Just a note, I think we have made tremendous progress by determining that the definition of “person” is the first place we disagree. Otherwise, we would be arguing about whether a fertilized egg is a person using different definitions of person.
OK. Add that to the definition and we agree on a definition.Wozza:
Then how is a person in a vegetative state or a person in a coma a person?
Yes. Even agreeing to disagree is progress.Wozza:
Just a note, I think we have made tremendous progress by determining that the definition of “person” is the first place we disagree. Otherwise, we would be arguing about whether a fertilized egg is a person using different definitions of person.
Or a person below the age of reason? Why make exceptions for them? There should be a definition that doesn’t need to make exceptions.
OK. Add that. And we agree.Wozza:
Or a person below the age of reason? Why make exceptions for them? There should be a definition that doesn’t need to make exceptions.
Yes that’s the problem with “person”. It’'s political. In other words it’s not objective, it subjects human beings to political consensus or force.EZweber:
OK. Add that. And we agree.Wozza:
Or a person below the age of reason? Why make exceptions for them? There should be a definition that doesn’t need to make exceptions.
Look, you can keep adding facets of what you consider a person to be to any dictionary definition. We’ll keep on agreeing. Which was the point of the exercise. Until we stop agreeing.
So keep adding your ideas of what constitutes a person and we’ll reach a point where we don’t agree. And that won’t be a definite, specific point. It will get vaguer and more wooly as we approach the point where we disagree.
You can do it gradually and we will drift apart as to an agreement or you can do it suddenly (at conception!) and we can do it immediately.
But therein lies the problem. There is no scientific point at which we will agree that there is a specific point. So goouts argument that you should stick to science will fail. ‘Person’ is not a scientific term. And ‘person’ is what we are discussing.
And as you have seen, there is no one definitive description. You can add a little, take a little, argue a point and discuss another view. But it comes down to the individual.
The problem is, we should be able to come up with a universal without any exceptions. The reason you are adding exceptions is that the definition doesn’t apply to all who are in the group.
Yes. You’ve hit the nail on the head. We can both agree with a broad brush definition of a person. But we each have areas where the other won’t agree.Wozza:
The problem is, we should be able to come up with a universal without any exceptions. The reason you are adding exceptions is that the definition doesn’t apply to all who are in the group.
You keep slipping from ‘person’ to ‘human’. Don’t try to mix the difference. We’re talking ‘person’. Stick with it if you can.Wozza:
Yes that’s the problem with “person”. It’'s political. In other words it’s not objective, it subjects human beings to political consensus or force.EZweber:
OK. Add that. And we agree.Wozza:
Or a person below the age of reason? Why make exceptions for them? There should be a definition that doesn’t need to make exceptions.
Look, you can keep adding facets of what you consider a person to be to any dictionary definition. We’ll keep on agreeing. Which was the point of the exercise. Until we stop agreeing.
So keep adding your ideas of what constitutes a person and we’ll reach a point where we don’t agree. And that won’t be a definite, specific point. It will get vaguer and more wooly as we approach the point where we disagree.
You can do it gradually and we will drift apart as to an agreement or you can do it suddenly (at conception!) and we can do it immediately.
But therein lies the problem. There is no scientific point at which we will agree that there is a specific point. So goouts argument that you should stick to science will fail. ‘Person’ is not a scientific term. And ‘person’ is what we are discussing.
And as you have seen, there is no one definitive description. You can add a little, take a little, argue a point and discuss another view. But it comes down to the individual.
Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia
I just don’t want to be on that side of history.
Again, if you can’t acknowledge objective human qualities, science should be an aid for you.
You should be able to come up with a definition that fits all those who you consider to be persons without any exceptions. Otherwise it’s not a good definition. My entire point in this is that since we don’t know for certain that the fertilized egg is not a person, we can’t kill it.
For the point of legislating for human rights do you fall on the side of the distinction between person and non person being defined by born and unborn?Elf01:
I think what you mean to ask is this: ‘Wozza, when does your ‘clump of cells’ become a person?’ Which I already answered. There is no definitive point. But I can definitely tell you when it hasn’t become a person. A few weeks after conception.Wozza:
What is a person?
You have a specific point: Conception. Most people don’t. Keep asking when it’s not ok and expecting ‘A week next Thursday around 3:00pm’ type of answer ain’t going to get you far.
Plan B? How about just calling human beings what they are: human beings. When you get into arbitrary personhood you get this:goout:
You keep slipping from ‘person’ to ‘human’. Don’t try to mix the difference. We’re talking ‘person’. Stick with it if you can.Wozza:
Yes that’s the problem with “person”. It’'s political. In other words it’s not objective, it subjects human beings to political consensus or force.EZweber:
OK. Add that. And we agree.Wozza:
Or a person below the age of reason? Why make exceptions for them? There should be a definition that doesn’t need to make exceptions.
Look, you can keep adding facets of what you consider a person to be to any dictionary definition. We’ll keep on agreeing. Which was the point of the exercise. Until we stop agreeing.
So keep adding your ideas of what constitutes a person and we’ll reach a point where we don’t agree. And that won’t be a definite, specific point. It will get vaguer and more wooly as we approach the point where we disagree.
You can do it gradually and we will drift apart as to an agreement or you can do it suddenly (at conception!) and we can do it immediately.
But therein lies the problem. There is no scientific point at which we will agree that there is a specific point. So goouts argument that you should stick to science will fail. ‘Person’ is not a scientific term. And ‘person’ is what we are discussing.
And as you have seen, there is no one definitive description. You can add a little, take a little, argue a point and discuss another view. But it comes down to the individual.
Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia
I just don’t want to be on that side of history.
Again, if you can’t acknowledge objective human qualities, science should be an aid for you.
And yes, you do get it. It’s not objective. So science isn’t going to help you. It’s relative. We each have our own definition. Nobody is forcing you to accept any definition than the one you believe to be true.
And if someone has a different definition (it doesn’t start at conception), then what are your alternatives? Keep repeating yourself? That’s not working. At all. So tell me what your Plan B is. We can discuss that.
You do have a Plan B, don’t you? Please tell me your argument doesn’t rest on personhood.
It’s sad when the basic moral concepts underpinning human dignity have to be repeated an nauseum.
No. I don’t. I have already stated that there is no definite point. Don’t skip over what I post. It’ll save you asking questions that have already been answered.Wozza:
For the point of legislating for human rights do you fall on the side of the distinction between person and non person being defined by born and unborn?Elf01:
I think what you mean to ask is this: ‘Wozza, when does your ‘clump of cells’ become a person?’ Which I already answered. There is no definitive point. But I can definitely tell you when it hasn’t become a person. A few weeks after conception.Wozza:
What is a person?
You have a specific point: Conception. Most people don’t. Keep asking when it’s not ok and expecting ‘A week next Thursday around 3:00pm’ type of answer ain’t going to get you far.
Moral confusion? I thought you were arguing the science.Wozza:
It’s sad when the basic moral concepts underpinning human dignity have to be repeated an nauseum.
But that’s the call. So the basics will have to be repeated, because moral confusion won’t make for a sane or safe society.
No I am specifically and intentionally not doing that.