered legally as persons, for example some corporations and other legal entities. This is known as legal, or corporate, personhood.

Corporations are people too.

[Cameroi]

living human exclusively equaling person is totally illogical.
sentient or creative sentient equaling person is not.

soul equaling person makes sense too.
the real question is when soul comes to occupy a life form
and that once again and again is objectively indeterminate

although, for practical purposes, the way i would determine life,
would be brainwave activity.

so when fetal brainwave activitiy can be observed to resemble that of an indipendently ambulatory life form, this would make sense as being close enough for government work to determine personhood.

[DaWoad]

First I found
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

wow ... just wow. You claim that's a credible source??? And it doesn't even back up your claim. ..come on man u can do better than this.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Here is Holdrens book

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98156598

I will keep reading and if I must, will post the page...

[Maurepas]

Perhaps an Encyclopedia is in order...maybe a Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person#Who_is_a_person.3F

Human beings - In contemporary global thought, once human beings are born, personhood is considered automatic.

Quote the whole section bub. Don't cherrypick:

Exceptions: - Exceptions to this are often emotive and controversial. Some people have given opinions that fetuses, the disabled, the profoundly and long term brain damaged, those in coma or other persistent vegetative states, may be dubious as regards personhood. Such views are strongly debated from both sides. Historically, personhood has been denied to women, perceived other races, the mentally disabled, and in many tribal societies, all people not from the tribe.

It simply goes on to state that Fetuses, along with other examples, are also dubious with regard to person hood...

So, really, it was unnecessary...