Colorado anti-choicers push for "personhood" amendment

C

Cypress

Well-known member
CO is not the first state to try, and it will not be the last to try. All living humans, whether you want to recognize them as human or not, will, someday, receive the same protections. That is simple justice.
 
Good Luck said:
CO is not the first state to try, and it will not be the last to try. All living humans, whether you want to recognize them as human or not, will, someday, receive the same protections. That is simple justice.
Click to expand...

Except when the mother's life is in danger. Then the human being doesn't have a say. Pure hypocrisy. And why don't animals have basic rights to live? Because they aren't in the same species as us? We are superior to them. That sounds pretty Hitlerish to me!
 
Life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.


once the process is begun, it is life.
 
tinfoil said:
Life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.


once the process is begun, it is life.
Click to expand...


And I don't argue against that at all. I feel that sometimes an abortion is the more responsible thing to do under certain circumstances.
 
However I also consider sperm and eggs life as well. Ants, termites, mosquitos, spiders and embryos are life to me too. One could say exterminating termites is just like Hitler killing the jews. It's a stupid argument that will only make people hate you. Just ask Ann Coulter...
 
KingRaw! said:
However I also consider sperm and eggs life as well. Ants, termites, mosquitos, spiders and embryos are life to me too. One could say exterminating termites is just like Hitler killing the jews. It's a stupid argument that will only make people hate you. Just ask Ann Coulter...
Click to expand...
Careful, your ignorance is showing. Neither sperm nor ova are living organisms. Basic biology, ya know. Might try studying it before spouting nonsense.

There is a reason the term is "human rights". HUMAN rights belong to HUMANS. The term does, indeed, distinguish between humans and living organisms which are NOT human. Call it "hypocritical" to limit human rights to humans if you want. It is not nearly as hypocritical as knowingly and deliberately denying human rights to a group of humans because they are "not human enough" for you.
 
Good Luck said:
Careful, your ignorance is showing. Neither sperm nor ova are living organisms. Basic biology, ya know. Might try studying it before spouting nonsense.

There is a reason the term is "human rights". HUMAN rights belong to HUMANS. The term does, indeed, distinguish between humans and living organisms which are NOT human. Call it "hypocritical" to limit human rights to humans if you want. It is not nearly as hypocritical as knowingly and deliberately denying human rights to a group of humans because they are "not human enough" for you.
Click to expand...

You are such an ass. Are you telling me that sperm and eggs are dead? If it's not dead, then it's life unless we are talking about a hammer.

Denying a puppy or a cow the right to life is just like denying a human the right to life. The reason we don't with animals is because we are in a "superior" species. That could be as easily spun into KKKism as your bs with abortion. You are a hypocrite for making a big deal about babies being killed, but make excuses for when the same thing happens to animals! There's always going to be some gay little technicallity so you can keep this propaganda up and look like Pat Robertson or you can have a civil debate about abortion!
 
Good Luck said:
Careful, your ignorance is showing. Neither sperm nor ova are living organisms. Basic biology, ya know. Might try studying it before spouting nonsense.

There is a reason the term is "human rights". HUMAN rights belong to HUMANS. The term does, indeed, distinguish between humans and living organisms which are NOT human. Call it "hypocritical" to limit human rights to humans if you want. It is not nearly as hypocritical as knowingly and deliberately denying human rights to a group of humans because they are "not human enough" for you.
Click to expand...

Personhood is what is important.

Whenever a human is brain-dead, they are not persons, but they technically have a machine beating their heart, making them "alive". Would you like to talk about the rights of the braindead?

Do you think my dad is a murderer for allowing the doctors to give a DNR order when my grandfather was dead except for the machine beating his heart?
 
tinfoil said:
it may not be a person, but it is human life
Click to expand...

You are correct... genetically speaking it is indeed a human life.

A "person" is an arbitrary definition. It is a way for some to attempt to dehumanize a certain group of people, such as how blacks were originally deemed "3/5 human".
 
Superfreak said:
You are correct... genetically speaking it is indeed a human life.

A "person" is an arbitrary definition. It is a way for some to attempt to dehumanize a certain group of people, such as how blacks were originally deemed "3/5 human".
Click to expand...

Except that this really has nothing at all to do with that in any sensible way.

I repeat: is a braindead human a person? Or are they dead, being that their personality and everything that made them a person is gone?

If someone hasn't developed a personality or an ability to think or do any of the things that make us persons, are they a person yet, SF?

Think about it. This has nothing to do with race or religion or prejudice at all and the association is, frankly, pathetic. It's reductio ad Hitlerum all over again.

The human genes definition is also unsatisfactory because it would deny intelligent life that doesn't have human genes personhood. This is very simple - personhood is more complex than than being alive and having a human geneome shoved somewhere up inside you.
 
Watermark said:
Except that this really has nothing at all to do with that in any sensible way.

I repeat: is a braindead human a person? Or are they dead, being that their personality and everything that made them a person is gone?

If someone hasn't developed a personality or an ability to think or do any of the things that make us persons, are they a person yet, SF?

Think about it. This has nothing to do with race or religion or prejudice at all and the association is, frankly, pathetic. It's reductio ad Hitlerum all over again.

The human genes definition is also unsatisfactory because it would deny intelligent life that doesn't have human genes personhood. This is very simple - personhood is more complex than than being alive and having a human geneome shoved somewhere up inside you.
Click to expand...


Does the brain dead person have cellular activity? Then they are alive. They would be considered part of the group we call life.


"The human genes definition is also unsatisfactory because it would deny intelligent life that doesn't have human genes personhood"

No duhh! That's about as obvious a statement as could possibly be made. What's your point. moron? Are you advocating we give dolphins personhood? AI programs?


WTF is your point?


Human life. It's a simple concept. Try understanding it.
 
Watermark said:
Except that this really has nothing at all to do with that in any sensible way.

I repeat: is a braindead human a person? Or are they dead, being that their personality and everything that made them a person is gone?

If someone hasn't developed a personality or an ability to think or do any of the things that make us persons, are they a person yet, SF?

Think about it. This has nothing to do with race or religion or prejudice at all and the association is, frankly, pathetic. It's reductio ad Hitlerum all over again.

The human genes definition is also unsatisfactory because it would deny intelligent life that doesn't have human genes personhood. This is very simple - personhood is more complex than than being alive and having a human geneome shoved somewhere up inside you.
Click to expand...
He doesn't use genes to deny personhood or to define it. The human genes are the only non-subjective means to verify human life. If it is alive and has a full set of genes making it a human life then it would easily be defined as both human and alive. Attempting to make a subjective declaration of "personhood" is what he is stating is objectionable. Pointing out that such subjective means only can serve to minimize the importance of a group of human life, and it is based on a subjective and not empirical measure should have made this clear to you.

I guess stating that using "personhood" is arbitrary and can be used to take rights from a group (Dredd Scott) isn't clear enough to you.
 
Calling a zygote a person and saying that a women no longer has control over her own body is trivial and not worth my time. Go fuck yourself, disgusting sycophants.
 
Damocles said:
He doesn't use genes to deny personhood or to define it. The human genes are the only non-subjective means to verify human life. If it is alive and has a full set of genes making it a human life then it would easily be defined as both human and alive. Attempting to make a subjective declaration of "personhood" is what he is stating is objectionable. Pointing out that such subjective means only can serve to minimize the importance of a group of human life, and it is based on a subjective and not empirical measure should have made this clear to you.

I guess stating that using "personhood" is arbitrary and can be used to take rights from a group (Dredd Scott) isn't clear enough to you.
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum.

It's not subjective. It's stupid and disgusting and arbitrary.
 
tinfoil said:
Does the brain dead person have cellular activity? Then they are alive. They would be considered part of the group we call life.


"The human genes definition is also unsatisfactory because it would deny intelligent life that doesn't have human genes personhood"

No duhh! That's about as obvious a statement as could possibly be made. What's your point. moron? Are you advocating we give dolphins personhood? AI programs?


WTF is your point?


Human life. It's a simple concept. Try understanding it.
Click to expand...

If a dolphin or AI is as intelligent as a human being then yes.
 
Watermark said:
Calling a zygote a person and saying that a women no longer has control over her own body is trivial and not worth my time. Go fuck yourself, disgusting sycophants.
Click to expand...
One more time. The term "personhood" is subjective and should not be used in such a law because of its subjective nature. That is what he has said. You keep repeating this like somebody tried to convince you that a zygote is a "person". Nobody did.

Your "personhood" argument is the biggest strawman (Also the silliest because it is absolutely contrary to what your opponent stated) I have seen in a very long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top