Defunding Planned Parenthood

[Crucible]

Evidence, remember?

It's ancient, orthodox belief that souls existed separate from a body, well before it was made. In fact, souls are stockpiled from Creation.
One point for predestination, if anything

At conception, we have a new human being.

Evidence, remember?
The Bible resoundingly disagrees with you. It's something due to you all's slowly evolving, presumptuous conviction. Like being 'born sinners' :freak:
You have to sin first to be a sinner, dummy.

Missing the obvious details and assuming whatever works for you- that's called 'intellectual sin'.

 

[glassjester]

You propose — sans evidence, you will never be able to gain any — that personhood is "added" sometime after conception. This is an unsupportable, metaphysical claim based on your desire to endorse murder.

Yes, that's exactly right.

The only time any class of humans is designated "non-persons," is when another class of humans is justifying their enslavement or extermination.

Besides... There's an inherent paradox in the idea of personhood being "added on" sometime after conception. If we say that a human only becomes a person when they manifest some particular personal act, then there could never be a first personal act, and no human could ever "become a person."

If only persons are capable of personal acts (and non-persons are incapable of personal acts), then the pre-born human, in committing his first personal act, must have already been a person - having had the potential to commit the personal act, before he committed it.

 

[alwight]

Your words, in fact. You propose — sans evidence, you will never be able to gain any — that personhood is "added" sometime after conception. This is an unsupportable, metaphysical claim based on your desire to endorse murder.

Of course you won't ever accept something quite reasonable if it contradicts your dogma Stripe. A CNS and the human person we all know each other to be, are evidentially and quite obviously entwined regardless of you not wanting that to be true. If a CNS is a later addition then afaic it can be reasonably believed that a personality is also a later addition.

Biological fact, as it turns out. And something you concede. At conception, there is a human.

You agree with this, remember?

No, I concede that it is human not "a" human or "a" person but a potential human being.
You otoh simply assert evidence-free that something special, magical or perhaps spiritual happens at conception other than an evidenced combining of DNA and then a potential for further development.

Clearly and evidentially a central nervous system actually is a later addition and therefore logically so would be the person that would seem to inhabit it.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. You cannot establish that personhood is added without assuming the truth of your notion that a somewhat-developed CNS is required. Not to mention the problem of exactly how developed the baby has to be before you'll concede personhood.

Nonsense, nothing has been begged, you'll need to do better than this.
Even if you don't like it, it is quite reasonable for a rational person to conclude that the later addition of a CNS will also include all the functioning mechanisms of a human person. I don't care if you are compelled to believe that somehow all of that existed magically from conception in a small cluster of cells. I am rather more compelled by what is reasonable to believe.

If it [CNS] were damaged or shut down entirely then so would that person be?

[btw Stripe added the "?" in the edit not me. :think:]

Dead.

Thanks for defeating your own argument.

I already knew that you and reality seldom coexist Stripe, but how you construe that the later addition of a CNS, which clearly is what supports the person part of a human being that we all know and interact with on a daily basis, defeats my argument rather than supports it, is either your desperation or a pure fantasy and beyond me. :liberals:

We expect you to support your ideas. However, your notion is that an intangible trait — personhood — is added at some time after conception. You can never gain evidence for such a notion. You've just invented a concept to provide cover for your pro-death agenda.

I have attempted to link "personhood" to physical attributes, to sense, to remember, to be self-aware etc as my understanding of the word, which is how I believe it to be in fact. Your version is only an arbitrary title conferred at conception based in no evidence only belief itself, having no particularly useful value afaic. My argument here is based on "personhood" being somewhat more than just an arbitrary title and a belief.

 

[quip]

Yes, that's exactly right.

The only time any class of humans is designated "non-persons," is when another class of humans is justifying their enslavement or extermination.

Besides... There's an inherent paradox in the idea of personhood being "added on" sometime after conception. If we say that a human only becomes a person when they manifest some particular personal act, then there could never be a first personal act, and no human could ever "become a person."

If only persons are capable of personal acts (and non-persons are incapable of personal acts), then the pre-born human, in committing his first personal act, must have already been a person - having had the potential to commit the personal act, before he committed it.

Persons don't act as to self-determine personhood any more than an infant must claim American citizenship by first reciting the pledge of allegiance. Again, it's an inferred and reciprocated, social designation between separate individuals. The individual's standing (or citizenship, as the case may be) in relation to his or her environs.

 

[glassjester]

Persons don't act as to self-determine personhood any more than an infant must claim American citizenship by first reciting the pledge of allegiance. Again, it's an inferred and reciprocated, social designation between separate individuals. The individual's standing (or citizenship, as the case may be) in relation to his or her environs.

Alright.

Then are there any living human organisms to whom it would be unjust to deny personhood? Or can personhood be justly granted or withheld from anyone, depending on how useful that human organism is, to the society he lives in?

 

[glassjester]

Your version is only an arbitrary title conferred at conception based in no evidence only belief itself, having no particularly useful value afaic.

Stripe's position seems to be that the human embryo is human. Plain fact. Not at all arbitrary.

 

[quip]

Alright.

Then are there any living human organisms to whom it would be unjust to deny personhood? Or can personhood be justly granted or withheld from anyone, depending on how useful that human organism is, to the society he lives in?

In our society you remain a person until death.

 

[Stripe]

Of course you won't ever accept something quite reasonable if it contradicts your dogma Stripe. A CNS and the human person we all know each other to be, are evidentially and quite obviously entwined regardless of you not wanting that to be true. If a CNS is a later addition then afaic it can be reasonably believed that a personality is also a later addition.

No, I concede that it is human not "a" human or "a" person but a potential human being.
You otoh simply assert evidence-free that something special, magical or perhaps spiritual happens at conception other than an evidenced combining of DNA and then a potential for further development.

Nonsense, nothing has been begged, you'll need to do better than this.
Even if you don't like it, it is quite reasonable for a rational person to conclude that the later addition of a CNS will also include all the functioning mechanisms of a human person. I don't care if you are compelled to believe that somehow all of that existed magically from conception in a small cluster of cells. I am rather more compelled by what is reasonable to believe.


I already knew that you and reality seldom coexist Stripe, but how you construe that the later addition of a CNS, which clearly is what supports the person part of a human being that we all know and interact with on a daily basis, defeats my argument rather than supports it, is either your desperation or a pure fantasy and beyond me. :liberals:

I have attempted to link "personhood" to physical attributes, to sense, to remember, to be self-aware etc as my understanding of the word, which is how I believe it to be in fact. Your version is only an arbitrary title conferred at conception based in no evidence only belief itself, having no particularly useful value afaic. My argument here is based on "personhood" being somewhat more than just an arbitrary title and a belief.

Your idea starts with the assertion that a baby at conception cannot be a person.

Mine starts with evidence: At conception, we have a human organism.

Your position is question-begging nonsense. However, that is irrelevant in the face of your pro-death agenda.

 

[alwight]

Your idea starts with the assertion that a baby at conception cannot be a person.

No, it can be a person if it develops sufficiently over time.

Mine starts with evidence: At conception, we have a human organism.

So does mine.

Your position is question-begging nonsense. However, that is irrelevant in the face of your pro-death agenda.

When will you show some regrets for billions of lost "human beings" Stripe,
don't you care?

 

[Stripe]

No.

When you say "no," you're supposed to disagree. Your position is based on the assertion that a baby at conception is not a person.

it can be a person if it develops sufficiently over time.

Which requires a non-person at conception.

So does mine.

Which is why you've spent all your time arguing against the humanity of a baby at conception.

That you have confused, irrational nonsense supporting your ideas is not the problem; the problem is that you are desperately defending your demand that mothers be allowed to murder their children.

 

[alwight]

When you say "no," you're supposed to disagree. Your position is based on the assertion that a baby at conception of not a person.

I was disagreeing that is was a baby or a person at conception.

Which requires a non-person at conception.

Correct, the penny has perhaps finally dropped.

Which is why you've spent all your time arguing against the humanity of a baby at conception.

I never said it wasn't human only that it simply represents a potential human being should it be fortuitous and develop, most don't. However if you'd care to agree that an actual human person is not just an arbitrary honorary title but has value and is evidentially linked to there being a functioning CNS which would perhaps develop later I would shut up.

That you have confused, irrational nonsense supporting your ideas is not the problem; the problem is that you are desperately defending your demand that mothers be allowed to murder their children.

No, I am explaining that at conception evidentially I see no babies nor children nor persons. There is no need to worry for the majority that will perish naturally, but then you don't seem to worry anyway, so perhaps you agree but don't want to say?

 

[Stripe]

I was disagreeing that is was a baby or a person at conception.

We know.

Your position relies on the assertion that babies at conception are not people.

You should not say "no" when someone accurately describes your position.

I never said it wasn't human

Except you argued every time we said the baby is human.

If you'd care to agree that an actual human person is not just an arbitrary honorary title but has value and is evidentially linked to there being a functioning CNS which would perhaps develop later I would shut up.

Sorry. Your demands do not carry any compelling reason to accept them. You have no evidence except your assertion of non-personhood.

Meanwhile, at conception we have a new human being. That's evidence for personhood. Your opinions do not counter evidence.

No, I am explaining that at conception evidentially I see no babies nor children nor persons.

That's because you deny evidence in favor of your demands.

 

[alwight]

We know.

Your position relies on the assertion that babies at conception are not people.

You should not say "no" when someone accurately describes your position.

Try to keep up your highness, you said "a baby at conception cannot be a person." firstly no, it is not a baby at conception and no, it's not a person at conception either and secondly (or thirdly?) no, it can indeed potentially become a person in time, as I've always said. If that's your idea of describing my position accurately then clearly I am wasting my time here, you have no interest in what I actually say only whatever it is you want me to say...

Except you argued every time we said the baby is human.

...do try to accept, but of course you probably won't, that I argued it's not a baby nor a person, I've never once suggested that it wasn't human.

Sorry. Your demands do not carry any compelling reason to accept them.

You have no evidence except your assertion of non-personhood.

Meanwhile, at conception we have a new human being. That's evidence for personhood. Your opinions do not counter evidence.

I've made no "demands" I've simply tried to explain my own reasoning from the evidence.
Evidence I keep giving you that a human personality is contingent on the CNS but you simply ignore it.
I have defined my "human personhood" on the CNS evidence, on how we interact with other people and how damage to the CNS damages the person. That is how I personally define a human "personhood" and where I see value in using the word.
You otoh dogmatically confer a title of "person" at conception evidence-free and won't hear of it being anything else. Evidence of conception is not evidence of "personhood"

That's because you deny evidence in favor of your demands.

:yawn:

 

[Stripe]

I've never once suggested that it wasn't human.

Yet you deny personhood.

I've made no "demands" I've simply tried to explain my own reasoning from the evidence.

Nope. You've demanded adherence to your belief that a physical trait defines personhood. You can never gain evidence for a metaphysical notion of this kind.

Evidence I keep giving you that a human personality is contingent on the CNS but you simply ignore it.

That's not evidence; it's simply an assertion.

Damage to the CNS damages the person.

People with damaged spinal cords are lesser people. Check. lain:

You otoh dogmatically confer a title of "person" at conception evidence-free and won't hear of it being anything else.

Nope. Evidence, remember? At conception, there is a human being. You agree with this, remember?

Unless you have evidence that at conception there is no human being. But you didn't want to discuss that. You just want to demand that people need certain physical attributes before you will grant them the right to life.

Evidence of conception is not evidence of "personhood"

Actually, it is.

If the term "personhood" has any value, it must be conferred to people. It must be conferred sometime during their life. They come into existence at conception. Therefore it is reasonable to believe it could be conferred at conception.

Now consider your demand:

Personhood of conferred at some unknown point when the baby has grown sufficiently.

This is an arbitrary demand based on no evidence. But the worst part is that your endgame if to keep murder legal.

 

[alwight]

Yet you deny personhood.

Only where it evidentially doesn't seem to exist.

Nope. You've demanded adherence to your belief that a physical trait defines personhood. You can never gain evidence for a metaphysical notion of this kind.

Perhaps "personhood" is not as metaphysical as you might want it to be?

That's not evidence; it's simply an assertion.

You think that the CNS and all its functions is an assertion? :think:

People with damaged spinal cords are lesser people. Check. lain:

Not in my book.

Nope. Evidence, remember? At conception, there is a human being. You agree with this, remember?

After conception there is only a fertilised egg, and eggs come before the chicken and human beings afaic.

Unless you have evidence that at conception there is no human being. But you didn't want to discuss that. You just want to demand that people need certain physical attributes before you will grant them the right to life.

Your assertions are only your assertions I don't need to disprove a negative, your job is to demonstrate where "personhood" exists in a fertilised egg.

Evidence of conception is not evidence of "personhood"

Actually, it is.

If the term "personhood" has any value, it must be conferred to people. It must be conferred sometime during their life. They come into existence at conception. Therefore it is reasonable to believe it could be conferred at conception.

No, I confer it when there seems to be evidence that it exists not because a conception has occurred and that fits what you want to believe.

Now consider your demand:

Personhood of conferred at some unknown point when the baby has grown sufficiently.

This is an arbitrary demand based on no evidence. But the worst part is that your endgame if to keep murder legal.

I've never suggest it's in anyway precise but at least while there is no CNS I can be pretty comfortable that no human being/person would have to take precedence over the wishes of the woman involved and what she chooses to do or not.

 

[Stripe]

Only where it evidentially doesn't seem to exist.

Because of your demand that a physical trait must define personhood.

Perhaps "personhood" is not as metaphysical as you might want it to be?

You think it's physical? :AMR:

You think that the CNS and all its functions is an assertion?

Nope. Your demand that it defines personhood has no chance of being shown possible by evidence.

This is what happens when your ideas are question-begging nonsense, you start demanding that what you say about abstract ideas is true because a physical thing exists. Then when asked to show how the item carries your evidence, you return to your demand.

After conception there is only a fertilised egg, and eggs come before the chicken and human beings afaic.

"As far as you are concerned" is not evidence.

At conception, we have a human — evidence, good evidence, that there is a person. All we have against the idea is your demand that he needs a central nervous system.

Your assertions are only your assertions.

Nope. Evidence, remember?

At conception, there is a human being. You agree that the fertilized egg is human, remember?

Evidence. Not unsupported assertion.

Unsupported assertion would be to say he needs white skin to be a person. You demand a central nervous system.

No, I confer it when there seems to be evidence that it exists.

Question-begging nonsense. You confer personhood when there is evidence. What evidence? A central nervous system. Why that? Because I demand it.

You have no evidence — not can you ever hope to gain any — that a central nervous system brings personhood.

I've never suggest it's in anyway precise but at least while there is no CNS I can be pretty comfortable that no human being/person would have to take precedence over the wishes of the woman involved and what she chooses to do or not.

You need evidence, not a demand, to have a rational argument.

However, the problem is not your nonsense ideas. The problem is that your endgame is murder.

Remember, even after a baby has a detectable nervous system, you would still turn a blind eye if his mother chose termination.

 

[alwight]

Because of your demand that a physical trait must define personhood.

You think it's physical? :AMR:

I don't make demands, if you choose to believe otherwise then believe away.
I think that evidentially it is a function of the physical CNS.

Nope. Your demand that it defines personhood has no chance of being shown possible by evidence.

Your opinion is noted.

This is what happens when your ideas are question-begging nonsense, you start demanding that what you say about abstract ideas is true because a physical thing exists. Then when asked to show how the item carries your evidence, you return to your demand.

Enough of your "demanding" nonsense, please try to converse more reasonably else I won't bother with you.
Clearly and evidentially the CNS is what holds our particular personality why do I need to keep on saying it?

"As far as you are concerned" is not evidence.

Perhaps but eggs and chickens are.

"At conception, we have a human — evidence, good evidence, that there is a person. All we have against the idea is your demand that he needs a central nervous system.

It's what seems to be reasonable for me to believe from the evidence of those with and without a functioning CNS. If you choose to bestow personhood at conception then that's your business, but I don't.

Nope. Evidence, remember?

At conception, there is a human being. You agree that the fertilized egg is human, remember?

It is your bald assertion that a human being exists at conception, but evidentially it's only a fertilised egg, egg before chicken, right?

Evidence. Not unsupported assertion.

Unsupported assertion would be to say he needs white skin to be a person. You demand a central nervous system.

I think a personhood needs a CNS to exist in, but you seem to have some supposed metaphysical realm in mind?

Question-begging nonsense. You confer personhood when there is evidence. What evidence? A central nervous system. Why that? Because I demand it.

I give you good evidence and you simply wave it away, I really don't know why I bother.

You have no evidence — not can you ever hope to gain any — that a central nervous system brings personhood.

Asserting that a CNS is not evidence when clearly it is, is just the kind of thing you do Stripe so that you can pretend that there is no evidence, I know you are basically dishonest, but I like you.

You need evidence, not a demand, to have a rational argument.

However, the problem is not your nonsense ideas. The problem is that your endgame is murder.

Remember, even after a baby has a detectable nervous system, you would still turn a blind eye if his mother chose termination.

I will examine each case on it's own merits before I make my best conclusion, you can stick to your dogmatic one size fits all if you want to but you don't get to impose your beliefs on those who think otherwise.

 

[Stripe]

If a CNS is a later addition then afaic it can be reasonably believed that a personality is also a later addition.

We're not talking about a "personality."

I concede that it is human.

And humans are conferred a thing called personhood. Thus there is evidential reason to say that at conception, we have a new person, for a human does indeed exist.

You'll just try to keep arguing over terminology because you are desperate to maintain your pro-death agenda.

You otoh simply assert evidence-free that something special, magical or perhaps spiritual happens at conception other than an evidenced combining of DNA and then a potential for further development.

Nope.

Personhood is conferred upon the human at conception. Evidence? Conception is when that life began.

You demand that personhood is not conferred until some unknown point into his life. Evidence? Your opinion that a nervous system at some unknown level of development defines personhood.

Your opinion is not evidence. Evidence is what I have to support my opinion.

Nonsense, nothing has been begged, you'll need to do better than this.

Just your entire argument. You claim personhood is carried by a physical trait and when asked for evidence, you point to the trait. When asked to explain how the trait brings personhood, you return to your demand.

Classic begging of the question.

Even if you don't like it, it is quite reasonable for a rational person to conclude that the later addition of a CNS will also include all the functioning mechanisms of a human person. I don't care if you are compelled to believe that somehow all of that existed magically from conception in a small cluster of cells. I am rather more compelled by what is reasonable to believe.

Your ignorance is astounding.

The being that grows the nervous system is the same one that began his life at conception. His nervous system is functioning well before the time most abortions occur.

You're a liar. You pretend to have some reasoning behind your position, but you're woefully uninformed and unwilling to accept correction.

None of that is a major problem; the problem is that you use it all to endorse your pro-murder agenda.

I have attempted to link "personhood" to physical attributes, to sense, to remember, to be self-aware etc as my understanding of the word, which is how I believe it to be in fact. Your version is only an arbitrary title conferred at conception based in no evidence only belief itself, having no particularly useful value afaic. My argument here is based on "personhood" being somewhat more than just an arbitrary title and a belief.

And your endgame is to allow the extermination of those who do not fit your definition of a person.

It is not important which one of us has the best reasoning; when push comes to shove, you endorse murder, while I oppose it.

 

[alwight]

We're not talking about a "personality."

And humans are conferred a thing called personhood. Thus there is evidential reason to say that at conception, we have a new person, for a human does indeed exist.

You'll just try to keep arguing over terminology because you are desperate to maintain your pro-death agenda.

Nope.

Personhood is conferred upon the human at conception. Evidence? Conception is when that life began.

You demand that personhood is not conferred until some unknown point into his life. Evidence? Your opinion that a nervous system at some unknown level of development defines personhood.

Your opinion is not evidence. Evidence is what I have to support my opinion.

Just your entire argument. You claim personhood is carried by a physical trait and when asked for evidence, you point to the trait. When asked to explain how the trait brings personhood, you return to your demand.

Classic begging of the question.

Your ignorance is astounding.

The being that grows the nervous system is the same one that began his life at conception. His nervous system is functioning well before the time most abortions occur.

You're a liar. You pretend to have some reasoning behind your position, but you're woefully uninformed and unwilling to accept correction.

None of that is a major problem; the problem is that you use it all to endorse your pro-murder agenda.

And your endgame is to allow the extermination of those who do not fit your definition of a person.

It is not important which one of us has the best reasoning; when push comes to shove, you endorse murder, while I oppose it.

You might try responding to my last post rather than one from yesterday Stripe. lain:

 

[Stripe]

You might try responding to my last post rather than one from yesterday Stripe. lain:

What I have written, I have written.

Feel free to come to reason. Question-begging nonsense is no excuse for endorsing murder.