---

Just like blacks weren't persons, as defined by law?
Just like a master had the right to kill their slaves?

---

no, not "just" like either of those things at all.

difference in skin colour doesn't impair anything which makes us a person, but  the difference between a foetus and a born human being are enough of a disparity to give one personage, but not the other.

-------
- لورين

Love, all alike, no season knows nor clime,
Nor hours, days, months, which are the rags of time.

---

Quote: from whoisabs at 5:05 am on July 14, 2008

---

Just like blacks weren't persons, as defined by law?  
Just like a master had the right to kill their slaves?

---

no, not "just" like either of those things at all.  

difference in skin colour doesn't impair anything which makes us a person, but  the difference between a foetus and a born human being are enough of a disparity to give one personage, but not the other.

---

Humans don't gain sentience until 2-3 years old on average.  I suppose that markedly different nature is enough of a disparity to deny personage?  What level of intellect is required so that we can kill off the mentally deficient because I think an IQ of at least 80 should be the cut off.  I would very much like to kill off as many retards as I can so how can subscribe to your philosophy - do you have a newsletter as well?

---

Humans don't gain sentience until 2-3 years old on average.  I suppose that markedly different nature is enough of a disparity to deny personage?  What level of intellect is required so that we can kill off the mentally deficient because I think an IQ of at least 80 should be the cut off.  I would very much like to kill off as many retards as I can so how can subscribe to your philosophy - do you have a newsletter as well?

---

where did I say that sentience was something I considered to be required for personage?

also, how are you defining "sentience" here?

Post edited at 1:57 pm on July 14, 2008 by Fauna

-------
- لورين

Love, all alike, no season knows nor clime,
Nor hours, days, months, which are the rags of time.

---

Quote: from Elm at 9:53 pm on July 14, 2008

---

 Humans don't gain sentience until 2-3 years old on average.  I suppose that markedly different nature is enough of a disparity to deny personage?  What level of intellect is required so that we can kill off the mentally deficient because I think an IQ of at least 80 should be the cut off.  I would very much like to kill off as many retards as I can so how can subscribe to your philosophy - do you have a newsletter as well?

---

where did I say that sentience was something I considered to be required for personage?

---

Obvious genetic structure what science uses to determine eligibility within a species isn't enough for you so the main differences between a human fetus and an adult human aren't relative to your subjective declaration of person hood.  I don't think you would be so baseless as to accept something as trivial as appearance (for then racism becomes a valid conditional on which to place personhood) so there goes that a fetus is ugly.  I ruled our physical development or else those in a coma or physically handicapped would not meet your subjective definition for personhood.  Thus I had to say that you meant ability or inability of mental faculties being the differentiation in your subjective definition of "person".

Could you please clarify for I am extremely eager to set up my own subjective definition for personhood which does not include retards.

---

Quote: from Baron Samedi at 10:42 pm on July 13, 2008

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:37 pm on July 13, 2008

---

Quote: from Baron Samedi at 10:32 pm on July 13, 2008

---

Quote: from jakelong at 6:59 pm on July 13, 2008

---

the things though is repukes only bitch about helping kids when they unborn. when they born they cant wait to kill them off and hate them when the unmarried girls have them.

---

   

   This.    

   They'll fight hardcore to make sure the kid is born...But as soon as it's out of the vagina, it's on it's own.  Born into a family that can't afford health insurance?  Tough shit.  Gay?  You're an abomination.  Female?  You're not mature enough to decide what you can do with your own body.  Poor family?  Unable to escape the working class?  Stuck earning minimum wage?  Oh well, tough break---But hey, you can always join the military!

---

Who is "they"? Where are you getting this information?

---

 

 From conservative talking points.  

 -No universal healthcare.  
 -Abortions are evil.  
 -Gays are bad.  
 -The government shouldn't be stepping in to help the poor.  Let them fail, that's the only way they'll learn.  
 -RECRUIT!  RECRUIT!  RECRUIT!

---

I don't think so. That sounds more like your biased imagination.

---

Unless my imagination has somehow started hosting it's own shows every night on the major cable news networks, and even manages to invite itself on as guests, I don't think that's the case.

Because we know most conservatives are all about helping the poor, making sure everyone has proper healthcare, equal rights for gays, and letting women make decisions in regards to their own bodies, right?

-------
┌─┐
┴─┴
ಠ_ರೃ

Most conservatives (int he US political sense) could give crap one what a gay anybody does.  Its the heavily religious ones (whoa admittedly had been heavily recruited by conservatives in the early 80's to the detriment of the movement) that are.

Conservatives (of every stripe) are actually more giving than liberals - its a studied fact.  Conservatives tend to give more (across all economic strata) because they believe that change comes from individual action not (as liberal tend to think) from government so conservatives see their own personal actions as far more weighty.  Liberals tend to make others do what they don't do personally in order to feel like they accomplished something whereas conservatives go out and do it themselves.

Source: http://www.reason.com/news/show/117303.html

---

Obvious genetic structure what science uses to determine eligibility within a species isn't enough for you so the main differences between a human fetus and an adult human aren't relative to your subjective declaration of person hood. I don't think you would be so baseless as to accept something as trivial as appearance (for then racism becomes a valid conditional on which to place personhood) so there goes that a fetus is ugly. I ruled our physical development or else those in a coma or physically handicapped would not meet your subjective definition for personhood. Thus I had to say that you meant ability or inability of mental faculties being the differentiation in your subjective definition of "person".

Could you please clarify for I am extremely eager to set up my own subjective definition for personhood which does not include retards.

---

sentience would be exactly how I would separate a foetus from a "person" - however, I don't think we appear to be on the same page as to the definition of 'sentience'. you take the word, and run with it to somehow suggest that I approve of murdering infants, and the mentally disabled.

sentience, as far as I understand it, is the ability to register sensations such as pain, and cognition, or "the ability to feel or perceive subjectively." ideas as to when a foetus gains sentience are wide-ranging, but I am happy to accept that they occur after the legal time boundaries for obtaining an abortion. I have never seen a study from an unbiased source which definitively suggests to me otherwise.

when a human being gains true sentience, they also gain personhood.

-------
- لورين

Love, all alike, no season knows nor clime,
Nor hours, days, months, which are the rags of time.

---

The fetus isn't part of the mother's body.  I guess when you've got really good sounding disinformation it is hard to let it go.

---

So the barely formed ball of cells, not it's own living, breathing person, growing in her belly and feeding off her nutrients isn't part of her body?

Who's body is it a part of then?

---

Most conservatives (int he US political sense) could give crap one what a gay anybody does.  Its the heavily religious ones (whoa admittedly had been heavily recruited by conservatives in the early 80's to the detriment of the movement) that are.

---

Thing is, it's the religious nutjobs who are controlling one of America's two major political parties right now.  Not the level headed ones.  If it were the sensible ones who don't care what I'm doing in bed that were in power, I wouldn't care.

---

Conservatives (of every stripe) are actually more giving than liberals - its a studied fact.  Conservatives tend to give more (across all economic strata) because they believe that change comes from individual action not (as liberal tend to think) from government so conservatives see their own personal actions as far more weighty.  Liberals tend to make others do what they don't do personally in order to feel like they accomplished something whereas conservatives go out and do it themselves.

---

Which translates to: I give to charity.  Who cares if the family down the street can't afford to pay for their own health insurance?  If they'd just work harder, they might be able to pay for it eventually.  But the important thing is, I gave money to charity.

Post edited at 2:32 pm on July 14, 2008 by Baron Samedi

-------
┌─┐
┴─┴
ಠ_ರೃ

---

Quote: from Elm at 9:59 pm on July 14, 2008

---

Obvious genetic structure what science uses to determine eligibility within a species isn't enough for you so the main differences between a human fetus and an adult human aren't relative to your subjective declaration of person hood.  I don't think you would be so baseless as to accept something as trivial as appearance (for then racism becomes a valid conditional on which to place personhood) so there goes that a fetus is ugly.  I ruled our physical development or else those in a coma or physically handicapped would not meet your subjective definition for personhood.  Thus I had to say that you meant ability or inability of mental faculties being the differentiation in your subjective definition of "person".  

 Could you please clarify for I am extremely eager to set up my own subjective definition for personhood which does not include retards.

---

sentience would be exactly how I would separate a foetus from a "person" - however, I don't think we appear to be on the same page as to the definition of 'sentience'. you take the word, and run with it to somehow suggest that I approve of murdering infants, and the mentally disabled.  

sentience, as far as I understand it, is the ability to register sensations such as pain, and cognition, or "the ability to feel or perceive subjectively." ideas as to when a foetus gains sentience are wide-ranging, but I am happy to accept that they occur after the legal time boundaries for obtaining an abortion. I have never seen a study from an unbiased source which definitively suggests to me otherwise.  

when a human being gains true sentience, they also gain personhood.

---

I define it as it is defined in the dictionary.  If you are uncomfortable that your subjective criteria for what is a person mandates that you support killing two year olds that is an internal conflict with you own ideology that you need to deal with.

---

I define it as it is defined in the dictionary. If you are uncomfortable that your subjective criteria for what is a person mandates that you support killing two year olds that is an internal conflict with you own ideology that you need to deal with.

---

here's how it's defined in my dictionary

sen·tient  

-adjective

1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.  
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.  

no, no idealogical qualms there.


-------
- لورين

Love, all alike, no season knows nor clime,
Nor hours, days, months, which are the rags of time.

---

Quote: from Elm at 2:17 pm on July 14, 2008

---

The fetus isn't part of the mother's body.  I guess when you've got really good sounding disinformation it is hard to let it go.

---

So the barely formed ball of cells, not it's own living, breathing person, growing in her belly and feeding off her nutrients isn't part of her body?

Who's body is it a part of then?

---

It's own.  It shares no organ system with the mother, it has different genetic code, responds to stimulus independently, is often of a different sex and blood type and cannot be created by the mother's body alone.  Let alone the fact the fetus can die and the mother can live and the mother can die and the fetus can live which mandates they aren't they same entity.

"So the barely formed ball of cells, not it's own living, breathing person, growing in her belly and feeding off her nutrients isn't part of her body? "

Is the same criteria for a small colony of bacteria yet I doubt you would say that the colony would be part of her.

Quote: from Baron Samedi at 2:31 pm on July 14, 2008

---

---

Most conservatives (int he US political sense) could give crap one what a gay anybody does.  Its the heavily religious ones (whoa admittedly had been heavily recruited by conservatives in the early 80's to the detriment of the movement) that are.

---

Thing is, it's the religious nutjobs who are controlling one of America's two major political parties right now.  Not the level headed ones.  If it were the sensible ones who don't care what I'm doing in bed that were in power, I wouldn't care.

---

I agree, help me get them the fuck out of my party.

Quote: from Baron Samedi at 2:31 pm on July 14, 2008

---

---

Conservatives (of every stripe) are actually more giving than liberals - its a studied fact.  Conservatives tend to give more (across all economic strata) because they believe that change comes from individual action not (as liberal tend to think) from government so conservatives see their own personal actions as far more weighty.  Liberals tend to make others do what they don't do personally in order to feel like they accomplished something whereas conservatives go out and do it themselves.

---

Which translates to: I give to charity.  Who cares if the family down the street can't afford to pay for their own health insurance?  If they'd just work harder, they might be able to pay for it eventually.  But the important thing is, I gave money to charity.

---

Not at all in fact it shows that of those two broad groups the conservative is much more likely to literally help the literal family down the street than any liberal is.  The point is that one makes sacrifices themselves to help others and the other forces others to make sacrifices that they themselves are unwilling to make.

You tell me which is the more noble action?

---

It's own.  It shares no organ system with the mother, it has different genetic code, responds to stimulus independently, is often of a different sex and blood type and cannot be created by the mother's body alone.  Let alone the fact the fetus can die and the mother can live and the mother can die and the fetus can live which mandates they aren't they same entity.

---

But since it's not a person at that stage, it's more like a tapeworm than anything.  Just some entity living inside you, feeding off of what you feed on, growing in your stomach...Although nobody seems to care if you have a tapeworm removed.

---

Is the same criteria for a small colony of bacteria yet I doubt you would say that the colony would be part of her.

---

And I doubt you'd tell her she doesn't have a right to get that bacteria out of her system...

---

I agree, help me get them the fuck out of my party.

---

They think I'm just some freedom hating faggot.  You guys are the ones who need to work on getting them the hell out...Maybe then the republicans can get back to being the party of Lincoln, not the party of Reagen.

---

Not at all in fact it shows that of those two broad groups the conservative is much more likely to literally help the literal family down the street than any liberal is.  The point is that one makes sacrifices themselves to help others and the other forces others to make sacrifices that they themselves are unwilling to make.

You tell me which is the more noble action?

---

If we provided universal healthcare, everyone would be making the same sacrifices.  That sounds more noble to me than just telling the poor "Hey, forget about that $15,000 medical bill.  Just work harder.  You'll be fine."

-------
┌─┐
┴─┴
ಠ_ರೃ

---

Quote: from Elm at 10:45 pm on July 14, 2008

---

 I define it as it is defined in the dictionary.  If you are uncomfortable that your subjective criteria for what is a person mandates that you support killing two year olds that is an internal conflict with you own ideology that you need to deal with.  

 

---

here's how it's defined in my dictionary  

sen·tient    

-adjective  

1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.  
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.  

no, no idealogical qualms there.  

---

Exactly.   And sentience does not develop in humans until about age 2 to 3.  Thus if that is your qualifier for the right to life then human children of that age don't posses the right to life either.  This is all by the measure you are putting forth as you subjective standard of who can enjoy that right.  "Personhood" has long been the standard by which different groups were judged, denied, and killed, by those not of that group in order to dehumanize them.  We are human by genetics and our rights are ours by it.  

Your internal ideological conflict is bare for all to see.  Deny and ignore it if you like miss, but that just shows others how irrational you are.