Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Smug
Is that an abbreviation for something? S.mug?
What does the 'S' stand for? :)
-
Right then.
That's a good start :)
I believe personhood to be a function of a brain that can play host to self-aware consciousness.
What makes your assertion more valid than any other? I assert personhood is a value conferred to people by Almighty God. Neither of us has a test we can run to prove our points. It is simply my opinion against yours. The real question is the motivation for insisting that we are right. I insist that we are accountable for our words and actions and therefore it is of great importance that we get the issue of personhood right. What motivation do you have for insisting that self-awareness is necessary for personhood to be conferred?
I do not believe that consciousness can occur in a embryonic brain or within the two cells of a fertilised ovum, because the biological hardware needed for consciousness to develop has not itself developed.
Do you believe consciousness can occur in an unconscious person? I don't. Yet I don't rate that person as any less of a person. I assume he will wake up and take control of himself again. I'm prepared to give a baby the same benefit of your doubt. I say your doubt because that's the only source of any doubt here.
What if you are wrong? Are you prepared to face up to the consequences of what you advocate if you are?
A biological human may exist at these early stages, but a person does not. Human consciousness is the greatest mystery in the universe
And you seem to be its greatest scholar :D
but it is demonstrably impossible without the necessary hardware in place, as Kurt Cobain and many other victims of severe cranial trauma since the dawn of humanity have well proven.
Those people were demonstrably dead. Clearly something is vastly different between a dead person and a newly conceived one. What possible benefit can it have to your argument to compare babies at conception with dead people? You do realise that before those babies are aborted they are alive and then after they are aborted they are dead, right? You clearly have not thought what you believe through and are backing it up with things you've been told but have never had the courage to challenge.
This is obviously not a complete model of the mystery of personhood, but it at least has more basis in a reasonable understanding of human development than your approach, which is basically to declare personhood undefinable and then apply it to every confederation of vaguely human matter that attracts your sympathy.
Not at all! I believe that mothers conceive living human babies and it is those babies that I recognise as human. And to then describe my sympathy in a negative light is profoundly dishonest. OF COURSE I am sympathetic to the cause of babies who are routinely killed to satisfy the irresponsibility of their parents. OF COURSE I am sympathetic when those babies do not even have an opportunity to protest! OF COURSE there should be sympathy! Why are you so callous?
Finally, it amuses me that you're assuming that what I say demonstrates my need to find some kind of excuse for denying personhood to a just-fertilised ovum - as if I secretly know that you're right about every sperm being sacred (as the poet wrote) and am merely trying to weasel out of my own feelings of guilt. Wrong. Sorry. I've done my best to explain my actual beliefs, but I am now going to leave you alone in your hermetically sealed mental universe, since that's obviously where you were planning on staying all along.
I'm assuming nothing. It is you that is trying to determine when personhood begins and is hoping to find justification for your assertions. My judgment is correct and you are scared because it cuts through your bluster :)
Out.
I didn't even appeal and you're walking?
-
Like celebrating. I'm off to buy the wife her 1st wedding anniversary present. Ciao.
-
Let's not buy into the line being peddled here for a second longer. Given the blatantly deficient argument interspersed through almost 600 posts I'm now far more curious about the deficient person that lies behind it.
You don't think it is enough that a baby is alive and human at conception. What do you think is enough?
-
Alive and human I can accept, but you're going to have to define 'metaphysical nature'. From where I'm sitting right now it looks a lot like 'nebulous religiously originated concept which allows me to bypass the differences between a human adult, a newborn baby, and a fertilised ovum with exactly two cells to rub together'.
I have made no attempt to define our metaphysical nature. I can if you want, but it's not been an issue. If you agree that babies at conception are alive and human (even if you wouldn't use my terminology) then it is up to you to show how they are not people. The facts of life and humanity are enough for me to recognise a new baby as a person. Why is it not enough for you?
Given that personhood is an abstract concept, not something that can be measured or tested for then it is you, the pro-abort, who relies on distinctions between person and non-person and you, the pro-abort, that needs to find a material explanation for a non-material entity.
In short, show me your personhood and you'll have a case. :)
Good luck :)
-
This is, of course, a Leap Of Faith:
"We have no conclusive evidence, therefore we must --"Oh, Linger. Don't do it! We do have evidence and science. The evidence says that at conception a baby is alive and human. The logical conclusion from that is to agree that babies at conception have the same metaphysical nature as all people. Faith comes in when we try to ascertain the nature of that life and humanity.
So, do you have that test for personhood yet?
I don't.
-
Grant, it wasn’t your fault. You don’t have to take it out on other people though. I know you’re scared but listening to what these people say doesn’t have to threaten who you think you are now. Call your mom - she’d like that.
You're weird :)
But don't worry. I like weird. :)
-
Hmm. Let's try to parse this. A person by definition is capable of consciousness and thought
:squint: Dolphins are people?
utter cessation of these functions may leave behind a (semi) living human, but probably not a 'person' by any sensible definition. So people with the ability to think versus only the ability to grow have humanity, whereas those who merely grow do not.
Why is the standard of 'thought' definitive of personhood? Is it a scaled thing? Are certain people with greater capacity for thought greater people than others? How do you measure thought? Do you realise that babies can think at the point at which they are routinely killed?
What, in fact, is a thought? If you're talking about what you can taste, touch and feel then thoughts are merely electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
The arbitrary assertion of any physical attribute as the determiner of personhood is fraught with potholes and logical inconsistency. Your assertion of an intangible thing called 'thought' is going to be impossible to make any sense of.
The fact is the only reason you need to find qualifications for personhood is so that you can justify killing off certain groups.
Now. Let's move on and see if you are prepared to give this any thought ;)
However, I see you've lazily applied the term 'person' both to sentient beings and to jumbles of growing human cells, so I expect you to disagree. Don't say I didn't do my best trying to decode your nonsense, though.
Of course I apply the term person to babies and to people! Why do you ascribe the term 'jumbled growths of cells' to living human beings?
Do you realise that 'jumbled bunch of cells' is capable of things you aren't even remotely aware of? You have a whole brain and cannot replicate such a thing, yet a baby at just one cell in size is able to build a whole body for himself in just a few months.
Are you up to the challenge, Sam F? Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to grow a brain. :)
-
Only too glad to Robyn. Grant is not here on his own free will, if he has any left.
Oxymoron :)
He has been sent here as a troll by the "Collaborators Project" to either "convert" us or have us Label as "Permanent Collaborator Status"
Not so! I am here of my own accord. Though I have learnt a thing or two from people smarter than I. I don't think the American Right to Life tactics would work in New Zealand because the abortion industry is controlled by the hospitals. Even though hospitals might be privatised they are still seen as institutions rather than corporations. So while the financial aspect of the fight against abortion might work in the states it likely will not be effective in New Zealand.
Do not reply or even acknowledge him. If you must mention him, keep it in the third person ie. "He" or "Him" Generally, just ignore him. With luck he will slide off to his game forum or go back to whatever he does on BeBo.
'Tis true. If you stop posting I will likely not bother any more with this thread.
-
What’s wrong with a mountain? Quite a few wise men of lore were quite content on a mountain top. Why do people who get attached to some particular belief always feel the need to force it on everyone else.
I haven't seen myself forcing anything on anyone. Do you know what "force" means? I think you wish me to retreat to a mountain so you will not have to listen to me.
Fact 1: At conception you expect us to apply the abstract label of baby to somehow engender feelings of protectionism. I prefer to call it a kumcuat. That’s what we call it in my belief system therefore I am correct.
No, you're not.
Fact 2: Yet another label, human, applied to make us identify with it more. I think most folks, if asked to identify the human in a lineup would pick our dear kumcuat last. Frog embryos would probably stand a better chance of being called human than the two celled kumcuat.
If you can't deal with reality then perhaps it is you that needs a vacation to a mountain top. Hmm?
(My apologies in advance to anyone offended. As mentioned previously I don't think that the label applied makes the decision any easier. I just don't like the lowbrow attempt to play on emotions. It's like old George Bush calling everyone he doesn’t care for a terrorist, as if it makes the decision to kill them easier.)
I do not deny that this is an emotional issue. You don't get to win any points by denying that emotion. You win points if you show me how a baby at conception is not alive and not human.
Regarding judgment 1: Entitled to the rights of all human beings? Is it going to vote?
What planet are you on? Does one have to vote to be a person?
Is it going to own property?
You're so weird!
Perhaps the mother is a slave owner because the poor kumcuat is tethered to her. Folks may think that living at home with mom and feeding off of her is a right guaranteed to you at conception but most would believe that you're just a 30+ year old slacker who needs a real job :-)
:shrug: You don't seem to have anything left.
Regarding judgment 2: Sorry...the lack of logic in your first argument precludes a real response to this one. But I do like how you've proceeded to 'judgments’. Obviously you now defy your own logic because at conception you apparently were deemed not ‘human’ but divine and thus qualified to be an author of judgments.
You cannot judge? So you don't know if what I say is good or bad then? Right or wrong? So, what was your post here all about again?