Best argument against the abortion "clump of cells"?

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You are reduced to equating embryos with angels. Are we done?

I have not said that embryos are like angels. I have just said that because of the possibility of angels, your definition doesn’t hold water. Try again.

Are you not arguing that they both come under the description of ‘person’? Or did I miss something?

 

[Wozza]

By your definition of person abortion is ok. By others its not.

Now if I define person as “close family of mine” and refuse to agree to any other definitions, and I define murder as killing a person, am I allowed to go on a killing spree of those you consider people and I don’t? Hypothetically.

No. Because by your definition, everyone is a person because they are all close family to somebody.

You can’t have a definition that is only applicable to you.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

No. Because by your definition, everyone is a person because they are all close family to somebody.

You can’t have a definition that is only applicable to you.

Says who? I mean I do not consider others to be people hence they don’t get to define anything (and my close family does share close family with me hence no domino effect) and hence I do not care about their close family as they are not people… but alright.

Anyway, if I reform it “everyone who has two hands” am I free to murder anyone who does not? I mean, I could reform it to race or to nationality too, or perhaps to name (everyone whose name starts with M is a person and no one else is) or something like that. Does that make murder acceptable because I define it differently?

Are you not arguing that they both come under the description of ‘person’? Or did I miss something?

You did. He said your definition does not hold water because it excludes what many people perceive as person, there was no comparison between embryos and angels anywhere in that statement, nor saying embryos are persons- it just simply stated your definition is not inclusive enough.

 

[EZweber]

Are you not arguing that they both come under the description of ‘person’? Or did I miss something?

I would agree with that statement, but I am arguing that your definition is not good because of angels right now.

 

[Wozza]

He said your definition does not hold water because it excludes what many people perceive as person, there was no comparison between embryos and angels anywhere in that statement, nor saying embryos are persons- it just simply stated your definition is not inclusive enough.

You must have missed this bit.

Wozza:

Are you not arguing that they both come under the description of ‘person’? Or did I miss something?

I would agree with that statement…

 

[vz71]

You can’t have a definition that is only applicable to you.

Why not? You do.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

saying he would agree does not mean he uses that as argumentation, especially when word “would” is used and when opinions are involved… opinions are hardly arguments unless based on something

You can’t have a definition that is only applicable to you.

This is point I’m trying to make by judging “person” based on race or whatever else that is not as subjective to me as my family. Holding any sort of private definition basically makes every argument null and void. Making definition then defining exceptions is just as bad because it shows definition is unclear and hence anyone can go on an add exception to that definition (such as fertilized egg being declared person). This is very weak subjective argumentation based on “I agree” and “I disagree” instead of basing something on real points, it almost borders relativism and relativism in law or any other logic would mean that I can decide what is true and not (hence I could murder anyone and decide that for me truth is that I did not or that they were not real).

 

[EZweber]

So what is your answer?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You can’t have a definition that is only applicable to you.

Why not? You do.

It is not applicable only to me. We’re are trying to find a definition of person that most would accept. I’m not sure that ‘everyone whose name starts with M’ fille the requirement.

Even EZ accepted it so that he could argue that angels were persons too because they had minds as well.

In case you have lost the thread (so to speak) we were looking for a definition of person because of the claim that a fertilized egg was not a person. Hence the question: ‘then what do you define as a person’. The number of hands someone has or the alphabetical significance of their name doesn’t take us anywhere, does it.

If you don’t think that the definition as given is applicable then it might be worthwhile you making an argument as to why you don’t bekieve it to be accurate, rather than suggesting nonsensical alternatives.

 

[EZweber]

He said your definition does not hold water because it excludes what many people perceive as person, there was no comparison between embryos and angels anywhere in that statement, nor saying embryos are persons- it just simply stated your definition is not inclusive enough.

That was not my argument. My argument was clearly understood by him.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The number of hands someone has or the alphabetical significance of their name doesn’t take us anywhere, does it.

If you don’t think that the definition as given is applicable then it might be worthwhile you making an argument as to why you don’t bekieve it to be accurate, rather than suggesting nonsensical alternatives.

I’m saying that defining if someone is a person based on how long person was in womb (or outside of it) or stage of development (relying on magical exact time where egg becomes a person) is same nonsense as defining it according to number of limbs. I’m using nonsensical example to prove your thinking does not make that much objective sense anyway. I don’t think definition of person matters in a question whether to kill or to not anyway- I believe ending potential life or life are vaguely same things.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The number of hands someone has or the alphabetical significance of their name doesn’t take us anywhere, does it.

If you don’t think that the definition as given is applicable then it might be worthwhile you making an argument as to why you don’t bekieve it to be accurate, rather than suggesting nonsensical alternatives.

I’m saying that defining if someone is a person based on how long person was in womb (or outside of it) or stage of development (relying on magical exact time where egg becomes a person) is same nonsense as defining it according to number of limbs.

The definition was one that concerned synaptic activity in the brain. You can address that or not as you wish. But it strikes me as a complete waste of everyone’s time if I give an answer to a reasonable question and it is simply dismissed as nonsensical without any attempt to show why.

This is not a playground argument. This is the moral theology section. Please try to treat it as such.

 

[vz71]

We’re are trying to find a definition of person that most would accept.

Majority rules?

I would think we would want to be defined by truth instead.

 

[EZweber]

The definition was one that concerned synaptic activity in the brain. You can address that or not as you wish. But it strikes me as a complete waste of everyone’s time if I give an answer to a reasonable question and it is simply dismissed as nonsensical without any attempt to show why.

This is not a playground argument. This is the moral theology section. Please try to treat it as such.

And currently the brain definition seems to have been incorrect. Do you have another?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

We’re are trying to find a definition of person that most would accept.

Majority rules?

I would think we would want to be defined by truth instead.

That most would accept. As the truth.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The definition was one that concerned synaptic activity in the brain. You can address that or not as you wish. But it strikes me as a complete waste of everyone’s time if I give an answer to a reasonable question and it is simply dismissed as nonsensical without any attempt to show why.

This is not a playground argument. This is the moral theology section. Please try to treat it as such.

And currently the brain definition seems to have been incorrect. Do you have another?

Seems to have been incorrect? I must have missed the post that explained why. Maybe you can tell me.

 

[EZweber]

Seems to have been incorrect? I must have missed the post that explained why. Maybe you can tell me.

Because, whether angels exist or not, they are not self contradictory and almost anyone would say that they are persons.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Seems to have been incorrect? I must have missed the post that explained why. Maybe you can tell me.

Because, whether angels exist or not, they are not self contradictory and almost anyone would say that they are persons.

You can’t say the definition is wrong and then tell me that it applies to angels. You are saying angels are persons on the basis of the definition given.

You can’t argue a definition is wrong and then use it to prove something else is right.

 

[EZweber]

You can’t say the definition is wrong and then tell me that it applies to angels. You are saying angels are persons on the basis of the definition given.

I am saying that angels are not persons by the definition given. But angels are persons. Therefore it is not a good definition.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You can’t say the definition is wrong and then tell me that it applies to angels. You are saying angels are persons on the basis of the definition given.

I am saying that angels are not persons by the definition given. But angels are persons. Therefore it is not a good definition.

A non physical ethereal being, whether it exists or not, is a person. Therefore brain activity cannot be used to determine the difference between a fertilised egg and a new born baby.

I think I might be done here…been nice talking.