Why do Conservatives love people who break the law?

[Ben Kenobi]

It wouldn't be arbitrary for someone to say personhood begins when the brain starts functioning, and that they are certain that fetuses don't have any sort of brain function during the first trimester.

True, but Roe says nothing of the sort.

And I'd say every definition of personhood is somewhat arbitrary, including those that imply life begins at conception.

Why is this arbitrary?

[rah]

So DINO, when does a fetus become a person? I wasn't aware that there was scientific proof. That's why it's an opinion. Jees.

At least I'm saying I'm not sure. Unlike some here that are SURE it's at conception.

[giblets]

Why is this arbitrary?

Defining personhood depends on picking things all people have in common, but for life to begin at conception you have to exclude things like capacity for awareness and thoughts, and I think it's arbitrary to exclude them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Defining personhood depends on picking things all people have in common

Ok. Everyone has human DNA.

, but for life to begin at conception you have to exclude things like capacity for awareness and thoughts, and I think it's arbitrary to exclude them.

Terrible argument.

Not every person has a current capacity for awareness. Unborn children do have a potential capacity for awareness, as do persons in a coma, etc who currently lack awareness.

[rah]

Yet





So you have no problem with people killing children that you believe to be persons?

Now, it's just me, I don't think you really believe that third trimester unborn children are persons because otherwise it would bother you that other people kill them.

If it's the baby or the mother. I'll choose the mother. But again, that's just my opinion. I don't believe in third trimester abortions for convenience.

[giblets]

Ok. Everyone has human DNA.

Terrible argument.

Not every person has a current capacity for awareness. Unborn children do have a potential capacity for awareness, as do persons in a coma, etc who currently lack awareness.

There is no capacity for awareness without a functioning brain. An early fetus doesn't have the capacity for awareness, it is capable of further developing until eventually becoming something that would have the capacity. I don't see a compelling reason to judge something by what it could be several months in the future instead of what it is now.

As for people in a coma, plenty of people think family members should be allowed to pull the plug.

Oh and I think accepting "human DNA" as the sole criterion is arbitrary. Why human DNA and not something else?

[DinoDoc]

So DINO, when does a fetus become a person? I wasn't aware that there was scientific proof. That's why it's an opinion. Jees.

Your entire argument is that you really have nothing better to do than mindlessly repeat "That's just your opinion" as if you made an actual point. Go find someone else who's actually interested in that sort of thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

An early fetus doesn't have the capacity for awareness, it is capable of further developing until eventually becoming something that would have the capacity. I don't see a compelling reason to judge something by what it could be several months in the future instead of what it is now.

Because the entity before and after is the same entity. There's no division.

As for people in a coma, plenty of people think family members should be allowed to pull the plug.

They are still alive. Still persons. It's the same as killing them.

[DinoDoc]

There is no capacity for awareness without a functioning brain.

Out of interest, when does sentience first appear in humans since this seems to be the standard you're shooting for?

[rah]

Your entire argument is that you really have nothing better to do than mindlessly repeat "That's just your opinion" as if you made an actual point. Go find someone else who's actually interested in that sort of thing.

When someone presents their opinion as fact, that is the only possible rebuttal.

I've answered by clarifying what my opinion is, but am not putting it forward as fact, like he is.

So STFU

[giblets]

When someone presents their opinion as fact, that is the only possible rebuttal.

I've answered by clarifying what my opinion is, but am not putting it forward as fact, like he is.

So STFU

Especially when they claim their opinion is "scientifically proven".

[Felch]

So DINO, when does a fetus become a person? I wasn't aware that there was scientific proof. That's why it's an opinion. Jees.

At least I'm saying I'm not sure. Unlike some here that are SURE it's at conception.

How would you define a person? Until you get that sorted out, you can't go any further.

Personally I would include all humans as being persons. Other legal entities, like corporations, are also persons, but personhood is universal throughout humanity.

[giblets]

Because the entity before and after is the same entity. There's no division.

They are still alive. Still persons. It's the same as killing them.

How is the entity that exists at conception a person by any definition that isn't arbitrary? You might insist that a person can't come from something that is not a person, but that would either be arbitrarily placed in your definition of person or it would be based on a definition of person that includes zygotes.

[Flubber]

I only looked at the last page for me-- So did a conservative slam morph into an abortion debate??

Gotta love poly

[Proteus_MST]

Well, if we define something as a person because it has the potential to become a person,
then even the waste of a single sperm or a single oocyte is killing a person (similar to Monty Pythons "Every sperm is sacred") and a woman who doesn´t try every month to get pregnant is de facto killing a potential person every month (unless she already is pregnant of course)