Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Abortion and Women's Rights
May 31, 2014 at 10:40 am
(May 31, 2014 at 10:11 am)alpha male Wrote: I didn't fabricate anything. You brought it in: "Perhaps, but what is most important is that I demonstrated that DNA is not required for determination of personhood."
If such requirement is now irrelevant (although a few minutes ago it was the most important point), then restate your point.
Exactly. Me stating that DNA is not required for personhood is not the same as stating that you claimed it was, which was your contention.
Stating that DNA is not required for personhood shows that it is superfluous information and therefore cannot be construed as an indicator. It's also redundant since the conversation was already bounded by the criteria 'within humans'.
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: Abortion and Women's Rights
May 31, 2014 at 12:14 pm
(May 31, 2014 at 7:31 am)alpha male Wrote: (May 30, 2014 at 9:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: How so? Don't play dumb just to continue the debate.
I want you to explain in your own words why you feel that DNA is the criteria to determine our rights as beings. This seems strange to me but maybe you can explain. I gave you a lengthy elaboration on how conscious experience is the criteria. Now, it's your turn.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Abortion and Women's Rights
May 31, 2014 at 12:18 pm
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2014 at 12:25 pm by John V.)
(May 31, 2014 at 10:40 am)Cato Wrote: Exactly. Me stating that DNA is not required for personhood is not the same as stating that you claimed it was, which was your contention. No, my contention is that, since requirement is not part of my position, your point on requirement is a non sequitur.
Quote:Stating that DNA is not required for personhood shows that it is superfluous information and therefore cannot be construed as an indicator.
No, the fact that DNA is not required for personhood reflects that there are multiple methods of determining personhood. Which to use is a matter of opinion.
(May 31, 2014 at 12:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I want you to explain in your own words why you feel that DNA is the criteria to determine our rights as beings. This seems strange to me but maybe you can explain. I gave you a lengthy elaboration on how conscious experience is the criteria. Now, it's your turn. DNA can be and is used to identify one person from another. It's a simple concept that doesn't require a lengthy elaboration or a clip form star trek.
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: Abortion and Women's Rights
May 31, 2014 at 12:26 pm
(May 31, 2014 at 9:21 am)alpha male Wrote: The significance of factors is a matter of opinion.
Well, then since what determines personhood is just a matter of opinion, you should use them to decide for yourself whether or not to have an abortion. You have no right to force your opinions on others.
A woman's right to control her own body is not in dispute. A woman's right to make choices is not in dispute. You just want your standards which you admit are arbitrary and a matter of your personal opinion on other people, overriding their rights.
The burden of proof is on you to show that a woman's rights are trumped by some other consideration. You need to do better than, "well, it's my personal opinion that..."
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Abortion and Women's Rights
May 31, 2014 at 12:28 pm
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2014 at 12:29 pm by Cato.)
(May 31, 2014 at 12:18 pm)alpha male Wrote: DNA can be and is used to identify one person from another. It's a simple concept that doesn't require a lengthy elaboration or a clip form star trek. So identical twins are the same person?
I have to retract that. Have genes on the brain.
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: Abortion and Women's Rights
May 31, 2014 at 12:29 pm
(May 31, 2014 at 12:18 pm)alpha male Wrote: DNA can be and is used to identify one person from another. It's a simple concept that doesn't require a lengthy elaboration or a clip form star trek.
...and?
Fingerprints are also useful to identify one person from another.
We're not discussing forensics here. We're talking about issues of morality and what determines our moral obligations.
Can I assume you'd conclude that Data, having no DNA, is a thing that can be treated as property?
Is it morally OK to throw kittens off a cliff for fun, since they have no human DNA?
It seems like the reason you don't want to elaborate is you haven't thought this through very well.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Abortion and Women's Rights
May 31, 2014 at 12:44 pm
I'll leave my opinion regarding DNA as an aspect of personhood at this...
DNA may be used to distinguish between entities that we already identify as humans, but it says absolutely nothing about personhood. The most that can be said is that an entity must have human DNA to be a person. This is not equivalent to all things possessing human DNA are persons. Using DNA as a defining characteristic, regardless of degree, is misplaced. We have already limited the discussion to humans. The existence of a myriad of things containing human DNA that cannot reasonably said to possess the characteristics of personhood also makes the notion ridiculous.
Posts: 5165
Threads: 514
Joined: December 26, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Abortion and Women's Rights
May 31, 2014 at 12:48 pm
Dude there are rats and pigs in labs across the country with human DNA! Are they people?
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Abortion and Women's Rights
May 31, 2014 at 12:53 pm
(May 31, 2014 at 12:18 pm)alpha male Wrote: DNA can be and is used to identify one person from another.
Could also be used to distinguish a cell from another cell of the same type but belonging to another human body. Is a cell a person as well?
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Abortion and Women's Rights
May 31, 2014 at 4:04 pm
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2014 at 4:05 pm by John V.)
Did you guys miss this?
Quote: (May 31, 2014 at 9:32 am)Chas Wrote: Your definition of personhood has some problems.
Of course it does. All definitions of personhood have problems. That's why it gets discussed and people end up with different opinions.
I already acknowledged that DNA has problems. I could alter it to DNA plus another factor - and that would still have problems. Consciousness and self-awareness have been proposed by others. They have their merits, but one could also show problems with them. Each person chooses as they see fit. Different people give different weights to different factors. What's the problem? I don't get why you're all having trouble dealing with this.
|
