@DoppelGangHer0@JustinP92286660@MartinEqualsMe I justified it here, we don't give rights based on potential to be something in the future, otherwise masturbation would be considered mass genocide
@JustinP92286660@MartinEqualsMe I do have capacity, everyone dreams, and the difference between my capacity and capacity of the fetus is that my capacity already developed.
We don't give rights based on potential to be something, e.g. we don't allow children to buy alcohol even though they will become grownups
@JustinP92286660@MartinEqualsMe My claim WAS NOT to have consciousness but capability for a concious experience. Dreaming person still experiences stuff, fetus before 23-24 weeks does not because it has not developed neurological connections
@JustinP92286660@MartinEqualsMe Also in most cases you are right, the fetus will develop capacity for concious experience, but not in all cases, so you are betting on something that hasn't happened yet and may or may not happen.
@JustinP92286660@MartinEqualsMe I do have capacity, everyone dreams, and the difference between my capacity and capacity of the fetus is that my capacity already developed.
We don't give rights based on potential to be something, e.g. we don't allow children to buy alcohol even though they will become grownups
@AmIMisogynistic@MartinEqualsMe I think you misunderstood me,
Capacity for concious experience is not a capacity to be mentally or intellectualy sound.
People with severe mental disabilities still experience feelings, feel pain, have memories, thoughts etc
@MartinEqualsMe Also I won't engage any more into debate whether I stated I didn't mean legal entities personhood but rather human personhood. IMO it is obvious from the very beginning and discussing it further hints me you don't want to engage with actual argument
@MartinEqualsMe You showed a screenshot in which I explicitly state (if that wasn't obvious enough before...?)
that I'm talking about human personhood in the context of fetuses. How much more obvious do you want me to make it?
@MartinEqualsMe I am not equivocating them, from the very beginning I separate them.
I believe fetus, even though alive and is a human, is not a person because it lacks capacity for concious experience, I don't attribute value to it until it happens.
@MartinEqualsMe So we are gonna pretend now we haven't been talking about human personhoods the whole time?
I would be careful with such eristical strategy, someone can think you don't consider fetus a human
@MartinEqualsMe Personhood in law regarding inanimate stuff are nowhere close to those regarding humans and weren't designed to be used like this, ergo don't describe the same concept
@MartinEqualsMe does its right to life include a right to continued use of another person's body, despite effects and risks of pregnancy?
I don't think a right to life automatically entitles it for such a right to another person's bodily support. (2/2)
@MartinEqualsMe Fetus being alive is compatible with both pro-choice and pro-life stances, merely being alive is not sufficient to consider something valuable.
And even if we assume it has an equal value to adult human being at any point, it does not settle the debate 1/2
@DoppelGangHer0@MartinEqualsMe That's where is the line for me, I don't put value to something that can't feel, think, dream, have memories. Similarly I don't value braindead yet technically alive patients the same as living concious humans
@MartinEqualsMe Personhood requires capacity for conscious human experience. Being living human organism is necessary for human personhood, but not sufficient.