• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Personhood

Angel said:
Well, the point is that not saying so should be respected by you. Nothing you imply or allege I've said in the first paragraph did I in fact say. In the second paragraph you're on again about Conservative Christianity, which is a pet peeve of yours and off-topic.
Click to expand...


You said my first paragraph:
"...... the embryo will never be sentient and fetus will never be sentient at all stages. It is not a person. It is biologically impossible for it to be aware, understand, feel pain, fright, desperation, betrayal, sadness, anything before 24weeks. It is a non-sentient human fetus it is not a legal human being".
Click to expand...
was a straw man. It wasn't. It was in answer to your biologically untrue claim that all stages of embryonic development were sentient. They aren't.



My second paragraph:
Conservative Christians can never honestly justify bringing unwanted children into the world unloved and rejected. That's why the smoke screens of God's will, value of life, immorality are invoked because there is no reason why women have to give birth simply because two Christian denominations think their God has given them control over women's sex lives.
Click to expand...
What is it that pisses you off about the above statement? Conservative? Smoke screens? Women outside of your religious jurisdiction are none of your business. Or that in spite of all your copy and paste of intellectual discourses you're still just a shill for the anti-abortion campaign to make abortion murder and deny women their right to privacy.

What would you do if some religious jerk said he was going to make his religion into laws that you had to follow.
 
Angel said:
Gagliano is a sole voice.
Click to expand...

No, she is not. the article is full of scientists research that compliments her work. She is out of step merely on the language being developed to study plants.

And you misunderstand the article you have quoted.

Your original statement was that sentient is perceiving and feeling.

The article i have linked explains that plants perceive and feel. But that we should not fall into the trap of thinking that perceiving and feeling happens the same way with humans .

If you go back to your other statement.
The life developing in a pregnant woman is a sentient form of life.
Click to expand...

Then like plants that life in the woman has neither nervous systems nor neuro-transmitting pain receptors. While it’s accurate to say that plants can feel, or sense, their surroundings, that is a far, unbridged distance from claiming that plants feel like we do.

So really an embryo is no better than a carrot when it comes to sentience.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, she is not. the article is full of scientists research that compliments her work. She is out of step merely on the language being developed to study plants.

And you misunderstand the article you have quoted.

Your original statement was that sentient is perceiving and feeling.

The article i have linked explains that plants perceive and feel. But that we should not fall into the trap of thinking that perceiving and feeling happens the same way with humans .

If you go back to your other statement.


Then like plants that life in the woman has neither nervous systems nor neuro-transmitting pain receptors. While it’s accurate to say that plants can feel, or sense, their surroundings, that is a far, unbridged distance from claiming that plants feel like we do.

So really an embryo is no better than a carrot when it comes to sentience.
Click to expand...
Well, I think you misunderstand the article, or read it to suit your bias. And a carrot remains a carrot, but an embryo is a moment on the way to Shakespeare.
 
weaver2 said:
Yup, "forcing". That's the stated goal of anti-abortion movement organizations forcing women to carry an unwanted fetus to term by overturning Roe or conferring legal personhood on the fetus. It's not my straw man. It's a stated goal.

“The Charlotte Lozier Institute is the 501(c)(3) research and education institute of the Susan B. Anthony List, an organization dedicated to electing candidates and pursuing policies that will reduce and ultimately end abortion. Founded in 1992, SBA List seeks to restore an authentic feminism that celebrates the equality and dignity of women in all walks of life, without diminishing the sanctity of the human lives they conceive and bear in the vocation of motherhood. “*Charlotte Lozier Institute | The Charlotte Lozier Institute is committed to bringing the power of science, medicine, and research to bear in life-related policy making, media, and cultural debates.

it is up to Christians to “restore once again to America a biblically based legal system that protects all human life from conception to natural death,” (Cultural Impact Team Resource Manuel)

When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Paul Weyrich founder along with Jerry Falwell, of anti-abortion as a political movement. The Real Origins of the Religious Right - POLITICO Magazine

The personhood movement: The Personhood Movement — ProPublica
Click to expand...
In short, this excursus of yours applies to no one and nothing in this thread. We copy.
 
weaver2 said:
You said my first paragraph: was a straw man. It wasn't. It was in answer to your biologically untrue claim that all stages of embryonic development were sentient. They aren't.
Click to expand...
Yet another straw man. I claimed no such thing.
weaver2 said:
My second paragraph:
What is it that pisses you off about the above statement? Conservative? Smoke screens? Women outside of your religious jurisdiction are none of your business. Or that in spite of all your copy and paste of intellectual discourses you're still just a shill for the anti-abortion campaign to make abortion murder and deny women their right to privacy.

What would you do if some religious jerk said he was going to make his religion into laws that you had to follow.
Click to expand...
And here you've added straw to your off-topic and irrelevant rant.
 
Angel said:
Well, I think you misunderstand the article, or read it to suit your bias. And a carrot remains a carrot, but an embryo is a moment on the way to Shakespeare.
Click to expand...

Yes, your argument is about potential not actual. A fetus will become sentient, not is sentient.
 
Angel said:
What's the difference?
Click to expand...

the difference would be that a fetus not able to perceive or feel things in that case it never has so theirs no reason to treat it like a sentient being since it is not one
 
blarg said:
the difference would be that a fetus not able to perceive or feel things in that case it never has so theirs no reason to treat it like a sentient being since it is not one
Click to expand...
Too bad you ignored both my questions and my attempts to get you to answer the ignored questions, yes? Up until then you seemed to have found some good faith in discussion. See, now I'm recalling Shane.
 
Angel said:
I asked you what the difference is between "potential" and "actual" in your taxonomy?
Click to expand...

The difference is that you cannot argue that a fetus should not be aborted because of sentience. It does not have any. Nor does it have any potential if the woman exercises her right to decide to abort.
 
soylentgreen said:
The difference is that you cannot argue that a fetus should not be aborted because of sentience. It does not have any. Nor does it have any potential if the woman exercises her right to decide to abort.
Click to expand...
You're still not answering mt question. Regardless of its implications for the abortion question, what in your taxonomy of things is the difference between "potential" and "actual"?
 
Angel said:
You're still not answering mt question. Regardless of its implications for the abortion question, what in your taxonomy of things is the difference between "potential" and "actual"?
Click to expand...

Potential, it could possibly be. Actual, it is.
 
soylentgreen said:
Potential, it could possibly be. Actual, it is.
Click to expand...
That's the meaning of the words. How do those words, with those meanings, apply to the things of the world? I mean, you wish to apply these terms to one of the things in the world for the purposes of our discussion. Fine. I'm asking you, not for the meaning of the words, but as it were for the meaning of the concepts.
 
Angel said:
That's the meaning of the words. How do those words, with those meanings, apply to the things of the world? I mean, you wish to apply these terms to one of the things in the world for the purposes of our discussion. Fine. I'm asking you, not for the meaning of the words, but as it were for the meaning of the concepts.
Click to expand...

In more or less the same manner.
 
Angel said:
Come again? Could you put your thought here in a complete sentence so that I might understand it? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Sigh! your obviously fishing but lets play your game.

Your question: How do those words, with those meanings, apply to the things of the world?

My answer: In more or less the same manner.
 
soylentgreen said:
Sigh! your obviously fishing but lets play your game.

Your question: How do those words, with those meanings, apply to the things of the world?

My answer: In more or less the same manner.
Click to expand...
In more or less the same manner as what?
 
Angel said:
In more or less the same manner as what?
Click to expand...

I am laughing here.

As what! seriously?

Again your question: How do those words, with those meanings, apply to the things of the world?


Have you forgotten what those words are already.
 
soylentgreen said:
I am laughing here.

As what! seriously?

Again your question: How do those words, with those meanings, apply to the things of the world?


Have you forgotten what those words are already.
Click to expand...
No, I remember: "potential" and "actual."
So if X is a thing in the world, what is the difference between "potential" X and "actual" X?
 
Angel said:
No, I remember: "potential" and "actual."
So if X is a thing in the world, what is the difference between "potential" X and "actual" X?
Click to expand...

What thing? Would a butterfly do as an example? It starts as a catapiller and has the potential to become a butterfly. Yet the gardener will kill the catapillar as a pest that eats his plants. But admire the grace of the butterfly as it flips around his garden.
 
soylentgreen said:
What thing? Would a butterfly do as an example? It starts as a catapiller and has the potential to become a butterfly. Yet the gardener will kill the catapillar as a pest that eats his plants. But admire the grace of the butterfly as it flips around his garden.
Click to expand...
The question is what is the difference between potential X and actual X if X is a thing in the world. You're not being asked about the different treatment they receive. You're being asked for the basis of the distinction you draw.
 
Angel said:
The question is what is the difference between potential X and actual X if X is a thing in the world. You're not being asked about the different treatment they receive. You're being asked for the basis of the distinction you draw.
Click to expand...

Then my answer should have been sufficient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom