bodies but only one person? No. What about conjoined twins? One body, One person? Nope. The fallacy here is the assumption that "person" is an undeniable biological state. But it isn't. Its human ideology. My pets are "persons" to me, no matter if you agree or not.
How does one define a person? Is the only requirement for being a person being human? How do we determin if somthing is human or not? DNA? My hair follical holds Human DNA. When anailized it is no different from my DNA now nor when I was a zygote. So the presence of DNA can deretime if something is of human origin but not if it is an individual or person. So. In order to be a person must one have their own unique DNA? What about Identicle Twins? They have the EXACT same DNA. Are they two....
So happy that this was soundly defeated... by a whopping 70%! Looks like the majority of Coloradans (like most Americans) Trust Women! Sort of renews ones faith in humanity, eh?
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. writes: "The underlying premise in the arguments pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons. They are saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime. But there is a logical problem here. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature. This is because if the being naturally initiates the change,
It must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life. This means that if we are persons with the right to be free from aggression later in life, we are persons even at conception." "A False Assumption," Libertarians for Life,
bodies but only one person? No. What about conjoined twins? One body, One person? Nope. The fallacy here is the assumption that "person" is an undeniable biological state. But it isn't. Its human ideology. My pets are "persons" to me, no matter if you agree or not.
MsSchauseil 1 year ago
How does one define a person? Is the only requirement for being a person being human? How do we determin if somthing is human or not? DNA? My hair follical holds Human DNA. When anailized it is no different from my DNA now nor when I was a zygote. So the presence of DNA can deretime if something is of human origin but not if it is an individual or person. So. In order to be a person must one have their own unique DNA? What about Identicle Twins? They have the EXACT same DNA. Are they two....
MsSchauseil 1 year ago
So happy that this was soundly defeated... by a whopping 70%! Looks like the majority of Coloradans (like most Americans) Trust Women! Sort of renews ones faith in humanity, eh?
kcsorci 1 year ago
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. writes: "The underlying premise in the arguments pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons. They are saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime. But there is a logical problem here. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature. This is because if the being naturally initiates the change,
teton99 1 year ago
It must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life. This means that if we are persons with the right to be free from aggression later in life, we are persons even at conception." "A False Assumption," Libertarians for Life,
teton99 1 year ago