I recognize the image on the right as a person. I don't recognize the image on the left as a person.

If you recognize the image on the left as a person, can you explain how you recognize it as a person?

the same question from way way back that I’ve asked multiple people over and over to directly address in any way — Fire Ologist

You asked specifically about the aspect of individual recognition in personhood and I responded. You said my response was interesting and good. We don’t need to go through every aspect of personhood do we?

what is “individual recognition” anyway? — Fire Ologist

Referring to someone as a human being emphasizes their biological identity as a member of the species Homo sapiens. Referring to someone as a person focuses on qualities that go beyond biology—like individuality. In the following image, we can see clear meaningful differences that distinguish two persons in the upper portion of the image. The bottom portion of the image shows virtually identical twin embryos. There's nothing to distinguish the twin embryos as different persons so how can they be persons?

What leads you to believe it is not a person? — NOS4A2

I can’t touch, feel, smell or hear it. Visually it doesn’t look like a person to me. Do you see a person?

This is not a picture of a person, Fire.

Some people may think it's a person because that's what they've been led to believe.

There is a reason that people have been led to believe it's a person. Is that reason based on morality or something else?

When does “person” or “human being” happen so that it matters in discussion about abortion. That’s the money time period or moment. — Fire Ologist

The term "person" highlights aspects of existence tied to social, moral, or individual recognition rather than strictly biological features.

Did you really need someone to explain that?

So if you're a 2nd Century BCE Carthaginian, it's moral to sacrifice babies to Baal. — frank

I suppose that pro-life advocates must view Josseli Barnica and Navaeh Crain as necessarily sacrifices based on religious beliefs. The more things change the more they stay the same.

In the news today, Josseli Barnica from Texas died of an infection because doctors couldn’t properly treat her miscarriage.

I looked it up and the Catholic Church considers abortion murder, so if you’ve been involved in an abortion somehow and are unrepentant, and maybe especially if you’re unbaptized, you’ll be eternally separated from God. I think that means damned.

And about being damned, the damning is eternal. The eternal part of eternal damnation is far from incidental, if you asked me. :grimace:

Essentialism tend to mean that there are fixed attributes — Tom Storm

Something that exists in a life from conception to beyond life and regardless of the physical condition of any part of life sounds pretty fixed to me. Also, immortality is an attribute, an eternal attribute.

I’m not sure what it means for something to equate with essentialism.

Catholics believe that the soul is immortal (can’t die or decay) and is the essence of a person from conception (maybe before that?) to beyond the grave. Physicality doesn’t seem to matter so what could change it?

Do you think essences immortal or something? — Fire Ologist

No, but Catholic's do. If the immortal soul isn’t the essence of someone then what is it?

Are you saying immortal equals unchanging?

Why is that? — Fire Ologist

I hate to answer a question with a question but can you name anything that doesn’t die or decay?

Ok, just above, you said Catholics have to be essentialist because Catholics believe in an immortal soul.
I then said that this doesn’t follow as there is nothing about the amorphous term soul that requires belief in essentialism.
You agreed they can be amorphous. — Fire Ologist

It's not the amorphous nature of the concept that makes it essentialist, it's the immortal nature. We touched on this before you volunteered your faith and took a defensive posture. You agreed with me that everything seems to be in a constant state of change, but then also said that you could be wrong and things may exist that are static and unchanging.

Catholics don't believe that souls are mortal.

Why can’t souls be as amorphous as whatever else we are talking about? — Fire Ologist

I think they can be. There is actually a lot of freedom in the concept. The sticking point is that the concept is part of a tradition and traditions are by nature slow to change.

You believe that using words is essentialist?

I don’t think that religious beliefs are immutable. If fact, earlier I mentioned how the Catholic position on the fate of unbaptized souls has recently changed.

Essentially, a Catholic cannot reject essentialism because of the belief in an immoral soul. Catholics believe that the soul enters the body at conception.

I wouldn't even know where to start to take another step in such a conversation. — Fire Ologist

How about starting with whether or not you reject essentialism?

Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic view is that baptism is necessary for salvation and that it frees the recipient from original sin. Roman Catholic tradition teaches that unbaptized infants, not being freed from original sin, go to Limbo (Latin: limbus infantium), which is an afterlife condition distinct from Hell.

I don’t have any idea if “souls” ever “go” at all, let alone where or how they would go when bodies die, as in when a fetus is destroyed in an abortion. — Fire Ologist

Catholics have an idea and you claim to be a Catholic.

Scientism and essentialism might be seen as things that dissipate with experience. — Banno

I don’t know how science could be the ultimate authority on the issue. It can’t, for instance, prove or disprove the existence of a soul.

Where do the souls of aborted babies go? What would a soul of an embryo frozen for centuries experience? — RogueAI

For centuries the answer was limbo because they are unbaptized. Relatively recently the higherup decided that the fate of the unbaptized was up to God. Generous of them to let God decide.

Your are talking public policy. — Fire Ologist

Supporting policy that is against your principles or faith only means that your principles or faith are weak.

** Before continuing I'd like to personally thank @frank for invoking Godwin's Law. **

If the policy of the land was genocide would you support it?

Explain what? — Fire Ologist

The following for starters. Six months is pretty extreme.

I'd rather abortion up to around six or so months remain legal. — Fire Ologist

To whom? — Fire Ologist

To your fellow Catholics. To God. And if you don’t care about them and how you represent the Catholic faith, to anyone who reads the thread.

I searched for “religion” posted by Fire and it was easy to find.

I am a Catholic and believe in God. — Fire Ologist

Cat’s out of the bag now, Fire. You got some splaining ta do.

:lol: Not helpful.

By the way. I've stated what my religion is more than a few times in the forum. It's no secret. I'm just not telling you here. Because Satan told me, not to worry, he'll take care of you.

I found a great quote:

"Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere aude! [Dare to know!] Have the courage to use your own understanding! That is the motto of enlightenment."
- Immanuel Kant, 1784 — Fire Ologist

Odd choice of quote for the context. Any keywords that would help me discover the secret?

How about some aspects. — Fire Ologist

Music appreciation.

My argument is everything is arbitrary after you have a living organism with 46 chromosomes. Waiting for thought capabilities, or desiring or sentience is like waiting for laughter or pooping, or any other activity. Also, my argument is a sort of reductio ad absurdum - if a person is thinking, then to be consistent, many newborns are not persons. I think that's not an explanation of person that anyone is after. — Fire Ologist

There isn’t just one aspect to being human obviously. NOS and Frank are dissatisfied with the humanity of pre-borns and feel they must be somehow humanized. I suggested playing classical music for early enculturation. Not sure what else could be done.

Secret religions and abortion at six months is definitely creepy.

That is exactly right. — Fire Ologist

If I'm right then you've just sealed your death warrant by revealing the secret sect of Satanism.

I don't think you trust my answers for some reason. And I'm curious why but really would rather hear some sort of argument relating to abortion from you. — Fire Ologist

Very well, let's proceed and assume all things you've said are true. It will force me to make some assumptions about your views and it would be far more productive if you simply said what your views are, but I'm game.

What we know about your views so far:

• You think abortion should be legal for up to six months.
  
• You are personally against abortion.
  
• You belong to a religion.
  
• You can't reveal what religion you belong to.

There's a good chance of survival for birth at six months. This could be critical. Perhaps the religion that you belong to requires the ritual sacrifice of babies as young as possible or at least younger than six months. This could account for the wish that abortion be legal for up to six months. Killing babies after that cutoff date would be useless. It may even anger the God or Gods to be offered a sacrifice that's past its stale date.

I'm guessing that you're personally against killing babies because hemophobia prevents you from plunging the sacrificial knife yourself.

Maybe you can't say what religion you belong to because it's a secret sect of :naughty: Satanism :naughty: and you would be killed if you said anything.

Sound about right?

I wonder if there’s a law similar to Godwin.

That was the first time the word “religion” was used between us.

Contradiction contradicted. Again. — Fire Ologist

You implied that I asked you about it. I didn’t.

Why did you volunteer that you’re religious?

You brought it up first, not me. I was just being open and honest and responding fully to you. — Fire Ologist

I did not ask if you were religious. You volunteered that information, for no apparent reason.

The fact that you refuse to describe your religious views strongly indicates that they have everything to do with the subject. If they had nothing to do with the subject there would be no reason to refuse.

Where are you trying to go with the conversation?

Where you want to go, metaphysics and zygotes. Knowing your religious views would be essential, but you don’t want to talk about your religious views. Another contradiction.

This all has nothing to do with religion to me. — Fire Ologist

That’s why your religious views are interesting. Why not share them?

Also, you mentioned that you’re religious. Why mention it if this has nothing to do with religion for you? Another contradiction.

Just make something up if you like.

I’m not religious, btw.

created the contradiction controversy — Fire Ologist

There’s no controversy. I’d trust you more if you admitted to goofing around. Honestly though, I don’t care if you’re sincere or not. Let’s play pretend…

what about all of the other things I said to you about what a zygote must be biologically and metaphysically speaking? — Fire Ologist

You’ll have to describe your religious views in order to get into this. I’m sure they will be interesting.

My question about the psychology of humanization is about what it does to the one who behaves that way, how it hinders the conscience. because it has a clear psychological purpose. A fetus need not be aware of it. — NOS4A2

I don't see what the point of humanizing (making it more civilized or whatever) a fetus would be if they weren't aware of it in some way. I've heard of parents playing classical music during pregnancy for their unborn child. Couldn't hurt, I think.

Hmmm, let's ask what a third disinterested party thinks.

Hey @chatgpt, what does anti-abortion without exception mean?

"Anti-abortion without exception" refers to a stance on abortion that opposes allowing abortion in any circumstance. This position means that a person or policy does not support abortion, even in cases where exceptions are typically debated, such as:

Rape or incest: Situations where pregnancy occurs due to non-consensual acts.

Life or health of the mother: When the pregnancy poses a significant risk to the mother's physical health or life.

Fetal abnormalities: Cases where the fetus is diagnosed with a condition that may lead to a non-viable pregnancy or severe health issues after birth.

Those who hold this view believe that abortion should not be permitted under any conditions, often based on ethical, religious, or moral grounds. It contrasts with other anti-abortion positions that may allow for specific exceptions. — chatgpt