N
ncgolf
Guest
Absolutely not a stretch. Your limited, minimum standard of personhood begins the process of allowing the destruction of human being, we then begin the quibbling over the standard. The Nazis only had a more obivious and heinous method of differentiation but by my reasoning yours and theirs accomplish the same thing. I see no difference … it is an arbitrary standard used to remove a segment of the population from the face of the earth.wow what a stretch. And you see no difference between the absence of a mind (my point) and racial features?
Where does your definition of personhood come from … it is still arbitrary. How does anyone show they have a mind, in utero. We can see they have a heart, limbs, suck their thumb but where does this mind thing come into play? Is there a test for mindhood in utero or does the fact that arm, legs, heart, brain automatically give them mindhood. Embryologist can remove certain cells from the blastocyst and prevent certain organs from growing. So, if you remove just one cell you can prevent arms, legs, eyes etc from development. I do not believe there is a cell for the mind … brain maybe … but not mind, so you base your personhood not on something genetically present but by some other test which then becomes based on a set of standards. Give those standards of mindhood? What is this test? How does anyone pass it?the presence of a mind defines a person. does fertilized eggs have a mind? does very young embryos have a mind? I am 100% sure that the answer to those are NO & NO.
I am not disagreeing with the horribleness of the crime but only the response. Personhood applies to all regardless of circumstance. You called the unwanted thing … a child. Child does not depend on where it came from whether a loving, conjugal union or a rape. The qualities of a child are exactly the same and present in both to the fullest.that only sounds good on paper. its entirely different when it actually happens to you. the unwanted child of a brutal serial rapist, no way.