You know what really grinds my gears? RAPE-UBLICANS

[Esquilax]

Why not? Because you say so? Why is personhood dependent upon self-awareness and consciousness? Many toddlers are not self-aware; are they therefore not people and you now support infanticide? Chimps are both self-aware and conscious, are they now people? You’re simply asserting that it is not a person because of some arbitrary standard, well I am allowed to simply reject that standard and postulate my own.

Hey Stat, could you do me a favor and just discuss my entire position from now on, and not just the little bit that you quote? Because I'm pretty sure you read my post before you replied, and so you know that this isn't my entire position.

Please pay attention to what I actually write. I clearly stated that a human being is any organism that possesses human DNA. Your liver is an organ, not an organism- so it’s obviously just tissue. Fertilized eggs and fetuses possess their own separate DNA and from a biological perspective are separate organisms from both of their parents.

Fair enough. I still disagree, and evidently so does the government in many places, but if you want to subscribe to a self-serving definition solely because it supports your argument on a single issue, that's fine. I'm not obligated to do likewise.

There’s no circularity in my definition. All human beings are people, and I have clearly defined human beings for you. You simply did not pay attention to my definition.

P1. Any organism that possesses human DNA is a human being
P2. A fertilized egg is an organism that possesses human DNA
C. Therefore, a fertilized egg is a human being.

P1. All human beings are people
P2. A fertilized egg is a human being
C. Therefore a fertilized egg is a person

Good thing the world doesn't run on Stat logic then, huh? Oh, and PS: if I inject a chicken with my blood, does that make it a person?

What you are now relegated to doing is postulating your own arbitrary reasons as to why not all human beings are people (which is exactly what slave owners did).

Yeah, and Hitler ate sugar. Are you going to keep up this dishonest tactic, or are you going to actually argue the merits of the argument. Because even if I'm wrong, that doesn't automatically make you right.

Nope, my definition as I first stated it still stands. Your definition of personhood however concludes that infants and many toddlers are not people (not only this but apparently once a person becomes unconscious they magically and mysteriously cease to be a person).

Again, please address my entire argument, and not the fragment of it you've quoted. I don't understand what you hope to gain from this; people can still see my initial post, it's right there for everyone to see. I can demonstrate that what you're doing is dishonest just by linking back to that.

If you understood my argument then why did you try to argue that an organ was an organism?

Honest mistake, sorry about that.

Nope, if killing other people is wrong then abortion is wrong. There is no way around that. As a materialist you really have no reason to believe killing another person is wrong. That is why you arbitrarily believe it is wrong with some people but not others.

Seriously, do you have some kind of selective amnesia? Or did you just go to the Ray Comfort school of selective editing? You do understand that my position in its clear entirety is available in this same thread, right?

I have presented logical arguments to support my position; you have provided nothing but your own arbitrary standards.

That little monologue thing was kind of sad, wasn't it? Think you could maybe try something a little more mature than schoolyard reinterpretation of the other party's motivations?

As does a fetus.

Once it reaches a certain developmental threshold, sure. That's also, incidentally, around about the time I would cut off access to abortion (outside of saving the mother's life, of course.) But a little bundle of cells? No.

A human being is a living organism that possesses human DNA. That’s really simple, that definition encompasses the disfigured, children, babies, adults, the elderly, males, females, blacks, whites, the awake, the unconscious, the born and the unborn; yet it excludes animals. It’s the only consistent definition.

I'll get the syringes, you get the chickens. Let's make some people.

Nope, I am just reducing your argument to absurdity. Remember, if your argument can be used to justify positions you do not agree with then you either need to change your position or change your argument. My argument could never be used by a racist.

It's only absurd if you desperately address fragments of my argument one at a time, and not the entire thing.

No, that leads to arbitrariness and then humanity and personhood can be defined as whatever you want it to be. “You must have human DNA but you must also have a Y chromosome.” “You must have human DNA but you must also be white.” We’re either all people (including fertilized eggs) or none of us are. That’s how deduction works.

No, that's how a false dichotomy works. Unless you can address why a series of biological classifiers- the same ones that have worked for every other organism in the world without any of this arbitrariness you think is inherent- would be insufficient? Just asserting it isn't enough.

You claimed a fetus was not “human-looking”. Not sure what “human-looking” even means.

I never even used the words human-looking, so those quotation marks are a tad inaccurate. Why don't you go and read a book on taxonomic classifications, hmm? Maybe it'll help you out.