SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Because a 5 year-old is a person who has already been born and granted the full rights we grant to born human beings. Said person has been living a life as a person for five years.How so?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Because a 5 year-old is a person who has already been born and granted the full rights we grant to born human beings. Said person has been living a life as a person for five years.How so?
When they get to that stage abortions are performed with an AR-15.Because a 5 year-old is a person who has already been born and granted the full rights we grant to born human beings. Said person has been living a life as a person for five years.
They are persons. Their relationship with society is that of voluntary withdrawal.So hermits and anchorites are not persons?
You said: "My definition of a person is an entity that has a relationship with society."They are persons. Their relationship with society is that of voluntary withdrawal.
You said: "My definition of a person is an entity that has a relationship with society."
Hermits and anchorites do not have a relationship with society, so what makes them persons?
How does that confer a relationship with society? Awareness of something isn't a relationship.They have a relationship to society since we know of them and given them descriptive words.
Hermit: a person living in solitude as a religious discipline.How does that confer a relationship with society? Awareness of something isn't a relationship.
People are aware of sperm and ova, and of jellyfish. Does that confer a relationship to society? Does that make them persons?
??????????????Hermit: a person living in solitude as a religious discipline.
??????????????
My point is that they don't conform to Crossfire's definition of "person," yet he then goes on to say they are persons. This struck me as a contradiction.It is Google's definition of a hermit.
Did I misunderstand something?
My point is that they don't conform to Crossfire's definition of "person," yet he then goes on to say they are persons. This struck me as a contradiction.
So a non-relationship is a relationship if one party is aware of the other?They have a relationship because we know of them. That is a relationship: he way in which two or more people or things are connected, or the state of being connected. As per google
Withdrawal from society defines their relationship with society. Withdrawal from society is the characteristic (pertaining to the character of) of the persona (actor's mask) and the role played (like an actor) of a hermit in society. In other words, Hermit is the name of the role and the mask that person uses in regard to society.You said: "My definition of a person is an entity that has a relationship with society."
Hermits and anchorites do not have a relationship with society, so what makes them persons?
It's an allegory. Are there not roles in society, each with their own characteristics, and given their own name/gloss? How do you identify a hermit as a hermit, other than by their choice to withdraw from society? (Persona is also related to identity, for example: a transperson identifies as their chosen gender and the role they wish to be identified as in society.)This isn't a play. The hermit isn't playing a part, he's simply not interacting with society.
So a non-relationship is a relationship if one party is aware of the other?
I'm aware of jellyfish. That makes jellyfish "entities having a relationship with society" (Crossfire's definition). That makes jellyfish people (Crossfire's next definition).
It is not about bodily security it is about the life of the unborn. What about the bodily security for the unborn?Access to marijuana isn't a fundamental right. Bodily security is.
This misses the point. Abortion is legal in some states and not in others. Marijuana is legal in some states and not others. This was my point. There is a fundamental right for the unborn to life that needs to be weighed against the fundamental right of a woman to nurture the unborn.Factual.
Does marijuana grow in a womb, does a woman have to carry marijuana inside her for 9 months, does a woman have to nurture marijuana,..
I could go on and on but I won't
That's the line (lie?), but I think we both know it isn't true.It is not about bodily security it is about the life of the unborn.
If we were to indulge the fiction that a fetus is a person with legal rights, you mean?What about the bodily security for the unborn?
This is truly scary. What if a doctor determines viability is at 9 months of pregnancy?Each case is different, and the people closest to the case have the best information pertaining to that case.
So how can the preborn at viability, which you cannot define, have a relationship with society?My definition of a person is an entity that has a relationship with society. (From persona the actor's mask worn to depict individual characters in a play.) By definition, a fetus that is pre-viable can't have a relationship with society.