No I didn't. I have you a list of qualities which I later linked you too again. Have you forgotten that already or are you just not interested in a good faith discussion?
Let's go back to your list of qualities that you think defines personhood.
The ability to think,
feel emotions,
create and hold memories,
form relationships,
develop habits/routines,
have desires,
create goals for oneself, etc.
Those are your reasons.
Not all of these can define personhood because some of them apply to other life.
Animals can think, feel emotions, create and hold memories, form relationships, develop habits/routines, have desires, and create goals.
So your qualities of personhood does not define personhood rather it defines most animals alive today.
I ask you again, what makes a human, more valuable than an animal, and what defines a human?
When I talked about viability it was an add on to the conversation, pointing out that the fetus's inability to survive on its own is the biggest factor in this conversation.
All I can say to this repeated argument, is that the ability to survive without help does not define personhood, being a human, or value.
I've already explained the differences in qualities each share. Waiting on you to join the conversation.
Physical attributes, sure.
But you have yet to explain to me why physical attributes make a living human any less valuable.
My question was what makes a fetus, and a born human different valuably?
Physically they are different, but how does physical being make anything living less valuable.
In other words, how does the way someone looks make them any less valuable.
Here's an example:
Take any person, human whatever valuable life.
Now, imagine they are stuck in the body of a frog.
Is that person still valuable, or did they lose their value.
Now this person is still human at heart, and can express human emotions, and understand people, etc.
The only difference is the way they are presented.
Responsible how? Please explain what that looks like. And also explain how you hold that position through different contexts. What if it were purely an accident? What about self defense?
They are responsible because they caused that person harm.
When you harm someone you should be held responsible no matter the context, unless it was self defence.
If it was an accident, well the same thing with pregnancy. It might of been an accident getting pregnant, but you still caused it.
In the case of self defence, you didn't choose for this person to attack you, leading to a coma.
Therefore, it was not your individual choice, by yourself. The attacker was involved.
A baby in the womb is not involved whatsoever with their creation.
What makes it a big deal is when one does not have the choice as to whether to carry it to terms, which is what you are advocating for. So it's only a big deal because of your position, which you are then using to justify your position. It's just one big circle.
.................I have literally repeated this point a thousand times.
One does have the choice to carry it to terms or not. The decision is called not having sex, or having sex.
I am not advocating for forcing women to get pregnant against their own will, then carrying a pregnancy to term.
I am advocating for if a woman chooses/consents to the possibility of getting pregnant, and they do get pregnant, then they should be held accountable for creating a valuable human life, and shouldn't be allowed to kill a valuable human life.
If you are incapable of thinking in anything but black and white terms, this statement makes sense. Those of us who are able to process nuance see more than just two colors here.
You never said my statement is wrong.
Is it wrong. If so, how so?
Some things are obvious, and it's people like you who look to make every single concept complicated so that every single one of your arguments can fit into any concept.
A living human is valuable, yes?
If so, from conception, a human is valuable.
You are an authoritarian, plain and simple. You believe you have a right to impose your beliefs onto others and hold others responsible for what you have decided their responsibilities are to the rest of us.
Nope. A woman has a right to her own body, and if she chooses to risk sex, then that is her choice and she has to live with it.
I am not saying people shouldn't have sex for fun. I am not saying that any type of sexual activity should be made into a law.
I am saying that we should strive to save valuable living human life, which is what abortion is the opposite of.
The "point" of sex is whatever the individuals engaging in it want it to be. You don't get to decide that for others.
I didn't decide it. Biology did. I am just simply stating the facts.
The very notion of sex having some external purpose strongly implies that your position here is religious based, which adds even more authoritarianism to the equation. Not only do you believe in imposing your beliefs generally onto others, but also your religion.
Yes, my position is very religious based. All things are religious based. But I am not approaching this from a religious standpoint for the very reason of not enforcing my religion upon you.
I could of came at this from a religious standpoint, and enforced my religion on you, but I decided to create a different argument that has nothing to do with religion, but basic morals.
Of course I could tie morals to God, because where did you moral conscience come from, if not from a higher being, but my point still stands.
Yes, my argument is religious based. Yes I believe that life in the womb is valuable. And yes I believe that baby's in the womb should be protected by the law.
None of this is wrong. It is just your bias and inability to see from another side that makes you wrong.
