How should we determine personhood?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-29-2005
How should we determine personhood?
54
Wed, 07-29-2009 - 10:12am

There's another thread where there seems to be an irreconcilable difference between the two sides of the debate.


The big difference lies in whether a z/e/f is a fully invested person w/ all the rights of personhood.


In general, the PC side states that a fetus isn't a person w/ legal rights until it is born.

 


Powered by
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Fri, 07-31-2009 - 10:46am

Some conjoined twins are more parastic in nature, and some more symbiotic.


I wonder what conjoined twins would say about being called "parasitic." You are talking about two thinking human beings, not one with a no-brain appendage attached to them.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-06-2009
Fri, 07-31-2009 - 11:25am

Some conjoined twins are more parastic in nature, and some more symbiotic.

Same with pregnancies.>

Really? I've never heard of a pregnancy in which the mother was physically dependent on the fetus to any extent. Emotionally dependent, sure, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Fri, 07-31-2009 - 12:29pm

No person has the right to the use of another's body without that person's permission whether you are an embryo or a 55 year old. Even to live.

No person's right to life trumps the right of someone else to refuse the use of their body.

Let's just say personhood starts prior to conception, for all the difference that term makes in the discussion about pregnancy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Fri, 07-31-2009 - 8:05pm

"Some conjoined twins are more parastic in nature, and some more symbiotic.

Same with pregnancies."

Pregnancies are never symbiotic. If your argument is that they are, please cite sources showing how women are physically benefited from the presence of the z/e/f. Conjoined twins are not at all the same as a pregnancy, for many reasons. Conjoined twins, although uniquely dependent upon each other, are both full formed, born persons with the ability to reason and think. In a pregnancy situation, that is only the case for the woman. Also, with conjoined twins, both persons are living off of each other in the world. In pregnancy, the z/e/f is living off the mother and residing inside of her body. If one conjoined twin is physically residing in the other conjoined twin, then I'll agree with your position.

Photobucket Lilypie Breastfeeding Ticker PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket
Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2008
Fri, 07-31-2009 - 9:21pm

Answering everyone together:


par⋅a⋅site






/ˈpærəˌsaɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA




–noun



1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.



2.
a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.



3.
(in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.


Powered by CGISpy.com
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Fri, 07-31-2009 - 9:46pm

Not to mention the girls who are 2 exact halves of a person and

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Sat, 08-01-2009 - 1:46pm

"Not to mention the girls who are 2 exact halves of a person and thus 2 heads sharing 1 body i would call that parasitic."

Those two girls are not "2 exact halves of a person." They are each a person, despite the fact that they don't each have a fully formed body. I find your wording here to be offensive.

And I don't agree at all with your definition of "parasitic." Which girl is the parasite? In a parasitic relationship, there has to be one host and one parasite. So which girl is the host? Which is the parasite? Do you think they would agree with your assessment? I sincerely doubt it. In the case of those girls, it is absolutely not a parasitic relationship.

Like the previous poster said, the only case of conjoined twins I would classify as being parasitic would be a case where one person has extra body parts from an underdeveloped twin.

Photobucket Lilypie Breastfeeding Ticker PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket
Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2008
Sat, 08-01-2009 - 11:46pm
<<

Those two girls are not "2 exact halves of a person." They are each a person, despite the fact that they don't each have a fully formed body. I find your wording here to be offensive. >>



Powered by CGISpy.com
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Sun, 08-02-2009 - 1:04am

I don't have rose colored glasses on at all. And I have never argued that the girls don't need each other in order to survive. You are the one who keeps claiming that they are in a parasitic relationship. So I'll ask you again: which girl is the host? Which is the parasite? It is not possible to be in a parasitic relationship if both girls need each other. Are you claiming each girl is both the host and the parasite? If that's the case, then your comparing this relationship to pregnancy is lost.

Photobucket Lilypie Breastfeeding Ticker PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket
Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-06-2009
Mon, 08-03-2009 - 3:05am

< They need each other in order to survive. You can put on your rose colored glasses all you want but that's just a matter of fact. It's a parasitic relationship.>

No, TDM, the fact that they need each other to survive makes it a SYMBIOTIC relationship. If it were parasitic, then one would be able to survive perfectly well without the other.