Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[palerider]

The laws have always been written for "persons" - and what constitutes a "person" legally has changed throughout history. "Person" did not used to mean blacks, or women, or children or other categories of people. Do you deny that?

In the case of blacks, they were considered to not be human beings and thus not protected by laws written to protect human beings. Several supreme court cases stated flatly that they were not human, not that they were not persons.

Human rights denied to women and children have always had law written that identified who the right was being denied to, what right was being denied, and for what reason it was being denied.

The right to live is a human right, not a person right. Even the libs recognize basic rights as basic human rights, not basic person rights.

History, law, philosophy and cultural traditions have long seperated the idea of what "constitutes" a "person" from human being. Can you point to any laws, historical sources or traditions that label a blastocyst a person? Science itself is unable to accurately define a "person" though the consensus seems to be that there needs to be a certain level of neurological development.

The concept of person, once again, is a philosophical concept and the idea that a person and a human being are two separate things is just so much sophistry that has been used in an attempt to dehumanize human beings so that they may be done with as another group wishes.

And again, the nature of our law is such that for a right to be denied to a human being, that human being, or group of human beings must be identified, the right they are being denied must be identified, and why the right is being denied must be enumerated. Like it or not, that is the nature of our legal system.

And there is no consensus in the scientific community that neurological development is necessary to be a human being. "Personhood" is not the realm of science. Distinguishing persons from human beings is the realm of necromancers and gypsys.

Are there any laws that refer to constitutional protections for "human beings"?

Since the legal definition of "person" is "a human being" they are all written either for the protection of human beings or for human beings to follow.

I pointed out the error in your statement - in other words, the concept of personhood had nothing to do with abortion and far pre-dates the issue. Who's practicing sophistry here?

You didn't point out anything of the sort. What you brought was very old religious doctrine that expressed the belief that we aren't human beings until we have a spirit.

The law also defines persons as corporations. What of it?

Are you arguing that unborns are corporations?

The law didn't used to define blacks as persons. We had to add an amendment to get that.

The law said that blacks were not human beings, not that they were not persons. When it became undeniable that they were indeed human beings, it followed that they were persons deserving of the protection of the law. Read your history.

Maybe the use of literal legal definitions to support your position is flawed?

Using the actual definition of a word is flawed? Using words as they are meant to be used is flawed? Do you see how outrageous your argument has become. You are actually suggesting that using words incorrectly, which can't help but create flawed concepts is somehow the right way to express an idea.

Not at all. Typically, constitutional amendments are required to expand the definition of what is a "person".

Show me a constitutional amendment that describes the difference between a person and a human being.

I suppose you are referencing the 13th amendment with regard to blacks and slavery, but that amendment doesn't even contain the word person. Blacks were enslaved because the argument was made (and believed) that they were not human beings. Since they were not human beings, they could not be persons. It is simple as that.

Not at all. I'm pointing out your flaw in relying on the legal definition of a "person".

It is a flaw to rely on the legal definition when discussing the law and who the law protects?

What other definition has any merit? And would you like to see non legal definitions of words used in legal arguments to execute or imprison others besides the unborn?

It's not up to me to prove that something IS NOT - in other words, that all human beings are not persons. It's up to you - who make that argument - to prove that they are "persons".

I have. The legal definition of "person" is a human being. If you are not going to accept that, then you need to prove that they are not human beings, or prove with a valid legal argument that all human beings are not persons.

I forget the exact quote here or the person who stated it....but it goes something to this effect.

I could state that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun. But is too small to be detectable by any instruments. The burdon of proof is not on you to show that it does not exist but rather on me to show that it does.

And I have with the legal definition of "person". If you aren't going to accept that, then the onus is upon you to provide a legitimate alternative to an accepted legal definition.

You rely on a literal legal definition from a legal dictionary - but that two is flawed since it also can mean a corporation and on top of that it makes a distinction between "person" and "natural person".

Not in the eyes of the law. Both the natural person, and the corporate entity that may be viewed as a person enjoy the same legal protections. In order to deny those protections from either, specific legislation must be written to deny said protections.

You don't have an adequate definition of a person

You state all human beings are persons - I state not.

I have the accepted legal definition. What exactly do you have beyond some philosophical slight of hand?

 

[ArmChair General]

Whoaa...Coyote is kicking some PRider butt.

Not that thats hard to do.

 

[palerider]

Whoaa...Coyote is kicking some PRider butt.

Not that thats hard to do.

As if you even understand the subject matter. Do you jump in and post inanities because you fear that you will be completely forgotten if you aren't constantly saying something?

If you have something to add to the conversation, or even something that would demonstrate that you understand the subject, feel free to jump in. Otherwise, tuck your little tail between your legs and move on and live your fantasy that you will ever win a debate against me in private. Fantasizing in public is so very pathetic.

At this point, it is becoming obvious to anyone who looks that you do not engage me on any subject, but instead, pop in, hurl an impotent insult, and clear out. Your tactics speak volumes about your abilities.

 

[9sublime]

Armchair, that was pretty pathetic. This has turned into a one on one debate, and I'm quite enjoying it that way. However, unless you have something really good to add, after a post like that, don't say anything at all.

 

[Coyote]

The right to live is a human right, not a person right. Even the libs recognize basic rights as basic human rights, not basic person rights.

Where does that right come from? The law gives rights to "persons" - it defines and re-defines what it feels a "person" is.

The concept of person, once again, is a philosophical concept and the idea that a person and a human being are two separate things is just so much sophistry that has been used in an attempt to dehumanize human beings so that they may be done with as another group wishes.

A philosophical concept? Maybe - but law is grounded in philosophical concepts, not science. Ethics, morality, what we define as right or wrong has no grounding in science.

And again, the nature of our law is such that for a right to be denied to a human being, that human being, or group of human beings must be identified, the right they are being denied must be identified, and why the right is being denied must be enumerated. Like it or not, that is the nature of our legal system.

Not at all. The law talks about "persons". Who defines "persons"? The definition has changed as our culture and mores have changed. Historically most humans did not enjoy full legal protection as "persons" (women, children, non-landowners, minorities, slaves, etc.). It was only from the late 18th through the late 20th century being that born as a member of the human species gradually became seculargrounds for an appeal for basic rights of liberty, freedom from persecution, and humanitarian care. That concept is is continuously changing - as witness your attempts to bring "the unborn" into the category of "persons".

And there is no consensus in the scientific community that neurological development is necessary to be a human being. "Personhood" is not the realm of science. Distinguishing persons from human beings is the realm of necromancers and gypsys.

Science explicitely states that it can not adequately answer the question of "personhood". It does not deny "personhood". You keep throwing in necormancers and gypsies like a mantra. However, I'll ask again - what is the grounding for our laws? It is not science.

Since the legal definition of "person" is "a human being" they are all written either for the protection of human beings or for human beings to follow.

There is a logical fallacy inherent here with your insistance that there is no difference between "human being" and "person" based upon a legal definition. If I strip away all the extraneious words - your argument comes down to this, yes?

The legal definition of a "person" is "a human being"
All persons are human beings.
Therefore all human beings are "persons".

Do you see the problem with pursuing this line of argument?

You didn't point out anything of the sort. What you brought was very old religious doctrine that expressed the belief that we aren't human beings until we have a spirit.

No. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more. You're attempting to muddy the waters here.

You said - in summary (and correct me if I'm wrong) - that the concept of "personhood" is a modern phenomena related to the abortion movement. Yes?

I said - in summary - that the concept of "personhood" is a very old one and has been around a long time.

Now you poo-poo it because I used old religious references. Well, here are some other references exploring the concept of "personhood" that predate the abortion controversy and are not religious texts.

According to Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (AD 480–524 or 525):

Person is an individual substance of rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation. The soul is not person, only the composite is. Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights.​

John Locke emphasized the idea of a living being that is conscious of itself as persisting over time (and hence able to have conscious preferences about its own future).

Are you arguing that unborns are corporations?

No, I'm pointing out the flaw in relying on literal legal definitions.

The law said that blacks were not human beings, not that they were not persons. When it became undeniable that they were indeed human beings, it followed that they were persons deserving of the protection of the law. Read your history.

Can you give me some examples of this? Most references to the legal justifications for slavery do not use species as a justification.

The law also denied other groups full "human" protections by denying them "personhood". In addition, even after abolition, blacks still did not enjoy full legal protections as "persons".

Using the actual definition of a word is flawed? Using words as they are meant to be used is flawed? Do you see how outrageous your argument has become. You are actually suggesting that using words incorrectly, which can't help but create flawed concepts is somehow the right way to express an idea.

It's flawed because that legal definition includes corporations. Do you feel corporations are have the same inherent basic rights as a natural person?

Show me a constitutional amendment that describes the difference between a person and a human being.

Show me an amendment that claims all persons are human beings.

I suppose you are referencing the 13th amendment with regard to blacks and slavery, but that amendment doesn't even contain the word person. Blacks were enslaved because the argument was made (and believed) that they were not human beings. Since they were not human beings, they could not be persons. It is simple as that.

The history of slavery is long and complex and some of the logic used to justify it centered around the idea - not that they were not of the speicies human beings but that they were inferior breed of human beings.

It is a flaw to rely on the legal definition when discussing the law and who the law protects?

Yes, when you misuse that definition. And again -this goes back the inherent flaw in your logic

All "persons" are human beings, therefore all human beings are "persons".

What other definition has any merit? And would you like to see non legal definitions of words used in legal arguments to execute or imprison others besides the unborn?

Obviously scientific definitions have merit because you use them in your arguments also. I won't argue the fine points of law here - I am not a lawyer nor an expert in law. In addition, when you strip away everything - the specific laws are secondary, the bigger question is what is law based on - where does it come from that gives it any authority? Obviously - through history the definition of consitutes a person worthy of protection has changed even though the wording has not.

I have the accepted legal definition. What exactly do you have beyond some philosophical slight of hand?

We're going in circles but here again: what is the accepted legal definition of a "human being"?

 

[palerider]

Where does that right come from? The law gives rights to "persons" - it defines and re-defines what it feels a "person" is.

No. That entire body of legal theory is called human rights. Not person's rights. Person is a legal term that means human being.

A philosophical concept? Maybe - but law is grounded in philosophical concepts, not science. Ethics, morality, what we define as right or wrong has no grounding in science.

What we define right or wrong is grounded in truth. In this case, philosophical slight of hand is being used to sidestep the truth that human beings and persons are one in the same in the eyes of the law so that a particular group of human beings can be denied their very right to live.

Not at all. The law talks about "persons". Who defines "persons"? The definition has changed as our culture and mores have changed. Historically most humans did not enjoy full legal protection as "persons" (women, children, non-landowners, minorities, slaves, etc.). It was only from the late 18th through the late 20th century being that born as a member of the human species gradually became seculargrounds for an appeal for basic rights of liberty, freedom from persecution, and humanitarian care. That concept is is continuously changing - as witness your attempts to bring "the unborn" into the category of "persons".

The legal definition of person is "a human being". No matter how hard you try, you are not going to be able to get around that one.

Science explicitely states that it can not adequately answer the question of "personhood". It does not deny "personhood". You keep throwing in necormancers and gypsies like a mantra. However, I'll ask again - what is the grounding for our laws? It is not science.

Actually, it is. There is no long and rambling definition of person built of a tangle of legaleese. The definition of person as it applies to living beings is simply a human being and science certainly has established that unborns at any stage of development are human beings.

There is a logical fallacy inherent here with your insistance that there is no difference between "human being" and "person" based upon a legal definition. If I strip away all the extraneious words - your argument comes down to this, yes?

There would be if the legal definition of person were more complicated than "a human being". The logical fallacy exists in trying to unilatarally redefine words in an attempt to torture them into supporting your argument.

The legal definition of a "person" is "a human being"
All persons are human beings.
Therefore all human beings are "persons".

Show me law that states that all human beings are not persons. Since the legal definition of person is a human being, law enumerating the premise that some human beings are not persons is necessary.

No. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more. You're attempting to muddy the waters here.

You are the one who keeps bringing spirits and other metaphysical entities from the ether to the table.

You said - in summary (and correct me if I'm wrong) - that the concept of "personhood" is a modern phenomena related to the abortion movement. Yes?

As it applies to this discussion. Yes.

I said - in summary - that the concept of "personhood" is a very old one and has been around a long time.

You said that, and then brought religious doctrine that pertained to spirits in an effort to support your flawed argument.

Now you poo-poo it because I used old religious references. Well, here are some other references exploring the concept of "personhood" that predate the abortion controversy and are not religious texts.

Those old religious references didn't state that there is a difference between a person and a human being.

According to Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (AD 480–524 or 525):

Person is an individual substance of rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation. The soul is not person, only the composite is. Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights.​

This refutes your religious references because they claimed that you were noting till you have a spirit.

John Locke emphasized the idea of a living being that is conscious of itself as persisting over time (and hence able to have conscious preferences about its own future).

So children are not persons until they are able to concieve of and contemplate their own future? If they are not persons, why do they enjoy the protection of the law?

No, I'm pointing out the flaw in relying on literal legal definitions.

Would you be willing to stand in a court in which literal legal definitions didn't necessarily apply?

Can you give me some examples of this? Most references to the legal justifications for slavery do not use species as a justification.

See the Dred Scott Decision

Show me an amendment that claims all persons are human beings.

The constitution doesn't state what isn't, only what is. Since the legal definiton of person is "a human being" to claim that unborns are not persons, specific enumeration would be required.

The history of slavery is long and complex and some of the logic used to justify it centered around the idea - not that they were not of the speicies human beings but that they were inferior breed of human beings.

It was thought that they were simply not human. As the body of science grew, the philosophical slight of hand began and among the tricks was the claim of inferior breeds. The philosophical wrangling today is very much like the sort that was used to try and deny human rights to blacks.



Yes, when you misuse that definition. And again -this goes back the inherent flaw in your logic

We're going in circles but here again: what is the accepted legal definition of a "human being"?

No. You are going in circles. The legal dictionaries support my postion therefore I am standing still watching your mental gyrations as you attempt to get around what is.

 

[Coyote]

No. That entire body of legal theory is called human rights. Not person's rights. Person is a legal term that means human being.

And not human beings rights either. Human is a generic term, like mankind. I know I am playing a bit with semantics, but do you realize you are also?

And where does that body of "legal theory" come from - who or what gives us those rights?

What we define right or wrong is grounded in truth. In this case, philosophical slight of hand is being used to sidestep the truth that human beings and persons are one in the same in the eyes of the law so that a particular group of human beings can be denied their very right to live.

No. There is no philosophical sleight of hand - you are just avoiding the questions. I have provided evidence that the concept of a distinction between human and person has been around a long time. The only argument you have is to call it "philosphical sleight of hand" and refer to "necromancers and gypsies".

And where does that truth come from?

The legal definition of person is "a human being". No matter how hard you try, you are not going to be able to get around that one.

Again, what is the legal definition of a human being?

Coyote said: Science explicitely states that it can not adequately answer the question of "personhood". It does not deny "personhood". You keep throwing in necormancers and gypsies like a mantra. However, I'll ask again - what is the grounding for our laws? It is not science.


Palerider said: Actually, it is. There is no long and rambling definition of person built of a tangle of legaleese. The definition of person as it applies to living beings is simply a human being and science certainly has established that unborns at any stage of development are human beings.

How exactly is science the basis for our laws? I don't see that at all. Legal dictionaries define terms very narrowly and specifically, as is needed for a court of law or legal documentation. There is precious little grounding of science in our legal system - it's a hodgepodge of English Common Law, ideals from the Enlightenment, religious law, etc.

There would be if the legal definition of person were more complicated than "a human being". The logical fallacy exists in trying to unilatarally redefine words in an attempt to torture them into supporting your argument.

Remember - you are the one that started off on definitions. Your own source (a legal dictionary) omits anything defining "human beings".

So you are unable to address the logical fallacy here?

The legal definition of a "person" is a human being.
All persons are "human beings"
Therefore all human beings are persons.

Show me law that states that all human beings are not persons. Since the legal definition of person is a human being, law enumerating the premise that some human beings are not persons is necessary.

Show me the legal definition of a "human being". The very fact that the legal system does not yet include blastocysts as "persons" indicates that not all "human beings" are persons - yet. Laws do not have to specifically omit groups from that definition. Some do, some don't. It's inconsistent. Just like sometimes "person" refers to a corporation and, if they are specifically referring to an individual, they use the term "natural person".

You are the one who keeps bringing spirits and other metaphysical entities from the ether to the table.

Not all. Please show me where I have brought uu spirits.

As it applies to this discussion. Yes.

No - not as it applies to this discussion. The concept of what makes a "person" something special and distinct from animals both drives and goes beyond the abortion issue and is by no means a modern phenemena. To label it as such is inaccurate and disengenious - as if it somehow magically appeared with Roe vs. Wade.

You said that, and then brought religious doctrine that pertained to spirits in an effort to support your flawed argument.

Those old religious references didn't state that there is a difference between a person and a human being.

This refutes your religious references because they claimed that you were noting till you have a spirit.

So children are not persons until they are able to concieve of and contemplate their own future? If they are not persons, why do they enjoy the protection of the law?

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the references I gave. I was merely providing non-religious examples of how long standing the debate on "personhood" is (ie - it did not spontaneiously spring into existance with Roe vs. Wade) What they actually say is not relevant unless you want a different discussion. You are again attempting to either divert the topic or muddy the waters.

Would you be willing to stand in a court in which literal legal definitions didn't necessarily apply?

No. But then again, neither would I be willing to live my life and base my decisions on literal legal definitions.

The constitution doesn't state what isn't, only what is. Since the legal definiton of person is "a human being" to claim that unborns are not persons, specific enumeration would be required.

Why? Beyond your say-so, I fail to see why. I'm still looking for that legal definition of a "human being".

It was thought that they were simply not human. As the body of science grew, the philosophical slight of hand began and among the tricks was the claim of inferior breeds. The philosophical wrangling today is very much like the sort that was used to try and deny human rights to blacks.

Not at all. There is a vast difference between a blastocyst and a black person. I'll go back to the same old argument: a blastocyst is only potential, in the same way as an egg or a sperm. At any point it could split into multiple humans, fuse into siamese or parasitic twins, fail to develop and die, fail to develop and turn into a tumor. It is not a person but it is a human being.

All your arguments fall back on the logical fallacy that is inherent on your depending on a legal definition for your argument. If you go soley by a strict legal definition (or any literal definition) then you have to accept the logical parameters that surround that argument. Those parameters exclude considering the intent of those writing the law or interpreting the law or that there might be any diffence between a "person" and a "human being" (which has no legal definition).

And those logical parameters leave you with a major fallacy.

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

Not all. Please show me where I have brought uu spirits.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12248&postcount=311

Clip from that post:

Halacha (Jewish law) defines when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' and in the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

You incorrectly identifed nefesh as person. In Hebrew, nefesh is soul or spirit so here, you clearly brought spirits into the conversation.

No - not as it applies to this discussion. The concept of what makes a "person" something special and distinct from animals both drives and goes beyond the abortion issue and is by no means a modern phenemena. To label it as such is inaccurate and disengenious - as if it somehow magically appeared with Roe vs. Wade.

No. What makes human beings separate and distinct from animals is the old discussion. Not what makes persons distinct from animals or even what makes persons distinct from human beings. The only time we engage in such philosophical slight of hand is when we want to treat a particular group of human beings differently. Specifically, if we want to either enslave or kill them wholesale.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the references I gave. I was merely providing non-religious examples of how long standing the debate on "personhood" is (ie - it did not spontaneiously spring into existance with Roe vs. Wade) What they actually say is not relevant unless you want a different discussion. You are again attempting to either divert the topic or muddy the waters.

I am muddying the water by point out that your defense of your position is invalid? My defense is simple, and crystal clear. It is you who is muddying the water in an attempt to get away from the truth.

No. But then again, neither would I be willing to live my life and base my decisions on literal legal definitions.

You would not want to stand in a court of law in which literal legal definitions did not apply but you are willing to see tens of millions of human beings killed and justify it by stepping away from literal legal definitions? Don't you find that tragically hypocritical?

Why? Beyond your say-so, I fail to see why. I'm still looking for that legal definition of a "human being".

If there were some distinction between the scientific definition of a human being and the legal definition of a human being, you would find it in a legal dictionary. I looked in several legal dictionaries for legal definition of horses, and cows, and goats, and fish, and bears, and llamas but I find none there. That must be because the law accepts the scientific definition of what is each of those animals just as the law accepts what science says is a human being.

Not at all. There is a vast difference between a blastocyst and a black person. I'll go back to the same old argument: a blastocyst is only potential, in the same way as an egg or a sperm. At any point it could split into multiple humans, fuse into siamese or parasitic twins, fail to develop and die, fail to develop and turn into a tumor. It is not a person but it is a human being.

If you were describing blacks in the same way you are trying to describe blastocysts, you would not say black "person". You would be using language that dehumanizes the black in an attempt to get them as far away from the word person as possible.

And you have already lost the potential argument. Eggs and sperm represent potential human beings. Once fertilization is complete, however, that potential is realized. From that point on, you have potential lawyers, potential astronauts, potential sports figures, and potential regular joes who will grow up and use screen names like palerider and coyote and argue on the internet.

And the whole splitting and absorption issue is a strawman. I have never found in any scientific text the idea that one must be an individual in order to be a human being. If a human being splits, then that human being has simply become two human beings and if any of the other things happen, then things just happen don't they. If you feel like you can prove intent or neglegence, sue them.

All your arguments fall back on the logical fallacy that is inherent on your depending on a legal definition for your argument. If you go soley by a strict legal definition (or any literal definition) then you have to accept the logical parameters that surround that argument. Those parameters exclude considering the intent of those writing the law or interpreting the law or that there might be any diffence between a "person" and a "human being" (which has no legal definition).

There is no logical fallacy, there is just the definition. If there were intent beyond the accepted definition, the definition would have reflected it. You have said yourself that you would not want to stand in a court that doesn't adhere to literal legal definitions and yet, you are trying to justify the killing of tens of millions by disregarding literal legal definitions. Honestly, what does that say about your position?

 

[ArmChair General]

Armchair, that was pretty pathetic. This has turned into a one on one debate, and I'm quite enjoying it that way. However, unless you have something really good to add, after a post like that, don't say anything at all.

Request denied. PRider was defeated after the first few pages. Their just arguing in circles now because he can't admit that hes wrong.

Its obvious to everyone but him.

 

[ArmChair General]

As if you even understand the subject matter. Do you jump in and post inanities because you fear that you will be completely forgotten if you aren't constantly saying something?

If you have something to add to the conversation, or even something that would demonstrate that you understand the subject, feel free to jump in. Otherwise, tuck your little tail between your legs and move on and live your fantasy that you will ever win a debate against me in private. Fantasizing in public is so very pathetic.

At this point, it is becoming obvious to anyone who looks that you do not engage me on any subject, but instead, pop in, hurl an impotent insult, and clear out. Your tactics speak volumes about your abilities.

I actually enjoy watching you make an idiot out of yourself. Please don't let me stop you.

 

[palerider]

I actually enjoy watching you make an idiot out of yourself. Please don't let me stop you.

Still nothing, huh bucky?

Like I said. If you were worthy of any sort of respect, you might hurt my feelings. You haven't demonstrated that you even understand the subject so what exactly makes you think that you know who is winning.

Tell you what. How about you review the thread and bring forward any points that you believe coyote has scored and explain why they are more valid than my rebuttals or why his rebuttals are more valid than my points. That would give you the chance to prove that you understand the subject matter and that I am losing. It's a win win for you if you can do it. Of course if you can't do it, you get the chance to prove to everyone that you are the loser I already know that you are.

Before you start reviewing though, maybe you should discuss this with coyote. He is up against the ropes and he knows it.

 

[Coyote]

(continuation)



https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12248&postcount=311

Clip from that post:

Halacha (Jewish law) defines when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' and in the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

You incorrectly identifed nefesh as person. In Hebrew, nefesh is soul or spirit so here, you clearly brought spirits into the conversation.

Again - you are distorting my words, but you are right, I'll give you that it refers to a soul - of sorts but it's a lot more then that and it is intertwined with the concept of personhood. Again - not a new concept, which was my whole point in bringing up the examples I did.

No. What makes human beings separate and distinct from animals is the old discussion. Not what makes persons distinct from animals or even what makes persons distinct from human beings. The only time we engage in such philosophical slight of hand is when we want to treat a particular group of human beings differently. Specifically, if we want to either enslave or kill them wholesale.

Again, I totally disagree here - the concept of what makes a person a person has long been argued and discussed and yes - used to historically differentiate between groups of human beings as well as between humans and animals. It's nothing new although the whole debate over abortion may have caused people to take another look at it. Historically blastocysts were not considered people - not by any culture I know of. Historically - abortion was not considered killing a "person" - that is a relatively modern phenomenum. There are many characteristics that define a "person" and not just the fact of it's species and there are other species show more of these characteristics than a blastocyst yet we have no qualms killing them. If species alone makes a person - then I fail to see what is so "special" that is worth preserving and you have failed to identify that beyond citing a legal definition that is transient and cultural.


(will answer the rest later)

 

[palerider]

Again - you are distorting my words, but you are right, I'll give you that it refers to a soul - of sorts but it's a lot more then that and it is intertwined with the concept of personhood. Again - not a new concept, which was my whole point in bringing up the examples I did.

I am not distorting anyting. Your words are what they are. Perhaps I am distorting what you wanted them to mean by pointing out the truth of what the actually mean.

Again, I totally disagree here - the concept of what makes a person a person has long been argued and discussed and yes - used to historically differentiate between groups of human beings as well as between humans and animals. It's nothing new although the whole debate over abortion may have caused people to take another look at it.

Like I said. History is rife with exactly this sort of philosophical wrangling and it never fails to happen when a justification is needed to enslave or kill an entire group. It is necessary for those who want to do the killing to try to separate those they want to kill from humanity in general. The argument you are presenting is essentially the same as any of those in the past. There is no doubt that unborns at any stage are as human as you but you claim it is ok to kill them because they aren't as mature as you. This group of humans doesn't deserve the protection of the law because they are not as mature as you.

Historically blastocysts were not considered people - not by any culture I know of. Historically - abortion was not considered killing a "person" - that is a relatively modern phenomenum.

Historically, the world was considered to be flat. Historically, the sun was thought to revolve around the earth. Historically, disease was thought to be caused by evil "vapoures" in the air. Historically, we did not have the body of science that we have now. Even as late as 1972, a reasonable argument of sorts coud be made that unborns were not human beings and therefore not persons. Read the Roe transcripts. The Roe lawyers didn't just argue that unborns were not persons, they had to give the judges a reasonable argument that unborns were not human beings and THEREFORE, not persons.

Science, and the body of knowledge it represents renders the argument that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being invalid. So, the philosophers and the necromancers have disregarded the fact that the argument against personhood had as its foundation an argument that unborns were not human beings and in typical slight of hand fashion have managed to divert the argument to one of a difference between person and human being. Roe was not based on or did not even consider a difference between human beings and persons.

In the decison, justice Blackmund acknowledged that if a case for personhood were ever established for unborns, roe would collapse in upon itself. In the context of the arguments he heard, he was saying that roe would not be valid if the humanity of unborns is established because he didn't hear arguments for the difference between persons and human beings, he heard arguments that unborns were not human beings at all.

There are many characteristics that define a "person" and not just the fact of it's species and there are other species show more of these characteristics than a blastocyst yet we have no qualms killing them. If species alone makes a person - then I fail to see what is so "special" that is worth preserving and you have failed to identify that beyond citing a legal definition that is transient and cultural.[/q


(will answer the rest later)

 

[palerider]

Again - you are distorting my words, but you are right, I'll give you that it refers to a soul - of sorts but it's a lot more then that and it is intertwined with the concept of personhood. Again - not a new concept, which was my whole point in bringing up the examples I did.

I am not distorting anyting. Your words are what they are. Perhaps I am distorting what you wanted them to mean by pointing out the truth of what the actually mean.

Again, I totally disagree here - the concept of what makes a person a person has long been argued and discussed and yes - used to historically differentiate between groups of human beings as well as between humans and animals. It's nothing new although the whole debate over abortion may have caused people to take another look at it.

Like I said. History is rife with exactly this sort of philosophical wrangling and it never fails to happen when a justification is needed to enslave or kill an entire group. It is necessary for those who want to do the killing to try to separate those they want to kill from humanity in general. The argument you are presenting is essentially the same as any of those in the past. There is no doubt that unborns at any stage are as human as you but you claim it is ok to kill them because they aren't as mature as you. This group of humans doesn't deserve the protection of the law because they are not as mature as you. Then you claim that personhood comes with maturity but since we kill them before they are mature they are not persons and therefore, it is OK to kill them. Doesn't that sound somewhat circular to you?

Historically blastocysts were not considered people - not by any culture I know of. Historically - abortion was not considered killing a "person" - that is a relatively modern phenomenum.

Historically, the world was considered to be flat. Historically, the sun was thought to revolve around the earth. Historically, disease was thought to be caused by evil "vapoures" in the air. Historically, we did not have the body of science that we have now. Even as late as 1972, a reasonable argument of sorts coud be made that unborns were not human beings and therefore not persons. Read the Roe transcripts. The Roe lawyers didn't just argue that unborns were not persons, they had to give the judges a reasonable argument that unborns were not human beings and THEREFORE, not persons.

Science, and the body of knowledge it represents renders the argument that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being invalid. So, the philosophers and the necromancers have disregarded the fact that the argument against personhood had as its foundation an argument that unborns were not human beings and in typical slight of hand fashion have managed to divert the argument to one of a legally irrelavent difference between person and human being. Roe was not based on or did not even consider a difference between human beings and persons, it was based on human being or not human being.

In the decison, justice Blackmund acknowledged that if a case for personhood were ever established for unborns, roe would collapse in upon itself. In the context of the arguments he heard, he was saying that roe would not be valid if the humanity of unborns is established because he didn't hear arguments for the difference between human beings and persons, he heard arguments that unborns were not human beings at all.

There are many characteristics that define a "person" and not just the fact of it's species and there are other species show more of these characteristics than a blastocyst yet we have no qualms killing them. If species alone makes a person - then I fail to see what is so "special" that is worth preserving and you have failed to identify that beyond citing a legal definition that is transient and cultural.

And all of those characteristics are made up of whole cloth and have no actual basis at all. They are, to the very last one, fabrications of philosophers.

You have stated repeatedly that you would not want to stand in a court where literal legal definitions were not used and where philosophical arguments were accepted in lieu of fact and yet, you stand here in judgement...life and death judgement over unborns arguing by standards that you have stated you would not want to be judged by.

Tell me. How exactly do you justify that? Before we continue, I want an answer to that question. I want to know how you rationalize your argument that it is OK to kill unborns when your arguments for killing them are of the very sort (philosophical and less than literal interpretation of legal terms) that you have admitted repeatedly that you would not want to be judged by. And don't tell me that it is because you don't consider a blastocyst to be a human being because your rationalization for that opinion is both philosophical and ignores the literal legal definition of what a person is.

 

[Coyote]

Your post deserves some serious thought on my part before responding - I'm not avoiding, just need to think and things have been too hectic lately - I will reply, never fear