Personhood is subjective and determining who and/or what qualifies is entirely a question about values
No, hence why we only refer to humans and not other species as persons because they’re OBJECTIVELY not persons.
What does this have to do with what I said?
There is simply no good pro-choice argument.
Because you tried to distinguish humanity from personhood and in the same breath called personhood subjective, my quote proves that it’s OBJECTIVELY not.
Human being is a biological term, we're not talking about biology.
As I already pointed out, when we talk about what makes someone a person we're talking about things like the ability to feel, think, self awareness, etc. What qualifies as the criteria is whatever we value, making the term inherently subjective.
Because you tried to distinguish humanity from personhood and in the same breath called personhood subjective, my quote proves that it’s OBJECTIVELY not.
do you understand how language works ?
do you understand how language works ?Don’t try me 3, we’ve had numerous discussions before so keep that same energy please, you know how that works?
A "non-human person" refers to an entity that possesses some rights for limited legal purposes.
No legal system can define what is and isn’t a person, only science can do that, read a book.
please link to your personally preferred "scientific" definition of "person"
please link to your personally preferred "scientific" definition of "person"There’s nothing “personally preferred” about it because personhood isn’t a matter of preference it’s objective fact, but if you insist https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/person
what part of "lexico" qualifies as "science" ?
what part of "lexico" qualifies as "science" ?No part doesn’t mean it doesn’t agree with science.
No legal system can define what is and isn’t a person, only science can do that, read a book.
There is simply no good pro-choice argument
please link to "science"
My good man, just ....stop. You're embarrassing your self. Personhood is a legal distiction. Science has no authority here.
please link to "science"Why can’t you just take what I said at face value?
My good man, just ....stop. You're embarrassing your self. Personhood is a legal distiction. Science has no authority here.Why are you starting a circle here?
Why can’t you just take what I said at face value?
I can't imagine an argument stronger than self-ownership as it is the basis of all rights.
"science" is the opposite of "taking something at face value"
Your question could be interpreted many ways. You'll need to be more clear...
Probably because you’re no authority on the subject.
Your question could be interpreted many ways. You'll need to be more clear...And you need to be more original in your arguments, your not contributing anything new to this discussion.
