Quote of the Day: NathairNimheil on Abortion and Personhood

In a rapidly expanding comment thread on SJWs and the regressive left, a debate with a religious type has developed concerning abortion. Here is a great comment by NathairNimheil:

Like you holding an *arbitrary* position of what constitutes “personhood”.

So my definition of personhood, which you have never even heard, is arbitrary? You reading minds now?Neither does the newborn.

True enough, and in some legal contexts newborns and toddlers are not considered legally persons. However, you do have to draw the line somewhere and, as they do have significant things like a functioning nervous system and are independent rather than existing as a parasite on an (often unwilling) host, live born human children are usually granted some of the rights of personhood. An egg cell, on the other hand...And is the quadriplegic less a person than you?

I was not referring to motor function but to mental function. The complete lack of a brain does, yes, pretty much rule out personhood. Personally, I'm pretty broad and liberal with my personhood ideas. I'm fully behind granting (or at least discussing) legal personhood to varying degrees for great apes, cetaceans and perhaps even elephants. A blob of partially differentiated cells, on the other hand, not so much. However, even if I were as dogmatic and certain as you seem to be about the human being status of an embryo, the fact remains that there is still no justification in forcing a woman to play host to the parasitic "person". My body is still my body. My choice. Nobody else gets to violate my personhood and co-opt my body for their own needs.

I then chipped in with a connection to another thread in which the same commenter (See Noevo) is making similar naive claims about evolution:

Interestingly, See Noevo is showing here an exact replica of the issues he is exhibiting on another thread about evolution; namely, that he does not understand nominalism vs realism and the problem of abstracta in the realm of categorisation.

Thus species and personhood are "arbitrary" conceptual constructs that we use to navigate life and reality. They are our maps, not the terrain.

We may also disagree (and often do) on exactly what constitutes personhood or speciation. What exist are the individual properties of these given objects. We then assign, subjectively, these properties to a label. This does not, though, bring that label and associated abstract ideas into objective reality. They remain being conceptual entities.

Hilariously, See Noevo replied to Nathair's previous comment with this utter cop-out:

I'll put you on my No-Fly list. Farewell.

As if Nathair had said something outrageous and not worthy f reply. In reality, he had utterly pwned See Noevo, and See Noevo ran away, proclaiming Danth's Law by implication. Gah.