Rationality Of Early Personhood

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[dairygirl4u2c]

dammit. i shouldn't have put the second option in. cause now i don't really know what those people think.
ie, if they think both are wrong. if they thought only the first was wrong, they coulda picked the third.
people in these parts whether consciously or not like to avoid issues, and now i can't know what they're thinking completley.

chalk up another faulty poll on my part.

[Deb]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1465359' date='Feb 18 2008, 08:09 PM']dammit. i shouldn't have put the second option in. cause now i don't really know what those people think.
ie, if they think both are wrong. if they thought only the first was wrong, they coulda picked the third.
people in these parts whether consciously or not like to avoid issues, and now i can't know what they're thinking completley.

chalk up another faulty poll on my part.[/quote]

Yes. Another faulty poll. It has nothing to do with "people in these" parts wanting to avoid issues, it has to do with the total incoherence of your issues.

[Slappo]

My big question dairygirl is:
If it is not a human person at conception, then when in fact do you suppose it would become a human person?

What is it in fact that gives a human personhood if it is not a person when it becomes a human living organism.

The only way to deny the personhood of an embryo is with the following proposition:
Not all human life organisms are persons.

If the above proposition is true, then one must be able to differentiate between a human life organism, and a human person. I'd be interested as to whether or not you do hold that human life organisms and human persons are different, and if you indeed do hold this view, what you believe to be the specific difference between the two.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1469278' date='Feb 26 2008, 03:34 PM']The only way to deny the personhood of an embryo is with the following proposition:
Not all human life organisms are persons.

If the above proposition is true, then one must be able to differentiate between a human life organism, and a human person. I'd be interested as to whether or not you do hold that human life organisms and human persons are different, and if you indeed do hold this view, what you believe to be the specific difference between the two.[/quote]
Sounds like the rationale used to justify slavery.

[Slappo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1469344' date='Feb 26 2008, 02:31 PM']Sounds like the rationale used to justify slavery.[/quote]

It is the exact rationale used to justify slavery. sad

[jeffpugh]

Diary, tell me how a non-person human can become a "person" human, seeing that the effect cannot be greater than the cause? That is, that human in the womb would eventually become a human person (by whatever stage you consider the pre-born a person).

Edited February 27, 2008 by Sacred Music Man

[Fidei Defensor]

The part you forget is that not everyone believes in the soul. And without that, it's just a clump of cells, from conception to death.

[Deb]

It is not rational to even look at these polls.

[KnightofChrist]

Without a soul or God it goes so much further than that. There would be no good or evil no right or wrong, no love or hate. The Holocaust of the Jews or any murder would be the termination of an ape-like animal, and not evil or wrong. Right and wrong would be realitive, the strongest would be "right" where as the weak would be wrong. Therefore if God did not exist, Hitler, Stalin where "right."

The love you feel for Mother or wife/girlfriend would be a fabrication of the human mind, imaginary. it would only be chemical reactions in the brain.

What a very depressing outlook, of what must be if there is no God, or soul.

[Deb]

Wow. That is pretty profound and yes, really depressing.

[Slappo]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1470376' date='Feb 27 2008, 08:24 PM']The part you forget is that not everyone believes in the soul. And without that, it's just a clump of cells, from conception to death.[/quote]

This is true, but most people who do not believe in a soul still believe in the natural rights of human persons. Most still hold to some sort of objective standard of human dignity. Most simply choose to ignore that it is God that has bestowed this dignity upon us. Even the denial of the soul does not necessarily deny the rights of human persons.

Most people would say that it is objectively wrong to murder. Those that would not are a small minority which can be left out as the debate would prove to go much further then this poll suggests. Look at the title of the poll "Rationality of Early Personhood". Personhood suggests some sort of dignity considering the title is "personhood" and not "humanhood".

[Slappo]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1470376' date='Feb 27 2008, 08:24 PM']The part you forget is that not everyone believes in the soul. And without that, it's just a clump of cells, from conception to death.[/quote]

This is true, but most people who do not believe in a soul still believe in the natural rights of human persons. Most still hold to some sort of objective standard of human dignity. Most simply choose to ignore that it is God that has bestowed this dignity upon us. Even the denial of the soul does not necessarily deny the rights of human persons.

Most people would say that it is objectively wrong to murder. Those that would not are a small minority which can be left out as the debate would prove to go much further then this poll suggests. Look at the title of the poll "Rationality of Early Personhood". Personhood suggests some sort of dignity considering the title is "personhood" and not "humanhood".

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1470437' date='Feb 27 2008, 10:55 PM']Most simply choose to ignore that it is God that has bestowed this dignity upon us.[/quote]
Again, it's not ignoring if you don't believe in God. That's like saying Catholics ignore the fundamental truths that hindu gods have revealed.

[Justin86]

Ummmm, was I supposed to vote for the second one?