Just like any organ. One cell at a time.
Okay then.
Would you like to adjust your definition again?
I'll remove reproduce and add in the potential to reproduce and the potential to be functional.
Abortion
Posts
Total:
139
-->
@secularmerlin
Last comment was for you.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes
@Poly-Witch
You said:Would you still allow the option in a perfect world for an abortion?
Yes
Why?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
All organs have the potential to be functional they just need to be attached to an organism. You could argue that the appendix doesn't do anything but then your definition still includes lungs, kidneys, bones etc.
It is very hard to construct a definition of person that includes everything you deem a person but also excludes everything that you do not consider a person isn't It?
Add to this how the term applies differently in different situations (when getting on an elevator that has a maximum limit of 11 people a 200lb sack of potatoes definitely counts as a person when counting the "people" that the elevator will hold) and the problem goes from sticky to near impossible.
You are welcome to try again. Maybe fourth time will be the charm.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Because a born person has rights, especially over their own body.
-->
@secularmerlin
Potatoes meet the definition of life, but are not of the homo sapien species
It's not that hard to comprehend at all.
Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death
An appendix is not a life form, a living thing like a plant or an animal.
-->
@Snoopy
We are not arguing the rights of most animals or any plants. Clearly merely being alive us not enough on its own.
-->
@secularmerlin
That's fine, just don't want to waste their time since we both know what they mean.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You keep saying in a perfect world. In a perfect world there would be no unwanted pregnancies and no medical complications from pregnancy. No wanted pregnancies that do not suffer any complications are aborted now. Your question is a little nonsensical.
-->
@Snoopy
I do not necessarily know what anyone means by person until we discuss it. Half the time my interlocutor does not really know what they mean. That is the whole point of asking for a rigorous definition of personhood.That's fine, just don't want to waste their time since we both know what they mean.
Would you care to try to define person?
-->
@secularmerlin
OP: Since I have given my personal stance. You can decide to talk about your argument for abortion preferably outside law and possibly talk about if it was in a perfect world or talk about my position. I would prefer the first but you can do what you want that discusses abortion.
No, thank you, just trying to help
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes.It is very hard to construct a definition of person that includes everything you deem a person but also excludes everything that you do not consider a person isn't It?
You are welcome to try again. Maybe fourth time will be the charm.
I don't know. I'll come back to it when I find something else.
@Poly-Witch
Rights are given by the government. Why should the government not give rights to the unborn which are the future generation?Because a born person has rights, especially over their own body.
-->
@secularmerlin
If they say yes then I can say why. It is sort of a trick question where there is only one right answer which is no. Saying yes would mean even in a perfect world you still think abortion should be legal even though thinking about an abortion would mean you are not exactly living in a perfect world.Your question is a little nonsensical.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Would you say that people should be allowed to fly without mechanical aide? Like sure they can't so it doesn't matter but should they be allowed to?
The answer is sure why not and yet who cares.
-->
@secularmerlin
R. Kelly cares, and happens to be a human. He was not aborted if you are wondering.
-->
@Snoopy
R Kelly does not live in a perfect world. Have you actually read the op? That is one of the qualifiers. "In a perfect world." Now I have no idea,what a perfect world wpuld be but there would clearly be no unwanted pregnancies so the entire thread is just a non sequitur.
Also you ate confirming the consequence again. Please familiarize yourself with the most common formallogical fallacies as this will help you avoid them.
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't think its meant as a qualifier but an interesting topic to possibly discuss.
-->
@Snoopy
This is from the threads author. This thread is just one long non sequitur and what's more he knows it.If they say yes then I can say why. It is sort of a trick question where there is only one right answer which is no. Saying yes would mean even in a perfect world you still think abortion should be legal even though thinking about an abortion would mean you are not exactly living in a perfect world.
-->
@secularmerlin
How about sentience?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
There is no reason to believe that a fetus possesses sentience. If a fetus is a person then sentience is not what makes you a person. I am inclined to accept sentience personally but that means admitting that a fetus does not qualify, at least not for me.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The unborn are not a person. They are not citizens. They do not have rights.
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no reason to believe that a fetus possesses sentience.
Sentience is defined as:
A brain is required to feel, perceive and experience subjectively and fetuses have it. Am I wrong?
@Poly-Witch
The unborn are not a person.
To even classify it as "unborn" it is pretty much a person just lesser than what you would consider a full person.
What is the difference between an unborn and a born human being?
They are not citizens. They do not have rights.
Since you like appealing to the law so much I'll bite. Did you know if you murder a pregnant lady it counts as two murders? So basically the government has given the same rights as the mother when it comes to unlawful act of violence. This would mean even the government consider fetuses to be worthy to have rights.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
We do not grant equal rights to the vast majority of organisms with brains. Clearly that is not what makes one a person. Otherwise fish and frogs and even insects are people. Am I wrong?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Or that the mother who chose to keep her child be compensated for the loss. Not my fault the law is hypocritical on this. A born person is born. Not sure what other qualifications you think they need to have.
-->
@secularmerlin
We do not grant equal rights to the vast majority of organisms with brains. Clearly that is not what makes one a person. Otherwise fish and frogs and even insects are people. Am I wrong?
Saying we do not doesn't mean we shouldn't. So I take the position since other animals are also sentient they also should have rights. This would be how I stay consistent with this. With insects it would be difficult to perceive or actively avoid stepping on them so I don't think it is reasonable for them to have the same rights as lets say dogs, dolphins etc. Sure there is a gap in knowledge between a dog and a human but that is due to humans being higher on the food chain and exploiting others below. If dogs were on the top they would be the dominant and the most intelligent animal but that is not the case.
@Poly-Witch
A born person is born. Not sure what other qualifications you think they need to have.
What makes being born so important?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So more intelligent = more rights? In that case a fetus still has no rights since they do not display intelligence.