Anomaly Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1331168796' post='2397472'] Do you still belong to that religion that worships Dana Carvey and thinks he will destroy the earth with fire? [/quote]LMFAOWSMP. Everybody will find out when the world is destroyed by BFG's whizzpoppers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1331175832' post='2397552'] yeah. so simplified the dimwits left off #0 - the right to be born. They start #1 with 'when children are born'. What about the months prior to that? tards [/quote]That is an argument for defining 'personhood'. Make some intelligent arguments to include unborn babies, zygotes, or fertilized eggs as a person, then #30 kicks in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 pft medical science has already proven that it is a person at the moment of conception. the baby possesses a full set of [b]human [/b]dna, separate and distinct from that of the mother or father Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1331181417' post='2397609'] pft medical science has already proven that it is a person at the moment of conception. the baby possesses a full set of [b]human [/b]dna, separate and distinct from that of the mother or father [/quote] That doesn't prove personhood. Unless pieces of flesh are now 'people' Personhood is now generally defined cognitively unless you conject an immortal soul. Either way, mere DNA doesn't work, I don't think, since even a dead fetus would have the different DNA that the mother and father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 So a living human being is not a person if he or she lacks consciousness? So if a person is momentarily unconscious, he or she should not be considered a person and therefore has no rights. Doesn't matter if, like a fetus, they will likely gain consciousness soon. Too beaver dam bad ryt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1331200656' post='2397658'] So a living human being is not a person if he or she lacks consciousness? So if a person is momentarily unconscious, he or she should not be considered a person and therefore has no rights. Doesn't matter if, like a fetus, they will likely gain consciousness soon. Too beaver dam bad ryt? [/quote] I didn't say 'lack consciousness' I simply said that secular and scientific evaluations of personhood usually do not hinge on genetics alone. If you take a skin sample from that fetus that skin sample would have a genetic code unique from the parents but that doesn't mean that science proves that the skin sample is a person. I am obviously not saying that a fetus is the same as a piece of flesh. Obviously a fetus is a living thing. Only cowards deny that. But the question of whether it is a human person is debatable and the question of whether it is entitled to any rights is not answered by the mere fact that it is alive and has a unique genetic code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 k then. define personhood for me in your words. you cannot have it hinge on being born or not, since no radical transformation takes place by passing through the birth canal or the incision of the c-section. in your definition hasan, pinpoint exactly when the person becomes a person and what changes to make them as such from the instant before. this should be amusing methinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331201418' post='2397662'] I didn't say 'lack consciousness' I simply said that secular and scientific evaluations of personhood usually do not hinge on genetics alone. If you take a skin sample from that fetus that skin sample would have a genetic code unique from the parents but that doesn't mean that science proves that the skin sample is a person. [/quote] You did not just make this argument. A piece of a person is not a person. No poo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 still waiting hasan.... *crickets* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331201418' post='2397662'] But the question of whether it is a human person is debatable and the question of whether it is entitled to any rights is not answered by the mere fact that it is alive and has a unique genetic code. [/quote] Why is it debatable? It is a human person born from other human persons, he or she doesn't need anything else to qualify as a member of the human race. The actual debate is either this new life has any value before birth, unless you are Pete Singer who doesn't even admit that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 really do wanna hear that razzle dazzle definition of personhood my friend mi amigo mein freund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1331210420' post='2397674'] k then. define personhood for me in your words. you cannot have it hinge on being born or not, since no radical transformation takes place by passing through the birth canal or the incision of the c-section. in your definition hasan, pinpoint exactly when the person becomes a person and what changes to make them as such from the instant before. this should be amusing methinks [/quote] I missed the part where I said that I had an adequate definition. Just because I think your definition is flawed does not mean that I have one of my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1331253502' post='2397953'] really do wanna hear that razzle dazzle definition of personhood my friend mi amigo mein freund [/quote] You're a needy one. I replied to your post above. Since your such an eager flooping beaver why don't you go respond to the numerous unsupported assertions that you have made to me which I have asked you to defend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 ah. so you have no point, yet when presented with one, you categorically reject it? i see. you say the church is wrong when it defines a person yet you cannot define one yourself? i see. methinks one should remove the beam from one's eye before pointing out the splinter in another's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now