You said killing a fetus is OK because it isn't a person. Therefore killing humans IS ok, because fetus are humans.
You're hallucinating like a bad LLM. I denied that the killing of a fetus is uniquely bad or undesirable, simply because it is human. You're the one who somehow leapt to "let's murder at random".
So who decides if a human is a "person" or not? The government? If the junkie on the street cleans up & writes several popular novels, is he suddenly a person? Says who? The overlap between beings with human DNA and persons is 100%. 100% of humans are persons & vice versa.
Primarily, says me. I decide.
And you've supported my argument here. The junkie is not a person, because he has acted like a junkie for his whole life. If he were to, somehow, find the spark inside to self-actualize and become a person, he would demonstrate the values necessary for personhood. Because he has risen above his base, mindless biology.
And you confuse the map for the territory. Just because all known persons are human, does not suggest in the slightest that humanity is a prerequisite for personhood. Arguably, there are far more non-person humans than there are person humans.
Based on them not having a soul.
Oh boy, here we go. Alright, define and describe the soul, and how having one detectably differentiates from not having one. Don't use religious references, because those are just appeals to authority.
Oh, thanks for the answer. I am free to utterly ignore anything you decide, asw is the rest of the world. Cool.
The junkie is not a person, because he has acted like a junkie for his whole life.
So when he was 9? He was not a person? At 11, 15? how about 22 the year before the junk hit, was he a non-person then too? You do see how arbitrary and therefor irrelevant your "rules" are, right?
I am the KING of not confusing the map with the terrain. It's one of my favorite things to tell to idiotic leftists. "Prerequisite"? Humans are persons and persons are humans. It's an interchangeable word. You cannot claim a human is a non-human, and you cannot arbitrarily decide who is a person or not. I mean you as an individual can, but that's also the number of people who would base their ideology on your ideas: 1.
If governments gain the power to decide who is and is not a "person" that's when the cattle-cars start filling up, ok? Killing Fields, Holodomor, Great Leap Foreword & etc.
Simple: there are things we humans do not understand. There's things we know we don't and things we don't know we don't. There's things we think we understand, but in fact are incorrect. & etc. Spooky Action At A Distance aka: Einstein's Clock in the Box mind experiment. They actually carried this out, it's there, the impossible was proven to be real.
One of those things we don't know is what makes us human. Sentience? Salience? Sapience? Not commonly found in nature, especially all 3! But we humans have them & other fancy words too.
If souls exist? Then there is an afterlife & more things we currently don't understand. If they don't exist? It's highly likely we simply cease to exist when we die. Believing that souls set us apart from (most) animals has no cost. If we're right we win, and if we're wrong we won't care because we'll cease to exist. Simple really.
Abiogenesis & the origin of the universe. God created it, on purpose. Maybe He created the Big Bang? Why not? For what reason? We don't know, we can only guess. (Yes, I'm a Deist, eh?) BUT the odds against intelligent life, or almost any life, to "accidentally exist" after only 13.4 Billion years is astronomical. Add to that: where did the BB come from?
So: Believing in God and Souls (and Evolution too, of course) is just as scientific as the current scientific theories. No religion required. All science is based on faith too, eh?
Look mate, I'm sorry, but I'm not paid enough in my off time to write the absolute essay I need to unpack, critique, and dissect everything wrong with what you've written here.
What I will tell you, from a processional in the field, is that you fundamentally misunderstand the...aggravatingly named "spooky action at a distance", to about the same level as the average pop-science enjoyer misunderstands the concept of observation.
The only one I'll poke at, because it's quick and easy and I can't help myself, is this one:
All science is based on faith too, eh?
All science is based on evidence. I don't have faith an object will fall towards the earth if I hold it up and release it; I have evidence to identify the natural pattern that this is so. I don't have faith the sun will rise in the morning; I have evidence of the rotation and orbit of the earth and how my specific location upon it turns towards and away from the sun in a cycle. So on and so forth.
Science is the opposite of "trust me bro". It's instead a series of "no, no, hear me out"s coupled with the occasional "huh, that's funny..." when you find something novel.
You're hallucinating like a bad LLM. I denied that the killing of a fetus is uniquely bad or undesirable, simply because it is human. You're the one who somehow leapt to "let's murder at random".
Primarily, says me. I decide.
And you've supported my argument here. The junkie is not a person, because he has acted like a junkie for his whole life. If he were to, somehow, find the spark inside to self-actualize and become a person, he would demonstrate the values necessary for personhood. Because he has risen above his base, mindless biology.
And you confuse the map for the territory. Just because all known persons are human, does not suggest in the slightest that humanity is a prerequisite for personhood. Arguably, there are far more non-person humans than there are person humans.
Oh boy, here we go. Alright, define and describe the soul, and how having one detectably differentiates from not having one. Don't use religious references, because those are just appeals to authority.
That's nice, sweetie. Now face the wall. The State has declared you Obsolete.
Speak your truth ;)
Oh, thanks for the answer. I am free to utterly ignore anything you decide, asw is the rest of the world. Cool.
So when he was 9? He was not a person? At 11, 15? how about 22 the year before the junk hit, was he a non-person then too? You do see how arbitrary and therefor irrelevant your "rules" are, right?
I am the KING of not confusing the map with the terrain. It's one of my favorite things to tell to idiotic leftists. "Prerequisite"? Humans are persons and persons are humans. It's an interchangeable word. You cannot claim a human is a non-human, and you cannot arbitrarily decide who is a person or not. I mean you as an individual can, but that's also the number of people who would base their ideology on your ideas: 1.
If governments gain the power to decide who is and is not a "person" that's when the cattle-cars start filling up, ok? Killing Fields, Holodomor, Great Leap Foreword & etc.
Simple: there are things we humans do not understand. There's things we know we don't and things we don't know we don't. There's things we think we understand, but in fact are incorrect. & etc.
Spooky Action At A Distance aka: Einstein's Clock in the Box mind experiment. They actually carried this out, it's there, the impossible was proven to be real.
One of those things we don't know is what makes us human. Sentience? Salience? Sapience? Not commonly found in nature, especially all 3! But we humans have them & other fancy words too.
If souls exist? Then there is an afterlife & more things we currently don't understand. If they don't exist? It's highly likely we simply cease to exist when we die. Believing that souls set us apart from (most) animals has no cost. If we're right we win, and if we're wrong we won't care because we'll cease to exist. Simple really.
Abiogenesis & the origin of the universe. God created it, on purpose. Maybe He created the Big Bang? Why not? For what reason? We don't know, we can only guess. (Yes, I'm a Deist, eh?) BUT the odds against intelligent life, or almost any life, to "accidentally exist" after only 13.4 Billion years is astronomical. Add to that: where did the BB come from?
So: Believing in God and Souls (and Evolution too, of course) is just as scientific as the current scientific theories. No religion required. All science is based on faith too, eh?
Look mate, I'm sorry, but I'm not paid enough in my off time to write the absolute essay I need to unpack, critique, and dissect everything wrong with what you've written here.
What I will tell you, from a processional in the field, is that you fundamentally misunderstand the...aggravatingly named "spooky action at a distance", to about the same level as the average pop-science enjoyer misunderstands the concept of observation.
The only one I'll poke at, because it's quick and easy and I can't help myself, is this one:
All science is based on evidence. I don't have faith an object will fall towards the earth if I hold it up and release it; I have evidence to identify the natural pattern that this is so. I don't have faith the sun will rise in the morning; I have evidence of the rotation and orbit of the earth and how my specific location upon it turns towards and away from the sun in a cycle. So on and so forth.
Science is the opposite of "trust me bro". It's instead a series of "no, no, hear me out"s coupled with the occasional "huh, that's funny..." when you find something novel.