light said:
stay tuned, the links are to your previous posts where you brought up this exact same point and your failure to respond to them.
I responded to those links, pointing out that they failed to provide examples of anyone treating an actual three month embryo as a person, in the exact thread you linked.
The next post down, in your link, for example, contains such a response. This contradicts your claim that I ever failed to "acknowledge" the existence of your bs. The matter being long settled, I will continue to treat your repetitions of false claims about my posts as typical dishonesty from you, and more evidence supporting my observation that you lack personal integrity to a fairly startling degree.
But more to the point, your stretching so far afield for your supposed examples highlights the lack of such material in the US or among any of the populations represented on this or any similar thread. If you had found some distant and ancient culture that treated early gestation miscarriages as persons, for example, (buried them, named them, counted them among the ancestral dead, etc etc etc), the only revision forced on my observation would be a restriction to Western cultures of the past thousand years and all the Western members of them. That seems a small modification, of no relevance to this thread.
wynn said:
So instead of providing an explanation for how ontological personhood can "come into existence," you resort to popular consensus among a specific population (which is not representative of the human population as such)
I made no such restriction in my argument - quite the contrary. And regardless of your gullibility regarding lg's twisted little postings, it is at least (as lg conceeds in default) representative - in fact inclusive - of the entire population represented on this forum.
wynn said:
I have posted no ad hominem arguments whatsoever.
Disparagements, even direct insults, are not ad hominem arguments - see any good dictionary. The fact that mine are accurate, easily supported by piles of evidence off the top of anyone's head who bothers, has no bearing on their role in the argument either - if they were false, they would still not be ad homs.
As far as the "ontological personhood" pettifoggery, I have no real interest in the "how". For all I know, that might vary among people in ways impossible to settle. My observation is that however it happens, we are in real world agreement that it has not happened as of the fourth month of gestation - no graves, no population statistics, no acknowledgement in medical records, no religious rituals, no concomitant or appropriate behavior of any kind, indicate otherwise. So the problem of how is your problem, as much as anyone else's, and your question to answer.