Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

---

The SC can't determine personhood, it is a natural right. The government can't decide it. The people having the opportunity to decide it at the state level is the best thing for now. It makes it relatively stable and predictable, and reflects the societal will.

Deciding at the individual level, it would legalize murder. At the federal level, tyranny of the majority. State level solves this and many other issues.

---

If you are agreeing that it IS murder, why should it be allowed at all?

---

Killing a person is murder, so the only issue is when group of cells become people.

---

Only if you want to be correct legally and definitionally, but not morally/ethically. Your view is too shallow.

And technically murder is defined as the premeditated killing of another human being, not "person".

---

And yes in a state where abortion is legal, murder should be killing a person, not human life.

---

Or, in a state where abortion is legal, they have legalized murder because murder is killing a human life, not a state-sanctioned definition of a "person".

You are too shallow, now here you are also begging the question.

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Again, people have the right to live, not clumps of cells. We have to decide when we are people, and then the issue is clear. Doing so at the state level is good.

---

You keep call it a clump of cells to obscure the fact that an embryo, fetus, etc. is a human being. It is alive. It is growing. It has human parents. It is a human being.

A being is just existence. Rocks are beings, tables are beings. People are beings. People happen to be human beings.

A zygote, embryo, or fetus exist in the mother's womb. They are beings. They have human parents. They are human beings.

Let's use logic on this and define our terms, otherwise, we are simply talking past one another.

---

A 90 year old vegetable on life support is a human being, but no longer a person. That is why we can pull the plug. It is useful to differentiate the terms, and there is a logical basis to do so.

Yes an embryo is human life, but many do not view it as a person. That is the only discussion that matters, because proof or logic that says it is or is not a person helps us know what is Constitutional or not.

---

We don't "pull the plug" on someone in a vegetative state based on state-sanctioned definitions of "personhood". We do so because there comes a point when it is medically futile to continue with extreme intervention. We let a 90 year old vegetable die naturally; we are not killing them....this is in contrast to what you are doing to unborn children - you are actively killing them, and not letting them naturally live. The two situations are completely different and are not morally/ethically equivalent.

You concede that an embryo is a human life, but you are making artificial distinctions as to when a human life makes a "person", and basing the justification of killing that life solely on that. Again, you can't answer moral questions by using definitions. Why is it wrong to kill a "person", but not wrong to kill a human life?

---

There is no state sanctioned definition of personhood. There can't be.

We absolutely let families pull the plug when a person cannot be a person any longer, no matter the intervention of science and medicine.

Ectreme medical intervention will never be a bar for personhood. If it were, personhood would change as science and medicine improve.

---

You say "there can't be a state sanctioned definition of personhood", yet that's exactly what you're arguing for.

The argument was not that medical intervention determines "personhood". The argument was that the decision to stop intervention has nothing to do with any state approved definition of anything. Medical ethics are not based on legal definitions.

You worry about medical intervention changing, and thus making "personhood" a moving goalpost - yet that is what you arguing for by letting states decide for themselves what personhood is, because it'll be different from one state to the next. You also argue against the federal government deciding what a person is because it'll be a "tyranny of the majority", so you want the states to decide it for themselves - which will just be a tyranny of the majority at the state level.

You are a walking contradiction - EXACTLY like how you argued that parents should be blamed for voluntarily exposing their their kids to drag queens, yet the drag queens who are voluntarily exposing themselves to those parents' kids should NOT be. You are not logically coherent, and it really seems to be because you are deciding up front what you want to be true, and then you're figuring it out on the fly how to justify it, logical coherence being a side luxury.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

---

The SC can't determine personhood, it is a natural right. The government can't decide it. The people having the opportunity to decide it at the state level is the best thing for now. It makes it relatively stable and predictable, and reflects the societal will.

Deciding at the individual level, it would legalize murder. At the federal level, tyranny of the majority. State level solves this and many other issues.

---

If you are agreeing that it IS murder, why should it be allowed at all?

---

Killing a person is murder, so the only issue is when group of cells become people.

---

Only if you want to be correct legally and definitionally, but not morally/ethically. Your view is too shallow.

And technically murder is defined as the premeditated killing of another human being, not "person".

---

And yes in a state where abortion is legal, murder should be killing a person, not human life.

---

Or, in a state where abortion is legal, they have legalized murder because murder is killing a human life, not a state-sanctioned definition of a "person".

You are too shallow, now here you are also begging the question.

---

Are you against pulling the plug on vegetables?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Again, people have the right to live, not clumps of cells. We have to decide when we are people, and then the issue is clear. Doing so at the state level is good.

---

You keep call it a clump of cells to obscure the fact that an embryo, fetus, etc. is a human being. It is alive. It is growing. It has human parents. It is a human being.

A being is just existence. Rocks are beings, tables are beings. People are beings. People happen to be human beings.

A zygote, embryo, or fetus exist in the mother's womb. They are beings. They have human parents. They are human beings.

Let's use logic on this and define our terms, otherwise, we are simply talking past one another.

---

A 90 year old vegetable on life support is a human being, but no longer a person. That is why we can pull the plug. It is useful to differentiate the terms, and there is a logical basis to do so.

Yes an embryo is human life, but many do not view it as a person. That is the only discussion that matters, because proof or logic that says it is or is not a person helps us know what is Constitutional or not.

---

We don't "pull the plug" on someone in a vegetative state based on state-sanctioned definitions of "personhood". We do so because there comes a point when it is medically futile to continue with extreme intervention. We let a 90 year old vegetable die naturally; we are not killing them....this is in contrast to what you are doing to unborn children - you are actively killing them, and not letting them naturally live. The two situations are completely different and are not morally/ethically equivalent.

You concede that an embryo is a human life, but you are making artificial distinctions as to when a human life makes a "person", and basing the justification of killing that life solely on that. Again, you can't answer moral questions by using definitions. Why is it wrong to kill a "person", but not wrong to kill a human life?

---

There is no state sanctioned definition of personhood. There can't be.

We absolutely let families pull the plug when a person cannot be a person any longer, no matter the intervention of science and medicine.

Ectreme medical intervention will never be a bar for personhood. If it were, personhood would change as science and medicine improve.

---

You say "there can't be a state sanctioned definition of personhood", yet that's exactly what you're arguing for.

The argument was not that medical intervention determines "personhood". The argument was that the decision to stop intervention has nothing to do with any state approved definition of anything. Medical ethics are not based on legal definitions.

You worry about medical intervention changing, and thus making "personhood" a moving goalpost - yet that is what you arguing for by letting states decide for themselves what personhood is, because it'll be different from one state to the next. You also argue against the federal government deciding what a person is because it'll be a "tyranny of the majority", so you want the states to decide it for themselves - which will just be a tyranny of the majority at the state level.

You are a walking contradiction - EXACTLY like how you argued that parents should be blamed for voluntarily exposing their their kids to drag queens, yet the drag queens who are voluntarily exposing themselves to those parents' kids should NOT be. You are not logically coherent, and it really seems to be because you are deciding up front what you want to be true, and then you're figuring it out on the fly how to justify it, logical coherence being a side luxury.

---

I feel like you are starting to understand natural rights! Congrats! Your childhood education failed you but I am able to step in.

I'll post more later, stay tuned.

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

---

The SC can't determine personhood, it is a natural right. The government can't decide it. The people having the opportunity to decide it at the state level is the best thing for now. It makes it relatively stable and predictable, and reflects the societal will.

Deciding at the individual level, it would legalize murder. At the federal level, tyranny of the majority. State level solves this and many other issues.

---

If you are agreeing that it IS murder, why should it be allowed at all?

---

Killing a person is murder, so the only issue is when group of cells become people.

---

Only if you want to be correct legally and definitionally, but not morally/ethically. Your view is too shallow.

And technically murder is defined as the premeditated killing of another human being, not "person".

---

And yes in a state where abortion is legal, murder should be killing a person, not human life.

---

Or, in a state where abortion is legal, they have legalized murder because murder is killing a human life, not a state-sanctioned definition of a "person".

You are too shallow, now here you are also begging the question.

---

Are you against pulling the plug on vegetables?

---

nope, carnivore diet is better than eating vegetarian