Chap wrote:
I think that subgenius is perhaps flattering himself ...
clearly your popeye-like forearms prove self-flattery as being your department.
Chap wrote:
I think that subgenius is perhaps flattering himself ...
subgenius wrote:Chap wrote:
I think that subgenius is perhaps flattering himself ...
clearly your popeye-like forearms prove self-flattery as being your department.
honorentheos wrote:subgenius wrote:you yourself still have not defined personhood or how such a definition is inextricably linked to "life" inasmuch as one is afforded legal protection - or even moral protection.
How one defines what constitutes personhood affects everything that follows. That's why I asked you to provide what you believe constitutes personhood since it is fundamental to the discussion regarding whether or not a person is being consistent in how they seek to see rights applied. You claimed liberals aren't consistent, so the place to begin with that is sharing your definition of personhood that supports that claim.
As to whether or not it is inextricably linked to life is a very philosophical point between varying theories on what constitutes personhood. For example, would you agree that a self-learning and aware AI has personhood? Maybe you wouldn't but I would hope the example shows that it isn't synonymous with life. Unless, for you, the qualities of the two overlap perfectly. In which case, feel free to share what you think those qualities are.
Do you believe that personhood begins at conception?
What qualities do you believe qualify as necessary to have personhood?
Chap wrote:subgenius wrote:clearly your popeye-like forearms prove self-flattery as being your department.
If only ...
subgenius wrote: Personhood both in philosophy and law refers to status a living being has that qualifies them for rights and protections associated with personhood.
subgenius wrote:If i were to want to discuss personhood instead of "life" then I would note that there are unique and distinct manifestations of personhood - moral personhood, legal personhood and constitutional personhood.
Now, so that i may provide a clear answer - which of these were you asking about in the opening post?
honorentheos wrote:subgenius wrote:If i were to want to discuss personhood instead of "life" then I would note that there are unique and distinct manifestations of personhood - moral personhood, legal personhood and constitutional personhood.
Now, so that i may provide a clear answer - which of these were you asking about in the opening post?
Nice to see you're reading up.
Since the OP stems from your claim that liberals are inconsistent when it comes abortion and how immigrant children are treated, feel free to organize your views in whichever framework works best for your argument.
subgenius wrote:but i never imposed "personhood", i clearly formed a claim around "life". You alone framed your opening post around "personhood", ergo the burden is still yours.
subgenius wrote:honorentheos wrote:Since the opening post stems from your claim that liberals are inconsistent when it comes abortion and how immigrant children are treated, feel free to organize your views in whichever framework works best for your argument.
but i never imposed "personhood", i clearly formed a claim around "life". You alone framed your opening post around "personhood", ergo the burden is still yours.
honorentheos wrote:You can't honestly believe that life alone defines when rights should be granted. You need to expand on this. Otherwise, you are granting everything from the bacteria in your gut to a house fly with rights.
Personhood isn't something that you choose to impose. Its the term for what you want to claim a toddler and a developing human blastocyte share. So, make your case for what it is they share that grants them both the same access to rights.