You not liking my responses will not necessarily garner you new ones.
. . . LOL . . . we’re still waiting on a definition of “person” that doesn’t fit the pattern . . . "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = etc . . .
So far . . . [crickets chirping].
Why would I need to just make up definitions of words (as if making up definitions means anything)? These words already have definitions. Open a dictionary, genius. That's what people do when they need a word to be properly defined.
So, which dictionary definition do you prefer? Probably none seeing as how all deviate from your made-up fantasy world definitions. Do you really think making up definitions to fit our argument actually means something?
. . . we’ve
been waiting on
you to provide a definition . . .
any definition . . . so far . . . [crickets chirping].
. . . LOL . . . the long anticipated
ad hominem . . . you’re nothing if not consistent in this regard.
I've given "mine" (see any dictionary). When can we expect your said “definition?” Hell's freezing over . . . :drums fingers:
. . . LOL . . . check
this thread where I believe I said “at birth” . . . and “first breath.”
We’ve been waiting on your “dictionary” definition . . . feel free to post one . . . let’s see where it goes from there.
Not a diversion. You just are not comfortable with what your arguments logically conclude. In the Dr. Watson abortion thread, at least one poster mentioned "brain activity" as a defining characteristic of this mythical "person" you and others were fumbling over trying to define.
My “argument” doesn’t “logically conclude” anywhere. But since this is the tack you insist on taking (your red herring) . . . Is a “person” still a “person” if their brain has ceased to function, their heart has stopped, and they have stopped breathing?
If I find a source stating that the brain activity in a 6-week-old fetus is equal to that of a comatose patient then either "aborting" a comatose patient should be legal or killing the 6-week-old fetus should not be.
This is all too complicated for you, it seems.
This discussion is NOT about abortion or the comatose . . . it is about . . . “At what point does a person become a person?” Why do you insist on bringing the irrelevant into it?
So, you've got A) "brain activity", which is your little red herring. Or, you've got B) breathing, which can only work as an argument if you're willing to allow a 9-month-old fetus to be aborted.
We already know that you support the legal "right" of a "mother" to abort a baby in her womb from 9 weeks to nine months, so just be open about where you stand.
Of course, correct me if I'm wrong........we both know I'm not.
:yawn: . . . more of Wiz’s red herrings.
Characteristics you associate with being a "person"? You've got the cart before the horse there. What "characteristics" and how do you define "person"?
*Ahem* Either pee or get off the pot *cough*
LOL . . . been there and done that . . . right now we’re waiting on YOUR defining parameters . . . so far you’ve got "a member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens."
Sure it is. I've got infinite dictionary definitions, which I am fine with using. You want to deviate from dictionary definitions? Then absolutely the burden is right on your lap where it's been since the Dr. Watson thread.
You, Dr. Watson, Greenrage and quip all failed miserably at even attempting a definition that didn't condemn the comatose, et al.
. . . that thread was about abortion . . . not “At what point does a person become a person?” Wouldn’t it be true that if the
end of “personhood” is marked by a lack of breathing, heartbeat, and brain activity . . . that it is reasonable that we judge the beginning of “personhood” by these same criteria?
Now, I'm willing to give you credit in the fact that your view is at least consistent. However, the only way a pro-choice argument can be consistent is if one is willing to declare that a fetus in any stage of development should legally lack protection against the wish of the mother to abort. Which is where the other three I mentioned above stray from your extreme fringe view.
. . . key word in yellow . . . and my “extreme fringe view” is consistent with, “Wouldn’t it be true that if the
end of “personhood” is marked by a lack of breathing, heartbeat, and brain activity . . . that it is reasonable that we judge the beginning of “personhood” by these same criteria?"
Defining moment? Conception. The sperm, egg, womb, etc are all "human" (adjective). The zygote is a "person" (noun) as it is "human", an individual and living.
. . . this is not exactly true . . . a zygote is not
necessarily an “individual” because there
still exists the possibility of “
twinning” which can occur up to 12 days after fertilization . . . so . . . your "criteria" is . . . just as arbitrary as anyone else’s.
Just to pick one definition to actually get you moving, how about
"person": the body of a living human being.
Now, tell me why that definition is unacceptable. Waiting.....waiting.....
. . . unacceptable because it’s one of 15
possible definitions for “person.” Why not use . . .
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child . . . clearly a zygote is NOT a man, woman, or child (though it possesses the
potential for being one).
. . . or . . .
7. the body in its external aspect . . . which makes a dead human body a “person.”
. . . clearly “person” doesn’t mean the same thing to all people at all times.
You are blind to what your logic concludes. If an arbitrary period of development is required in order to first be considered a "person", then there also must be an equal point in which the person loses these characteristics and is thus, no longer considered such.
. . . if “death” is “an arbitrary period of development” then any time before then is
also arbitrary. You yourself set “personhood” at "human", an individual and living” . . . when clearly “individual” is not such a solid starting point as discussed above.
Oh, really? Where? Link to the post.
. . . see above (but don’t expect me to recall the exact post).
When this point was first made in the Dr. Watson thread, it was in response to posters not making the distinction of word type. Is "human" most commonly used as an adjective or a noun?
. . . I’m not sure . . . probably more so as an adjective . . . you though are/were flip-flopping between “person” (noun) = “human” (noun) and “person” (noun) = “human” (adjective) which is equivocation on your part (which I recall pointing out on the (an)other tread).
Even your absurdity........
"What is a "person?"
A "person" is a "human?"
What is a "human?"
A "human" is a "person?" |
Fails to make the distinction and offers human as a noun. It could read as "a person" is a "fast" or a "person" is a "slow". "Human" is most commonly a descriptive term, hence your word play above is simply a display of your ignorance of common word usage.
. . . but
exactly how you were using the words as noted above.
Linking to a dictionary that shows how "human" can be used as a noun only furthers this display, as your offered definitions of "person"
| 1) A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. 2) A person |
are the very definitions you're whining about being equivocation.
. . . LOL . . . not at all . . . as pointed out in
post 98 where you flip-flopped between “person” (noun) = “human” (noun) and “person” (noun) = “human” (adjective).
. . . and which also makes a
dead human body a "person" (which I think you agree it is not).
I mean, could you gift-wrap presents like that for me next time?
. . . you could . . . but next time use a pretty bow . . . :chuckle:
"other than respiratory arrest" is a pretty big "other" and effectively neutralizes your argument. Again, if I accept your premise then we're talking about any fetus being "abort-able" from conception to birth.
. . . were we discussing abortion instead of, “At what point does a person become a person? . . . :idunno:
Yet we generally consider a fetus a "person" prior to them exiting the womb. They do no "breathe" until then. So, it is clear what your arguing for; elective abortion "rights" anytime, anywhere and at any point during pregnancy.
. . . “generally” . . . does that mean, “Not all the time?” . . . and . . . again . . . this discussion IS NOT about abortion.
LOL....talk about deflecting away from an actual response
. . . since the subject of the thread IS NOT where you are attempting to derail it to . . . I seem to be the only one between you and I who is making an effort of keeping things on topic.
