When does one gain person-hood?

SO you say no then, well at least you've gotten one thing right in the many montyhs you have spent lying here.

 

You have not given a valid definition of "living human"

What characteristics define a "living human" in your definition such that we can tell the difference between a "living human" and dead human, or a "living cow".

 

You have not given an explanation of why that term matters? Is it in a law? Does it exist anywhere other than in your head as a defined term?

Why not define the term "child in utero" since that is used in multiple laws.

 

There is no such thing as a "child" in the early stages of pregnancy.

The law is only proof of the law .. nothing else. Laws change all the time.

The statment, because there is a law stating a child is a person, makes a child a person .. is a logical fallacy.

The law is not a sound definition, obviously, because if there were an entity on the same level as a real child, in the early stages of pregnancy then abortion would not be legal at this time.

The law contradicts itself.

If the law changed tomorrow would your view of abortion change ?

 

Zygotes don't drive.

 

Why do you think personhood exists at conception ?

 

A natural born person is specifically enumerated in our federal Constitution. Anything else should be up to morals and ethics.

Why not prevent the need for an abortion before the fact rather than simply resort to the coercive use of force of the State after the fact?

 

Why not use the latter as motivation for the prior?

 

The simple version is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why be less fiscally responsible while denying and disparaging individual liberty in the process. Shouldn't the opposite be true.

 

Because disparaging individual liberty has always been acceptable when it comes to tolenace for committing a homicide. Why treat this particular type of homicide differently?

 

If there is no agreement or consensus among experts that personhood exists in the early stages of pregnancy.. the prolife belief is reduced to a personal belief.

What disparages individual liberty is when people try to force personal or religious beliefs on others.

 

"personhood" is yet another manufactured term. A person is a human being, in this context.

The fact that people cannot agree on a manufactured term created by one side of the debate is meaningless.

 

You could not make a more ignorant statement if you tried. The notion of personhood is as old as man and a human being has always meant more than a cell with human DNA.

The fact that personhood is integral to the constitution, further demonstrates the ignorance of such statements.

 

IN what other context can be personhood discussed than how it applies?

 

"When they incorporate." - Mitt Romney

 

Whenever it's convenient for the woman to consider it a person. There are those arguing for post-natal abortion.

 

Why do you think "personhood" is relevant?

 

This is nonsense as I have shown repeatedly. Homicide promotion or tolerance is not merely a religious matter, it is a matter of law and order.

 

In actuality a "person" can be a corporation. Do you think a corporation can have an abortion?

 

Yes and that in turn translates into recognition by the law as a separate entity. More importantly the aspect that corporations are recognized as persons, is entirely irrelevat to the abotion debate.

And again and as usual, you are evading the issue when you have no answer, just like in your other post where you are evading answering by asking an irrelevant question.

 

OK, so NOW do you understand why there is a context issue related to the definition of person? That was your question I was answering BTW. Try some decaf.

Apparently you forgot your own question. Pitiful.

 

Clearly you do not or are just evading. In the abortion debate, it is idiotic to bring in the concept of corporations, unless of course as you, one is trying to evade the topic.
The only context personhood has in the abortion debate is legal recognition of the fetus, which of course does not exist. We have seen you attempt to lie about that or use silly reasoning to prove otherwise, till just now when after failing repeatedly you are diverting with the corporation tripe.

No it was not, it was the question from which you are running away.

 

Frothing at the mouth before you think doesn't help you make any sense Prom. There are multiple definitions of person, one of which is a corporation. This is why there is a context issue around discussion who is or is not a "person". I am not sure why I am trying to explain a logic based post to you, you have never comprehended one before.

Read back through the thread, oh and seriously, try some decaf.

 

You are only further embarrassing yourself with this line of stupidity. This is all about abortion and corporations do not play a role in this debate. There is ONLY ONE context in the abortion debate and that is legal recognition. Your silly diversions do not mask your inability to address the issue in an honest and intelligent manner.