You know what really grinds my gears? RAPE-UBLICANS

[Esquilax]

You seemed to claim that a fetus is not a person simply because you believe it is not a person; or is there actually a legitimate reason why a fetus is not a person? If there is, then I am interested in hearing it.

A fetus is not a person because it doesn't qualify as one. It's got nothing to do with opinion or belief, but simply with facts: something without self awareness or consciousness at all is not a person.

It’s not my definition, it’s the dictionary’s. That’s the difference between you and me; I do not base any of this upon my own arbitrary opinion.

I'll ignore your continued strawmanning even after I explained my position, but I'm aware it's a dictionary definition you used; if you want to use that definition, then you'll have to contend with the limitations of it, something you're unable to do, so far.

That is not part of the definition of being a human being; that’s your own arbitrary and self-serving qualifier that you’ve added to the definition of being a human (it’s no different than saying you must be white to be human, or you must have a penis to be human). A human is simply any organism possessing a human genome.

See, I knew you were going to go here, but clearly you aren't aware of how poorly this new definition serves you too. For example, parts of a human body also possess human DNA, and therefore a human genome: is my liver a human being too? My fingernails? When I go to the bathroom, what I leave in a toilet bowl has traces of human DNA too, is that a person?

My point, which you've skipped over in your rush to strawman my argument, is that there's a reason that scientists- including those in the medical field- use very exacting definitions for things; they need to refer to one thing and one thing only without any room for misunderstanding. A thing is a thing, it cannot be another thing. You started by employing a circular "a person is a human is a person" definition, and now you're adding this genome requirement, but numerous things that aren't human possess human DNA.

That's why the definition of a human is much more expansive than that, detailing physiology and- yes- DNA too, but not just one or the other. What you're asking is that we use your definition for some things but not others despite the fact that they fulfill the same requirements, which makes your definition functionally useless, both as a word and a legal concept.

I'm aware of the argument you're making and I also understand the (emotional, squeamish and religious) reasonings behind it, but if you're going to recourse to this argument over legal definitions to support it, then it's up to me to show you how poorly formed that case is.

Why not just be honest? You think abortion is wrong because bible. I think the real fear is that you know your case rests on nothing but opinion; it's the same with every religious argument. You look to your presupposition to tell you what the reality is, and then you search for facts that support what the book tells you.

That's fine, you're welcome to your opinion. But let's not pretend it has any bearing on what's actually going on.

Again, that is not how we define humanity. Humanity is defined by our genetics, not our morphology. Given your reasoning, a person born without legs would not be a human because they didn’t look like the rest of us; or an eight year old boy would not be a human because he didn’t possess fully developed sex organs.

Ah, wrong again: leaving aside my argument above, the examples you give here would still be human because they possess numerous other traits that check them out as human. I'm not saying one needs possess every trait before they're considered human; I'm merely asking how many you're willing to take away and retain the label. We've already established that the minimalist threshold you're working under won't work, so where do we draw the line?

It’s this exact same mentality that leads to people believing those who merely look different than they do are not humans.

Oh, you're going to try poisoning the well by attaching me to racism and a bunch of other -isms, are you? In that case, I'd simply point you to above; one's humanity isn't about looks or DNA, but a combination of both. Why do you seem so set in making this a simplistic, all or nothing case? Why not debate the argument I'm actually making?

Whenever we find remains we always test their DNA in order to determine if they are human remains or not.

Yes, and when you extract that DNA, does it become its own individual person? Exactly.

Sure, but every entity that possesses its own human DNA is a human being; trying to argue against that leads to absurdities that neither you nor I will accept.

Ever heard of human chimeras, Stat? They possess two distinct sets of human DNA. According to your definition, they are two people. Your definition leads to absurdities all on its own: how many exceptions are we to find before it loses all its teeth?

It’s not the flesh, it’s the DNA. That’s the dictionary’s definition, and the only reason you do not like it is because it proves abortion is murder.

Begging the question is not an argument.

It’s troubling that you insist on using the same reasoning white supremacists use…

“Well he doesn’t look like the rest of us, so therefore he must not be a person and we’re therefore justified in killing him!”

“Well the fetus doesn’t look like the rest of us, so therefore it must not be a person and we’re therefore justified in killing it!”

You know, simplifying my argument doesn't mean that's what I'm arguing. I'm seriously beginning to wonder whether you're actually not getting this, or just lying about it for convenience. If you persist with this "he's racist!" stuff after this post, I'll have to conclude it's the latter, because I've explained it in pretty good detail now.

Whenever your argument can be used to deduce conclusions that you will not accept, it’s an indicator that you need to relinquish that argument.

I'll say. However, it's actually your argument that does that. Well, yours, and the silly little pantomime of my argument that you've created because you're unable or unwilling to rebut it on its own terms.