Defunding Planned Parenthood

[glassjester]

That doesn't reflect our current abortion laws.

Right, the current laws do not allow an 8-month-pregnant woman to kill the baby inside of her.

Our current laws do not imply that personhood begins at birth, but rather at some arbitrary point between conception and birth.

So on what basis do you say personhood begins at birth? And, do you feel our current abortion laws are unjust, and should instead reflect your belief that personhood does not begin until birth?

 

[Stripe]

Except that demonstrably the CNS carries the person as we know them.

Saying "demonstrably" doesn't demonstrate the necessity of what you say.

We've got your demand and you saying "demonstrably," but you'll never be able to provide any evidence. That's because you're trying to make physical a metaphysical term.

Personhood is conferred by God at conception. You think it is conferred by you at some undefined moment.

When the CNS is damaged clearly that person is invariably correspondingly impaired too.

This is you equivocating on the term "personhood." You seem to think we won't notice when you start arguing about quality of life instead of personhood. A man does not become less of a man if he has a spinal injury.

You may choose to wave that evidence away, perhaps because it is inconvenient to what you prefer to believe but it's nevertheless much more evidence than you have presented or baldly assert happens at conception.

The evidence is clear. At conception we have a living human being. You quibble about the term "being," but you agree with these facts. What is produced by two people is reasonable to be called — wait for it — another person.

I won't quibble too much about "entity."

I know you won't. And I know why you won't. It's because the word entity could be used to dehumanize a person. At conception there is a human being.

You seem to give it the full value of a complete human being from conception while I tend to conclude that it is certainly more than expendable enough (as a sperm and an egg are expendable) to allow a choice as a convenience to an extant woman who didn't choose to be pregnant at this time.

Don't forget, you endorse the murder of unborn children even after you would concede personhood.

One wonders why you even use the term; it means nothing to you.

 

[alwight]

Saying "demonstrably" doesn't demonstrate the necessity of what you say.

We've got your demand and you saying "demonstrably," but you'll never be able to provide any evidence. That's because you're trying to make physical a metaphysical term.

Personhood is conferred by God at conception. You think it is conferred by you at some undefined moment.

Double-talk, If you think that "personhood" is divinely and supernaturally conferred then so be it I have to accept that as what you believe. But that is just a belief and you don't then get to demand that I must somehow negate your God and then present solid facts for where I believe that "personhood" begins. Nevertheless I have indeed presented solid facts for my belief but even if it were only a belief then you should perhaps respect it as honestly held and butt out of trying to have your belief imposed on others in secular law.

This is you equivocating on the term "personhood." You seem to think we won't notice when you start arguing about quality of life instead of personhood. A man does not become less of a man if he has a spinal injury.

Spinal injuries and quality of life have never been part of my argument here so there is nothing to notice.

The evidence is clear. At conception we have a living human being. You quibble about the term "being," but you agree with these facts. What is produced by two people is reasonable to be called — wait for it — another person.

The evidence is clear that you believe God confers personhood at conception, but since I don't believe in your God I have come to my own conclusions based on evidence rather than belief.

I know you won't. And I know why you won't. It's because the word entity could be used to dehumanize a person. At conception there is a human being.

That is your belief, but I already knew that.

Don't forget, you endorse the murder of unborn children even after you would concede personhood.

One wonders why you even use the term; it means nothing to you.

I have never advocated killing children and please don't bother pretending to know what I think means nothing.

 

[quip]

Right, the current laws do not allow an 8-month-pregnant woman to kill the baby inside of her.

Our current laws do not imply that personhood begins at birth, but rather at some arbitrary point between conception and birth.

Laws don't dictate personhood...they establish the rights, protections and responsibilities thereof.

So on what basis do you say personhood begins at birth? And, do you feel our current abortion laws are unjust, and should instead reflect your belief that personhood does not begin until birth?

The same reasons given prior.

Yes, it's just for all parties involved.

 

[ok doser]

this may have been mentioned already, if so, it bears repeating:

at conception a unique human life is created

 

[glassjester]

Laws don't dictate personhood...they establish the rights, protections and responsibilities thereof.



The same reasons given prior.

Yes, it's just for all parties involved.

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe an 8-month-old fetus is a person, why do you believe a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion at 8 months?

 

[quip]

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe an 8-month-old fetus is a person, why do you believe a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion at 8 months?

The law protects many things beside persons.
An 8 month old fetus is among them.

 

[glassjester]

The law protects many things beside persons.
An 8 month old fetus is among them.

You've just repeated that the 8-month-old fetus is indeed protected. You haven't explained why you believe that to be just.

Why should the 8-month-old fetus be allowed to encroach upon the bodily autonomy of a woman?

 

[quip]

You've just repeated that the 8-month-old fetus is indeed protected. You haven't explained why you believe that to be just.

Why should the 8-month-old fetus be allowed to encroach upon the bodily autonomy of a woman?

By this point of development concerns over suffering and death of either party holds mutual prominence. The state is likewise compelled to view it as such.

 

[patrick jane]

You've just repeated that the 8-month-old fetus is indeed protected. You haven't explained why you believe that to be just.

Why should the 8-month-old fetus be allowed to encroach upon the bodily autonomy of a woman?

Because any fetus that can survive outside the womb has rights as a person

 

[glassjester]

By this point of development concerns over suffering and death of either party holds mutual prominence. The state is likewise compelled to view it as such.

Either party?

 

[glassjester]

Because any fetus that can survive outside the womb has rights as a person

None of us survive very long outside the womb.
70 - 80 years, on average.

 

[quip]

Either party?

Either/Both

 

[glassjester]

Either/Both

Alright, either we're talking about two people or one.
Is the mother the only person there, or is the baby (still one month prior to being born) a person, too?

 

[Stripe]

Double-talk.

That would mean I was contradicting myself, except you concede:

If you think that "personhood" is divinely and supernaturally conferred then so be it I have to accept that as what you believe.

So much for double-talk.

But that is just a belief and you don't then get to demand that I must somehow negate your God and then present solid facts for where I believe that "personhood" begins.

Actually, I do.

Beliefs must be backed by evidence, remember? You can never collect evidence for your assertion that the central nervous system carries personhood. Meanwhile, that at conception there is a living human being is great evidence that the product of two people is — wait for it — another person.

And before you start whining about my use of the term "being," remember it cannot there be used as a synonym for person.

Nevertheless I have indeed presented solid facts for my belief but even if it were only a belief then you should perhaps respect it as honestly held and butt out of trying to have your belief imposed on others in secular law.

Your "evidence" is question-begging nonsense. You don't get a free pass with mumbo-jumbo.

Spinal injuries and quality of life have never been part of my argument here so there is nothing to notice.

If you're seriously talking personhood, then you must be saying that spinal damage decreases personhood.

The evidence is clear that you believe God confers personhood at conception, but since I don't believe in your God I have come to my own conclusions based on evidence rather than belief.

Nope. You have presented a false dichotomy. That we believe something does not eliminate the possibility of evidence.

You just got finished falsely claiming that you have evidence for your belief.

I have never advocated killing children and please don't bother pretending to know what I think means nothing.

Actually, you do. Your own words condemn you. You claim that a central nervous system means personhood, but you'd consider killing unborn babies on a "case-by-case" basis.

As OKD says:

At conception a unique human life is created.

You're desperate to avoid that truth whatever the cost.

 

[quip]

Alright, either we're talking about two people or one.
Is the mother the only person there, or is the baby (still one month prior to being born) a person, too?

We're talking about one female person who's carrying an 8-month old fetus.

 

[alwight]

That would mean I was contradicting myself, except you concede:



So much for double-talk.

Stripe curtails the doubletalk before I get to it, nice.lain:

Actually, I do.

Stripe wants his cake and eat it...

Beliefs must be backed by evidence, remember?

No, it doesn't bother me if someone chooses to believe regardless of evidence, that's their business, I'll not impose rules on others that I may nevertheless apply to myself.

You can never collect evidence for your assertion that the central nervous system carries personhood. Meanwhile, that at conception there is a living human being is great evidence that the product of two people is — wait for it — another person.

But I've already given you good evidence that real persons are in fact diminished by damage to the relevant part of the CNS, you simply choose to ignore it without rebuttal.

And before you start whining about my use of the term "being," remember it cannot there be used as a synonym for person.

I realise that you'd rather make it more difficult than it actually is but when I talk about a human being I am not talking a human egg, even a fertilised one. I am talking about a being that at the very least has some capacity to sense and react with the world, ideally a real functioning person not just an honorary conferred title.

Your "evidence" is question-begging nonsense. You don't get a free pass with mumbo-jumbo.

What on earth are you talking about? This is utter nonsense. Real people inhabit our world, they are our relatives, friends and enemies. We know them as individual functioning persons, human beings. If the CNS fails totally then all of their lights go out. If only some damage occurs to the CNS then perhaps only some of their lights will go out, this is observable fact, what better evidence do you need?

If you're seriously talking personhood, then you must be saying that spinal damage decreases personhood.

Why must I? If someone I knew unfortunately became a paraplegic it's just as likely imo that through adversity they might even become a better person through a physical disability. Personhood is hardly a property of legs.

Nope. You have presented a false dichotomy. That we believe something does not eliminate the possibility of evidence.

Never said otherwise, but clearly you can always get by without any or by simply ignoring it.

You just got finished falsely claiming that you have evidence for your belief.

No I demonstrably do have evidence, you keep ignoring it.

Actually, you do. Your own words condemn you. You claim that a central nervous system means personhood, but you'd consider killing unborn babies on a "case-by-case" basis.

What I actually did say is that while there is no CNS there is no person. If we ever get some shifting away from conception then we can perhaps talk of other things and individual cases.

As OKD says:

At conception a unique human life is created.

You're desperate to avoid that truth whatever the cost.

Good for the OKD then, but you are still not bothered apparently that so many of these conceptions will perish pointlessly. Shame on you Stripe, how cruel and heartless can you be?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe curtails the doubletalk before I get to it, nice.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. You haven't established anything I have said that is self-contradictory.

Stripe wants his cake and eat it...

Nope. You have presented a false dichotomy. That we believe something does not eliminate the possibility of evidence.

No, it doesn't bother me if someone chooses to believe regardless of evidence, that's their business, I'll not impose rules on others that I may nevertheless apply to myself.

Convenient then, since it is you who demands your ideas be respected when there is not a chance that you will ever be able to provide evidence.

But I've already given you good evidence that real persons are in fact diminished by damage to the relevant part of the CNS, you simply choose to ignore it without rebuttal.

Equivocation is a logical fallacy. we are not talking about diminished physical capacity, we are talking about a metaphysical notion called "personhood."

How can you hope to conduct a rational conversation if you do not know what you're talking about.

A man with a spinal injury is no less of a man. Some of them become greater people after the loss of function.

I realise that you'd rather make it more difficult than it actually is but when I talk about a human being I am not talking a human egg, even a fertilised one. I am talking about a being that at the very least has some capacity to sense and react with the world, ideally a real functioning person not just an honorary conferred title.

Begging the question is still a logical fallacy. The evidence points to personhood, unless you provide some evidence that a central nervous system carries personhood.

What on earth are you talking about? This is utter nonsense. Real people inhabit our world, they are our relatives, friends and enemies. We know them as individual functioning persons, human beings. If the CNS fails totally then all of their lights go out. If only some damage occurs to the CNS then perhaps only some of their lights will go out, this is observable fact, what better evidence do you need?

Equivocation is still a logical fallacy. We are not talking about quality of life. Personhood is not diminished because of an injury.

Why must I?

Rational necessity. If you were able to think straight, it'd be obvious.

If someone I knew unfortunately became a paraplegic it's just as likely imo that through adversity they might even become a better person through a physical disability. Personhood is hardly a property of legs.

Exactly. So why would you imply that a damaged nervous system reduces personhood?

Never said otherwise

Right here, in fact:

I have come to my own conclusions based on evidence rather than belief.

Clearly you can always get by without any or by simply ignoring it.

Nope. Evidence, remember? At conception, what we have is a living human being. Solid evidence that he has personhood.

No I demonstrably do have evidence, you keep ignoring it.

You have question-begging nonsense. The existence of nervous systems is not evidence that the central nervous system carries personhood.

While there is no CNS there is no person.

Your demands are not evidence.

If we ever get some shifting away from conception then we can perhaps talk of other things and individual cases.

You'd love that, wouldn't you. Then you'd have the whole world arguing over what physical trait carries personhood. Some would say a central nervous system, some would say a heartbeat, some would say brain waves, some would say birth, some would say a lack of certain diseases, some would say sex, some would say skin color, some would say nationality. You'd be right in your element.

Nope.

Truth matters. People do not get to define personhood. Personhood is conferred by God at conception.

 

[alwight]

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. You haven't established anything I have said that is self-contradictory.

Either believe that "personhood" is conferred by your God at conception or provide some rational reasoning for it being at that point. But since you can't apparently do the latter then I will have to assume that blind faith in God is what you offer and that "personhood" is something that you believe is bestowed as an honorary title by God. I otoh don't have any blind faith in gods and am thus free to make my own conclusions from the evidence, which I do.

Nope. You have presented a false dichotomy. That we believe something does not eliminate the possibility of evidence.

What you want is for me and others to be beholding to your belief that God deems "personhood" at conception rather than at a later point, yet still want to quibble with the facts and evidence for why I believe as I do. I think we should just leave your bald assertions about what you think is Godly out of it. Unfortunately for you though that would rather leave you with nothing except that you may be rather more keen than I am that billions of "persons" perish pointlessly as part of your belief. Thankfully real evidence rather says that that is not the case since persons require a functioning CNS, evidentially not a feature of a zygote at least.

Convenient then, since it is you who demands your ideas be respected when there is not a chance that you will ever be able to provide evidence.

Stripe again ignores the evidence of zygotes and a functioning CNS.

Equivocation is a logical fallacy. we are not talking about diminished physical capacity, we are talking about a metaphysical notion called "personhood."

Stripe resorts again to a supposed logical fallacy claim that actually wasn't.

How can you hope to conduct a rational conversation if you do not know what you're talking about.

Stripe now resorts to insult and bald assertion.

A man with a spinal injury is no less of a man. Some of them become greater people after the loss of function.

Stripe now resorts to a red herring fallacy he's used before.

Begging the question is still a logical fallacy. The evidence points to personhood, unless you provide some evidence that a central nervous system carries personhood.

Once again Stripe returns to a nonsense claim of a logical fallacy since he has nothing constructive or substantive to support his Godley belief about when "personhood" exists.

Equivocation is still a logical fallacy. We are not talking about quality of life. Personhood is not diminished because of an injury.

Nonsense, a damaged CNS will often directly impair a person's ability to think as they once did, Alzheimer's disease will slowly and cruelly rob their spouses of the person they once were.
Maybe you think that Alzheimer's disease is a logical fallacy Stripe?

Rational necessity. If you were able to think straight, it'd be obvious.

The spinal damage red herring again.

Exactly. So why would you imply that a damaged nervous system reduces personhood?

The CNS covers many functions, I'm citing the parts that actually do relate to the actual person rather than some honorary title that you believe God has ordained, or a physical function controlled by the spinal cord.

Right here, in fact:

I have come to my own conclusions based on evidence rather than belief.

While you have to believe your own dogma of course, come what may, rather than something you worked out for yourself as a free thinking person, oh well.

Nope. Evidence, remember? At conception, what we have is a living human being. Solid evidence that he has personhood.

No I have evidence while you only have your bald assertion. The evidence at this point consists of only a fertilised egg, not added to by your protestations.

You have question-begging nonsense. The existence of nervous systems is not evidence that the central nervous system carries personhood.

I don't agree, it clearly does as evidenced from real world experiences and real people, and it's far more evidence than you can provide, I can't help it if you just don't like it.

Your demands are not evidence.

:yawn:

You'd love that, wouldn't you. then you'd have the whole world arguing over what physical trait carries personhood. Some would say a central nervous system, some would say a heartbeat, some would say brain waves, some would say birth, some would say a lack of certain diseases, some would say sex, some would say skin color, some would say nationality. You'd be right in your element.

Got any evidence for where you think a "person" begins? I don't see that there is any real debate at all, without a CNS you are without a person, no doubt about it.
Maybe you can find a soul somewhere to help you?

Truth matters. People do not get to define personhood. Personhood is conferred by God at conception.

So me arguing about the physical evidence is pointless since your divine belief is all that matters to you. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

Either believe that "personhood" is conferred by your God at conception or provide some rational reasoning for it being at that point.

False dichotomies are fallacious no matter how many times you use them.

But since you can't apparently do the latter then I will have to assume that blind faith in God is what you offer and that "personhood" is something that you believe is bestowed as an honorary title by God.

Nope.

Evidence, remember?

You agree with this: At conception, what we have is a living human. This is great evidence that the product of two people is — wait for it — another person.

So much for "blind faith."

I otoh don't have any blind faith in gods and am thus free to make my own conclusions from the evidence, which I do.

Your demands are not evidence.

What you want is for me and others to be beholding to your belief that God deems "personhood" at conception rather than at a later point.

I don't care what nonsense you believe in place of the truth. What is important is that you endorse murder. That's what has to stop.

Persons require a functioning CNS.

You need evidence for this claim. Saying that nervous systems exist is not evidence for this claim.

Stripe again ignores the evidence of zygotes and a functioning CNS.

Because it is question-begging nonsense.

Stripe resorts again to a supposed logical fallacy claim that actually wasn't.

So you think personhood is diminished in a man who has a spinal injury.

A damaged CNS will often directly impair a person's ability to think as they once did, Alzheimer's disease will slowly and cruelly rob their spouses of the person they once were.

Equivocation again. We are not talking about quality of life. It's either equivocation, or you believe that people with impairments have diminished personhood.

Which is it? Is a main with a brain condition a lesser person, or is his quality of life diminished?

The CNS covers many functions, I'm citing the parts that actually do relate to the actual person.

:AMR:

You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

What parts of a nervous system "relate to the actual person" and what parts do not?

I have evidence while you only have your bald assertion.

Got any evidence for where you think a "person" begins?

My claim is that God confers personhood at conception. Evidence? At conception we have a living human being. That which two people produce can reasonably be thought of as — wait for it — another person.

I don't see that there is any real debate at all, without a CNS you are without a person, no doubt about it.

Your demands are not convincing.

You'd love the discussion to be on your terms. Then you'd have the whole world arguing over what physical trait carries personhood. Some would say a central nervous system, some would say a heartbeat, some would say brain waves, some would say birth, some would say a lack of certain diseases, some would say sex, some would say skin color, some would say nationality. You'd be right in your element.

You arguing about the physical evidence is pointless because your determination to uphold murder is what you desperately seek to protect.