-->
@MAV99
Your line of thought stems from a denial of the very basis of logic and critical thinking.
That is a harsh conclusion.
personhood
Posts
Total:
75
-->
@Shila
Not really.
He is saying that me trying to define something is just playing mind games when the definition of something is the very basis to any logical and critical thinking about that thing.
I find it to be quite intellectually dishonest to avoid clearly defining what you are talking about and still trying to act like you are being perfectly logical.
-->
@MAV99
I am not playing mind games. I don't care for those. You are not being g clear because you are not answering the question.
Then you confused about the mind game your playing. Go my post #6 and copy any comment that is not clearly stated, as you suggest.
I think you and OGP are lazy. Did you ever attempt even attempt to look at a dictionary.
Here is just one of dictionary definition, and it was the first, want to appear on goolge..."the quality or condition of being an individual person.
"the documentary attempts to get behind the icon, to a sense of her personhood"
Logic and critical thinking require knowing what a thing is to make a proper judgment of it. That is the very basis of all logic and critical thinking.
You are the one who lacks the use of logical common sense critical thinking or more likely to lazy.
Two seperate posts in this thread Ive been clear. Address copy and post any of the comments you suggest lack clarity.
You and OGP dont because you too lazy and would rather plan mind games.
What percentage of philosophy revolves around people playing mind games, semantics etc.
-->
@MAV99
Not really.He is saying that me trying to define something is just playing mind games when the definition of something is the very basis to any logical and critical thinking about that thing.I find it to be quite intellectually dishonest to avoid clearly defining what you are talking about and still trying to act like you are being perfectly logical.
Maybe anything outside of mathematical equations is out of his league. He likes to deal with numbers even when the odds are against him.
-->
@ebuc
Then you confused about the mind game your playing. Go my post #6 and copy any comment that is not clearly stated, as you suggest.
Ok, lets have a look.
Fetus/baby is a temporary organism of the pregnant woman.
the whole question greyparrot presented in this thread is about personhood. He even named the thread that. Here you are speaking of a fetus/Baby as a temporary organism. You then make the comparison to a man's gonads:
Is a mans gonads his ' property '? Of course, depending how legal system defines property.
Making any person wonder if you actually even know logic and the requirements to make comparisons in a logical setting. A gonad is nowhere near the same thing as a fetus. different functions, different types of tissue, etc. It is confusing that you are throwing together a bunch of different things to draw comparisons that do not exist and frankly have nothing to do with the central idea at hand: personhood.
Are any organs of any humans their personal ' property ', of course they are, depending on legal definitions of property.
Nobody with any logic says a fetus is an organ according to the medical definition of it. Why is this relevant to the topic at hand? Even in the context of property, which is not really the question here, you are still attributing to a fetus what anybody with any logical and critical thinking skills would say has nothing to do with the fetus. Like I said, without knowing what you are talking about, i.e. a definition, how can you say anything logical at all? All you have done is prove my point.
Virtual rape stems from religious patriarchal systems of thought, not from spiritually based 1st principles.
That is most certainly debatable, and what is "spiritually based 1st principles"?
Do no harm to self or others, without their consent, except in cases of self defense,
So as long as someone gives me consent to murder them, I am acting perfectly moral? Morality is not based on what an individual thinks is right. It is based on the nature of actions and consequences that follow. Do you seriously think anyone in a court of law would get away with murder if they say: "He said I could do it."?
protect personal property and that begins with the human organism { organs of the humans } and all of the atoms, molecules etc that compose the human organism,
Once again, because you cannot define and consequently think logically, you are throwing together unrelated things to try and prove a point that ultimately proves nothing. There is this axiom in philosophy that goes: He who proves too much, proves nothing. It means you dodge the question with irrelevant points that you ultimately miss the main point entirely.
independent sovereign nations, is dumb way forward for humanity.
That is debatable, and you give no reason why and this has nothing to do with personhood as this thread is discussing here. Once again you are totally missing the point.
Did you ever attempt even attempt to look at a dictionary.
Just because a dictionary has a definition for it does not mean it is a good definition. Maybe if you could think critically you would realize that "personhood: having the quality of being a person" is a horrible definition because all it says is "personhood= personhood". I am not being lazy when I ask for a good definition. If I was lazy I would just take the definition you got from google and use that.
What percentage of philosophy revolves around people playing mind games, semantics etc.
Arguing to define something is a critical part of philosophy. Unless you want to say that all the philosophers who spend hours trying to arrive at solid definitions in order to properly reason about something and make a proper judgement of it, are lazy, I would suggest you study and think about it a little bit more than what you have. Also, I do not think philosophy is semantics. That is more something that happens in law. Philosophy is the science of reason. What a thing is, is the basis of reason. Without it you cannot say anything with a proper judgement. Any solid logician and philosopher would say that.
Do you see what I am saying now? You can sit here all day and say that I am lacking logic and critical thinking and being lazy, but you are only dodging the question and frankly proving my point.
I am not trying to slam or burn you. But if you can't define and be clear then it is not worth talking to you. Definitions are important. Trying to define something is not being semantical, when you are trying to make a proper judgement of that thing.
-->
@MAV99
He just doesn’t get it!!
-->
@MAV99
the whole question greyparrot presented in this thread is about personhood. He even named the thread that. Here you are speaking of a fetus/Baby as a temporary organism. You then make the comparison to a man's gonads:
Here is just one of dictionary definition, and it was the first, want to appear on goolge..."the quality or condition of being an individual person.
"the documentary attempts to get behind the icon, to a sense of her personhood"
Making any person wonder if you actually even know logic and the requirements to make comparisons in a logical setting. A gonad is nowhere near the same thing as a fetus. different functions, different types of tissue, etc. It is confusing that you are throwing together a bunch of different things to draw comparisons that do not exist and frankly have nothing to do with the central idea at hand: personhood.
Here is just one of dictionary definition, and it was the first, want to appear on goolge..."the quality or condition of being an individual person.
"the documentary attempts to get behind the icon, to a sense of her personhood"
Nobody with any logic says a fetus is an organ according to the medical definition of it. Why is this relevant to the topic at hand? Even in the context of property, which is not really the question here, you are still attributing to a fetus what anybody with any logical and critical thinking skills would say has nothing to do with the fetus. Like I said, without knowing what you are talking about, i.e. a definition, how can you say anything logical at all? All you have done is prove my point.
Here is just one of dictionary definition, and it was the first, want to appear on goolge..."the quality or condition of being an individual person.
"the documentary attempts to get behind the icon, to a sense of her personhood"
hat is most certainly debatable, and what is "spiritually based 1st principles"?
Others keeping their virtual and real nose out of pregnants womans bodily business. You stillappear to lack the ability of logical, common sense pathways of thought even with most simple concepts based spiritual principles, morality etc.
So as long as someone gives me consent to murder them, I am acting perfectly moral? Morality is not based on what an individual thinks is right. It is based on the nature of actions and consequences that follow. Do you seriously think anyone in a court of law would get away with murder if they say: "He said I could do it."?
Here is just one of dictionary definition, and it was the first, want to appear on goolge..."the quality or condition of being an individual person.
"the documentary attempts to get behind the icon, to a sense of her personhood"
Once again, because you cannot define and consequently think logically, you are throwing together unrelated things to try and prove a point that ultimately proves nothing. There is this axiom in philosophy that goes: He who proves too much, proves nothing. It means you dodge the question with irrelevant points that you ultimately miss the main point entirely.
Here is just one of dictionary definition, and it was the first, want to appear on goolge..."the quality or condition of being an individual person.
"the documentary attempts to get behind the icon, to a sense of her personhood"
That is debatable, and you give no reason why and this has nothing to do with personhood as this thread is discussing here. Once again you are totally missing the point.
Here is just one of dictionary definition, and it was the first, want to appear on goolge..."the quality or condition of being an individual person.
"the documentary attempts to get behind the icon, to a sense of her personhood"
Just because a dictionary has a definition for it does not mean it is a good definition. Maybe if you could think critically you would realize that "personhood: having the quality of being a person" is a horrible definition because all it says is "personhood= personhood". I am not being lazy when I ask for a good definition. If I was lazy I would just take the definition you got from google and use that.
I'll take that as a 'no' by you when asked if you even looked at even on dictionary definition of personhood. You appear to lack some of logical, common sense critical thinking abilities on this issue and if not many others and lazy.
Arguing to define something is a critical part of philosophy. Unless you want to say that all the philosophers who spend hours trying to arrive at solid definitions in order to properly reason about something and make a proper judgement of it, are lazy, I would suggest you study and think about it a little bit more than what you have. Also, I do not think philosophy is semantics. That is more something that happens in law. Philosophy is the science of reason. What a thing is, is the basis of reason. Without it you cannot say anything with a proper judgement. Any solid logician and philosopher would say that.
Here is just one of dictionary definition, and it was the first, want to appear on goolge..."the quality or condition of being an individual person.
"the documentary attempts to get behind the icon, to a sense of her personhood"
Do you see what I am saying now? You can sit here all day and say that I am lacking logic and critical thinking and being lazy, but you are only dodging the question and frankly proving my point.
Some truths are self evidence, as this case with you in this disscussion. Lazy and lack of logical, common sense critical thining pathways of thought.
Here is just one of dictionary definition, and it was the first, want to appear on goolge..."the quality or condition of being an individual person.
"the documentary attempts to get behind the icon, to a sense of her personhood"
I am not trying to slam or burn you. But if you can't define and be clear then it is not worth talking to you. Definitions are important. Trying to define something is not being semantical, when you are trying to make a proper judgement of that thing.
Here is just one of dictionary definition, and it was the first, want to appear on goolge..."the quality or condition of being an individual person.
"the documentary attempts to get behind the icon, to a sense of her personhood"
Please read carefully, using logical, common sense critical thinking in my post #6. If you disagree or do not understand a comment please share.
A fertilized womans egg ---a human--- is a temporary organism of the pregnant woman, ---her property-- and others should keep their virtual and/or real nose out of bodily business, unless she gives her consent for them stick their virtual or/real nose into her bodily business.
The spermazoa is a gift from the man.
-->
@Shila
You are correct. He does not get it. Look at his post number 67. He is proving my point.
-->
@ebuc
You have unwittingly proven my whole point. You give several times a crappy definition that I already dismissed as a bad definition and you keep trying to insist on it without clarifying anything on it.
It seems to me you don't quite know what you are talking about. You call the fertilized egg a "human" and "property" which makes the fetus sound like a slave. I don't think anyone with any common sense or critical thinking skills takes that seriously.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any point in discussing this with you anymore. You have chosen to be unclear and only repeat without explaining anything.
-->
@MAV99
You are correct. He does not get it. Look at his post number 67. He is proving my point.
Maybe you can help him by giving your definition of personhood.
-->
@MAV99
You call the fertilized egg a "human" and "property" which makes the fetus sound like a slave. I don't think anyone with any common sense or critical thinking skills takes that seriously.
Your confused at best and at worst, lack some abilities of rather simple, logical, common sense critical thinking of pregnant woman the temporary organism of her body, the fetus > fetus/baby.
Your assertion that a fetus or fetus baby is a "slave" is evidence my comments above. A slighted digression into illogical lack of common sense and critical thinking.
Most of biologic life reality is about relative truths, and you show how black and white your pathways of thought.
-->
@ebuc
Your assertion that a fetus or fetus baby is a "slave" is evidence my comments above. A slighted digression into illogical lack of common sense and critical thinking.
Do you understand English?!?!?!?
I did not assert that! That is what I said is confusing about what you are saying! You called the fetus a "human" and "property" which is what we call slave. Do you understand what I am saying?!?!?!?
Most of biologic life reality is about relative truths, and you show how black and white your pathways of thought.
I am not on the level of relation here. I am on the level of whatness. Whatness is not relative. A thing is what it is. That is the level I am on here.
Do you believe a fetus is property?
In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that "the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
At what point is a fetus considered a person?
A human life may be considered a human person at fertilization. On the other hand, others attribute personhood once the physical appearance of a fetus resembles the mature human form at about week 9 of gestation during embryogenesis.
Competing constructs establish personhood in both individual and interpersonal contexts. Within the individual context existential personhood may be posited as a distinctly human state within the natural order, intrinsic to human life, and independent of the status of the human being. In the interpersonal context the existential construct holds that personhood is not a creation of the society, is not a right, and may not be altered or removed by human fiat. Relational theory presents contra assertions in these two contexts. The Christian view is taken as a particular case of existential personhood. Arguments concerning the nature of human personhood are metaphysical and consist of philosophical beliefs which may be properly asserted in either construct. The interpersonal context of personhood lends itself to comparative analysis of the empirical results associated with both the existential and the relational constructs.
At the federal level, the Supreme Court has indicated that it will not weigh in on prenatal personhood, with the majority opinion in Dobbs stating that the court takes no position on “if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth.” In October 2022, the court declined to take up a case
What is the personhood argument?
Pro-abortion advocates argue that personhood begins at birth or viability outside of the womb. They believe that until a child can survive outside of their mother's body, they do not have personhood or have protection under the law.