This thread is about the question of personhood.
Abortion Apologetics
Your view is based on your religious beliefs, not objective facts as you falsely assert. You know it, and so does anyone familiar with your posting history.
Personhood
The term "person" is thrown around in discussions without the least understanding of the concept. It's time to correct that practice.
I. The Question
What is it to be a person, as opposed to a nonperson? What have we people got that nonpeople haven’t got? More specifically, we can ask at what point in our development from a fertilized egg there comes to be a person, or what it would take for a chimpanzee or a Martian or an electronic computer to be a person, if they could ever be.
Personal Identity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
II. The Answers
The way that people understand and relate to each other contributes towards the acknowledgement or development and maintenance of personhood. Nevertheless, being an actual person in the first place is important and determining what or who is a person involves setting boundaries (Baldwin and Capstick, 2007). Where someone falls in relation to those boundaries will determine whether s/he is considered a person or a "non-person". For some theorists, particularly ethicists, this means possessing certain capacities. Others would argue that personhood more or less equates with simply being a human being, whereas the role of interaction with others has also been highlighted, as has the importance of the physical body. The following approaches to personhood will be considered in this section, and a few examples provided of research into perceptions of personhood:
1. inherent/transcendental personhood
2. capacity-based approach to personhood
3. interpersonal theories of personhood
4. the body
Personhood - Other ethical principles - Definitions and approaches - Ethics - Alzheimer Europe
So what is a person?
What criteria are you basing your answer to that question on?
What argument do you have in support of your criteria?
You have been told that so many time already and with good reason too.
By the likes of you and your fellow Internet Skeptics, being told anything is being told nothing. When you all post in bad faith, you all forfeit credibility.
Oh, I post in good faith and with sincerity when I state that your posts are nothing but crap and sophistry.
There you go. You ticked off at least three in a single sentence:
Internet Skepticism: Casting Call
Those members who've followed Angel's deconstruction of Internet Skepticism in this forum know what Internet Skeptics don't know, namely, that Internet Skepticism is a misnomer. Far from being any sort of ordinary or philosophical skepticism, Internet Skepticism in point of fact turns out to be a kind of Anonymous Creepism, a bastardized hybrid of technology and human nature. If you are new to Angel's deconstruction of Internet Skepticism, it is strongly recommended that you check out the following threads before proceeding any further in this thread:
Atheists Don't Exist
Beliefs and Skepticism
Top Ten Reasons To Deplore Internet Skepticism
Please Note
deplore = feel or express strong disapproval of (something).
10. Because Internet Skepticism lacks Intellectual Integrity.
9. Because Internet Skepticism does not take correction gracefully or else does not take correction at all.
8. Because Internet Skepticism usually doesn't know what it's talking about, yet nevertheless won't stop talking about what it doesn't know.
7. Because Internet Skepticism usually doesn't understand or misunderstands or deliberately misrepresents what its oppoents are talking about.
6. Because Internet Skepticism is unoriginal and chiefly relies on second-hand opinion with pretensions to authority.
5. Because Internet Skepticism does not listen and cannot learn, which is the very soul of stupidity.
4. Because Internet Skepticism is habitually coarse and vulgar, mocking and bullying, with a marked propensity to rely on emojis to these ends.
3. Because Internet Skepticism is malicious in intent and as a result given to the personal derogation of those who dare to oppose it.
2. Because Internet Skepticism routinely posts in bad faith, ignoring refutation and correction and persistently repeating points previously dispatched by opponents.
And the number one reason to deplore Internet Skepticism:
1. Because Internet Skepticism is the militant arm of Internet Atheism in mufti.[/CENTER]
Looks like you are the only one "ticked off" because your endless stream of bull crap is pointed out.
You don't even see that your persistent posts derogating me personally make my case. Internet Skeptics are so unaware.
You don't realize that you are too insignificant to even be derogated. I don't know you and don't give a crap about you, but I do point out that what you post is crap.
All you do is call what I post crap. That's dismissal, the chief tactic of Internet Skepticism. You haven't engaged any post of mine in good faith.
Yes, because indisputably it is. When it was not I said so.
No it is the correct label for the post.
I do not engage in crap. When you will post something that is not your usual judgemental crap or sophistry, I certainly will.
Show us one post that is not a dismissal, one post that doesn't merely call what it's supposed to engage "crap," one post that is on point, on topic, about "personhood."
Well, you have two of the best examples right here:
That's the ostensive answer to your silly question. There's a whole thread dedicated to the "Anonymous Creepism" called "Internet Skepticism," here:
Nothing to say on the topic -- personhood?
"Adequately determined." you say? On what basis "adequate" -- that means besides the fact that you agree and accept it?
Sure, trash pick-up. Telling analogy. But we're talking about a matter of life and death here. Your flippancy betrays your prejudice.
