It is to the patient.
- Do you know that for certain?
- Why should that matter?
Personality isn't the question here, personhood is.Why stick to the obvious personhood is being a person, self referential definition, and read onto the substantive ones?
"(Personality: ) the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics".A foetus doesn't have much of that!
Individuality is the fundamental feature of personhood, and DNA is the initial indicator of an individual, as distinct from the mother in whose womb they reside. In fact, at that point it is the only indicator of individuality.I believe you are using the DNA point simply because it is a distinguishing feature, not because you really believe that DNA differences are a fundamental feature of personhood.
Not anymore than I would reject a twin as a person because they have the same DNA code as another person.Human parthenogenesis is a real process. Human embryos have been made from a cell from the mother. If this was implanted and established, would you reject it as a 'person' because it had the same DNA as the mother?
What's the point? You reject any notion that you might be incorrect as to when one becomes a person. So much so that you actually refuse to take a stand on when that point is actually reached, rather relying on the cop out of "nuance."You can of course try to convince me otherwise but you don’t get to impose your views on me or indeed a recently pregnant woman by use of bald assertions.
Not at all the issue; but I assume this is simply just more of your usual runaround as you have refused to actually just show what defines one as a person from a source outside your own opinion.No perhaps I can’t define a “person” to your satisfaction, or be clear on exactly when “personhood” begins, however I only need to conclude for myself, from the evidence, when a person clearly does not exist, just as you can too.
That's not the point of this discussion. Wiz asked for you and your ilk to provide an argument as to why it should remain legal.If, as it seems, you want your views to be enforced generally by secular laws then it is plainly up to you to find better evidence and a more convincing argument than my one and the lack of a functioning CNS, not me.
So, it is up to you to show why a functioning CNS is what defines one as a person and separates them from before they had a functioning CNS and were thus, according to you, not yet a person.
In your opinion? What kind of an argument is that?Well, my albeit lay understanding is that the autonomic system (ANS) is one of the functions of the peripheral nervous system (PNS) which in turn is connected to the CNS. However I think it’s true to say that just without the “person” element of the CNS being present it will more often than not simply “stand alone” so to speak, requiring no actual conscious input from the “person”. Typically however it will be shut down or become damaged along with the CNS imo.
What do you think would lead them to lose on the charge of homicide?Perhaps but not decided on by the prosecution obviously, but if they aimed too high then they would risk acquittal altogether, so they need be realistic and un-dogmatic about it and perhaps go for a lesser charge.
Are you seriously too stupid to understand a hypothetical?Then I can’t imagine why I would be getting involved at all , do you think that I might simply enjoy killing people or indeed the unborn for some obscure reason?
Is there a physical, living cell that if allowed to follow its programming with all the necessities will live and develop, eventually, into what you would consider to be a person?Unless I am somewhat mistaken you simply conclude that any abortion is murder and want that view imposed on others within secular law without exception perhaps? Imo the very rational impossibility of a “person” existing while there is a clear lack of any apparent physical means, is never considered within your thinking and dogma. You don’t want to make sometimes tough human choices, so you don’t, and then you don’t think that others should be allowed to choose either.
You seemed to have missed the point; they all agree that it is a person, at every stage wherein an abortion might be performed. PP even put out a brochure wherein they admitted so much in print.All know is what I personally might choose. Sometimes I too might well support an abortion where a “person” is likely to be present, depending on the particular circumstances. However any doctors who routinely have more interest in personal profit yes of course probably do exist, I would agree, but is also not really the point here.
In other words all you have is your opinion and no facts to back it up.Should I consider myself insulted or told off?
Not sure what you had to spell out for me exactly, but afaic even a unique DNA remains “un-personed” until the required biological parts have become assembled sufficiently.
So a functioning or otherwise CNS is not good enough evidence for you, while it remains pretty good and convincing evidence afaic.
However even if neither of us actually does have any evidence then what gives you the right to make others comply with your beliefs?
If the existence of the living zygote prior to an extant CNS is good enough for me then why would an extant CNS not be? Or did you just word this ambiguously?
The fact that it is distinct from anyone else makes it a separate entity, regardless of its DNA, actually. It is simply that DNA unique from the mother's is a way to show this.What exactly then makes “brand new” DNA any more “a” "person" or special over any other similar DNA, when many or none “persons” may be the result?
And even if its DNA code were the same as the mother's as gcthomas has suggested is possible it is still a distinct, separate entity.
While I believe the spirit is present at that point I don't see the point of arguing that with someone who doesn't believe a spirit exists.Are you actually thinking "soul" or maybe the supernatural, but would rather not say that kind of thing to a non-believer?
How so? You have yet to support this argument.A unique original DNA is clearly not what then defines a “person” imo, but a unique functioning CNS rather seems to.