Colorado anti-choicers push for "personhood" amendment

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...


Ah, yes, the obligatory Dred Scott reference. What took so long? I thought it would follow shortly after SF's post.
 
Watermark said:
You are disgusting because you are forcing a women to lose control of her body. There is no argument for me being disgusting, you fucking disingenous sycophatic scum.
Click to expand...
You are wrong in what my position is on this. You know you are misstating it by a long shot. Restating another's position from what he has posted before is not stating my position on the same thing. It is pointing out the fact that you are foolishly propping up strawmen to joust.
 
Watermark said:
Damo, you are worse than a double root canal.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I'm also as good for you as one is, however painful they are they are beneficial in the long run. If you don't learn from your mistakes and keep attempting to fight silly strawmen I will continue to point and laugh.
 
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...

Again wateremo....

1) Personhood is an arbitrary definition. Which was my point. Different people define the term in different ways.

2) You are correct. It has nothing to do with race, religion etc... it has to do with a scientific definition of a human life. Eliminating any sub-group of human life is what I have a problem with when defining who is and who is not entitled to basic human rights.

3) I am not suggesting taking away the rights of the woman. But the rights of the child should be equal to hers (my opinion) unless her life is in danger. Then she has a choice to make. If a man and woman choose to have sex, they know that pregnancy is a possible outcome. If they choose to use protection/birth control, they know it is not 100% and thus while they may minimize the chances of pregnancy, they are not eliminating it. Thus, they CHOOSE their course of action. They should therefore be held accountable for the potential consequences of their actions.

4) When discussing HUMAN rights and a definition of a HUMAN being. Other species most certainly do not matter. Animal rights is a seperate issue.
 
Superfreak said:
3) I am not suggesting taking away the rights of the woman. But the rights of the child should be equal to hers (my opinion) unless her life is in danger. Then she has a choice to make. If a man and woman choose to have sex, they know that pregnancy is a possible outcome. If they choose to use protection/birth control, they know it is not 100% and thus while they may minimize the chances of pregnancy, they are not eliminating it. Thus, they CHOOSE their course of action. They should therefore be held accountable for the potential consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...

And they may CHOOSE an abortion. Whatever choice they make, they must deal with the consequences. Arbitrarily restricting the choices and pretending like its only possible for them to be accountable for their actions minus said choice is disingenous.
 
Watermark said:
And they may CHOOSE an abortion. Whatever choice they make, they must deal with the consequences. Arbitrarily restricting the choices and pretending like its only possible for them to be accountable for their actions minus said choice is disingenous.
Click to expand...
He points out that if that life is afforded the same rights then that is one choice that would be off the table unless the life of the mother is at stake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top