Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The liberal case for life (an article by me).

stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 4:53:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

"Life begins when we form our genetic code."

You can combine DNA from a male and female in the laboratory and nothing will happen to it without a female's womb to cause it to divide and develop into a fetus.

If you were to pluck a single cell off your skin and let it sit in a petri dish it won't start dividing on its own and become your twin. It will just die. It needs your body to survive.

Now if we were to suck out the DNA inside a female egg and put your DNA in its place, and that egg was in the female's womb, it will start dividing and eventually develop into a physiological copy of you. It would be your identical twin. Your clone.

Now we run into a paradox.

If life begins when a unique genetic code is formed, does that mean that your twin's life began when your genetic code was formed?

If yes, then where was your twin when you were 10 years old? 20 years old? 30 years old? Nowhere to be found.

If no, life does not begin when genetic code is formed.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 2:49:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I'd be impressed if you were of some help. I think she's kinda stubborn though. Good luck
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 8:57:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.
Will do.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:07:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

Why is just being human a valid reason?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:19:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

But fundamental rights belong to persons not human beings. So the question is when did you become a person?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:20:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 10:07:08 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

Why is just being human a valid reason?

Why need you be anything more? Should a human not have rights? Also, the fourteenth amendment and the UNDHR...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:21:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 10:19:53 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

But fundamental rights belong to persons not human beings. So the question is when did you become a person?

When you become a human. And a fetus is human from the start.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:23:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 10:21:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:19:53 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

But fundamental rights belong to persons not human beings. So the question is when did you become a person?

When you become a human. And a fetus is human from the start.

What law says that a human being is a person?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:25:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 10:20:12 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:07:08 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

Why is just being human a valid reason?

Why need you be anything more? Should a human not have rights? Also, the fourteenth amendment and the UNDHR...

For what reason should a being with a microscopic level of intelligence and no ability to feel pain be given rights, especially whenever a major burden would be placed on someone else by doing so? Just because it has human DNA?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:25:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 10:23:27 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:21:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:19:53 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

But fundamental rights belong to persons not human beings. So the question is when did you become a person?

When you become a human. And a fetus is human from the start.

What law says that a human being is a person?

The lack of a law specifying any requirement. Therefore, if no legal requirement exists, all humans are persons. Plus, the UNDHR Article 6 sets a standard for personhood.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:27:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 10:25:57 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:23:27 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:21:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:19:53 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

But fundamental rights belong to persons not human beings. So the question is when did you become a person?

When you become a human. And a fetus is human from the start.

What law says that a human being is a person?

The lack of a law specifying any requirement. Therefore, if no legal requirement exists, all humans are persons. Plus, the UNDHR Article 6 sets a standard for personhood.

So is the internet a person?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:33:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 10:25:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:20:12 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:07:08 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

Why is just being human a valid reason?

Why need you be anything more? Should a human not have rights? Also, the fourteenth amendment and the UNDHR...

For what reason should a being with a microscopic level of intelligence and no ability to feel pain be given rights, especially whenever a major burden would be placed on someone else by doing so? Just because it has human DNA?

Because these traits are not a criteria for personhood. Feeling pain? Some people can't feel pain or emotions. Intelligence? is a mentally challenged human less of a person? You're throwing out criteria without explaining why that criteria matters. And people are given personhood at the inconvenience of others all the time (example: Blacks during the 1800's.) Someone else's convenience isn't a viable reason to revoke another's personhood.

The only requirement for personhood to that you are human. There should not be exceptions to that rule.

Merriam-Webster.
a human being

Oxford.
A human being regarded as an individual:

Dictionary.com.
a human being

The Free Dictionary: Law section.
In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:34:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 10:27:16 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:25:57 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:23:27 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:21:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:19:53 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

But fundamental rights belong to persons not human beings. So the question is when did you become a person?

When you become a human. And a fetus is human from the start.

What law says that a human being is a person?

The lack of a law specifying any requirement. Therefore, if no legal requirement exists, all humans are persons. Plus, the UNDHR Article 6 sets a standard for personhood.

So is the internet a person?

Personhood is still tied to humans. Don't take my claims to an extreme so they appear as irrational. That's fallacious. The law still references humans when discussing persons, but lists off no criteria for humans.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:37:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 10:34:57 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:27:16 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:25:57 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:23:27 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:21:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:19:53 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

But fundamental rights belong to persons not human beings. So the question is when did you become a person?

When you become a human. And a fetus is human from the start.

What law says that a human being is a person?

The lack of a law specifying any requirement. Therefore, if no legal requirement exists, all humans are persons. Plus, the UNDHR Article 6 sets a standard for personhood.

So is the internet a person?

Personhood is still tied to humans. Don't take my claims to an extreme so they appear as irrational. That's fallacious. The law still references humans when discussing persons, but lists off no criteria for humans.

Alright, it's tied to humans you say. What law says this? Secondly, how do you know personhood is tied to humans?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:43:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 10:37:52 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:34:57 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:27:16 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:25:57 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:23:27 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:21:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:19:53 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

But fundamental rights belong to persons not human beings. So the question is when did you become a person?

When you become a human. And a fetus is human from the start.

What law says that a human being is a person?

The lack of a law specifying any requirement. Therefore, if no legal requirement exists, all humans are persons. Plus, the UNDHR Article 6 sets a standard for personhood.

So is the internet a person?

Personhood is still tied to humans. Don't take my claims to an extreme so they appear as irrational. That's fallacious. The law still references humans when discussing persons, but lists off no criteria for humans.

Alright, it's tied to humans you say. What law says this? Secondly, how do you know personhood is tied to humans?

Now your throwing out petty questions... Grasping straws. Does the fourteen amendment, saying "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" reference a tree? Also, personhood is tied to humans because humans invented the term 'Person' as another word for 'human.' Then people tried claiming some humans aren't persons because it conveniences them when they aren't... Example: Slave owners claiming slaves aren't persons. And time and time again, the Supreme Court has said 'no' to these.

You're grasping at straws with these questions. Also, review the dictionary definitions of Person I gave above...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 10:53:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 10:43:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:37:52 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:34:57 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:27:16 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:25:57 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:23:27 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:21:22 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 10:19:53 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/30/2015 9:41:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:53:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:42:17 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:46:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:21:49 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Tell me what you think: http://www.writerscafe.org...

I can work with you to better enhance your cases. I like to think I'm experienced on the topic.

I am open to sugestions.

Go further into explaining why a human being inherently has rights just for being human even whenever they are yet to have adequately developed brains. Your case so far is weak.

Somewhat begging the question. You assume a brain is a requirement for having rights. As I'm aware, there is no requirement past being human. And many humans are born with undelevoped brains.

But fundamental rights belong to persons not human beings. So the question is when did you become a person?

When you become a human. And a fetus is human from the start.

What law says that a human being is a person?

The lack of a law specifying any requirement. Therefore, if no legal requirement exists, all humans are persons. Plus, the UNDHR Article 6 sets a standard for personhood.

So is the internet a person?

Personhood is still tied to humans. Don't take my claims to an extreme so they appear as irrational. That's fallacious. The law still references humans when discussing persons, but lists off no criteria for humans.

Alright, it's tied to humans you say. What law says this? Secondly, how do you know personhood is tied to humans?

Now your throwing out petty questions... Grasping straws.

Please be a little more respectful now. I'm not throwing out petty questions. I'm asking questions that are challenging to answer, but are important nonetheless. Now let's look at your answers.

Does the fourteen amendment, saying "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" reference a tree?

You said there is no requirement. That is why I challenged your answer.

Also, personhood is tied to humans because humans invented the term 'Person' as another word for 'human.'

This is true. Human beings did invent the word person. And, I will go a step further here, declared themselves a person. That's the key part and you'll see why.

Now come the tough questions. Can a fetus declare itself a person? Can a fetus exercise fundamental rights such as life, liberty, and property? Can a fetus exercise free speech or exercise a freedom to practice a religion?
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 11:58:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Now come the tough questions. Can a fetus declare itself a person? Can a fetus exercise fundamental rights such as life, liberty, and property? Can a fetus exercise free speech or exercise a freedom to practice a religion?

I apologize for intruding upon the discourse, but I felt inclined to point out that none of those things are requirements to be human. A person in a vegetative state can do none of those things, that does not mean they are legally no longer a person. And while you ask a lot of questions, I am wondering what you yourself qualify as a human being in the first place.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 10:15:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 11:58:14 AM, treeless wrote:
Now come the tough questions. Can a fetus declare itself a person? Can a fetus exercise fundamental rights such as life, liberty, and property? Can a fetus exercise free speech or exercise a freedom to practice a religion?

I apologize for intruding upon the discourse, but I felt inclined to point out that none of those things are requirements to be human. A person in a vegetative state can do none of those things, that does not mean they are legally no longer a person. And while you ask a lot of questions, I am wondering what you yourself qualify as a human being in the first place.

You're not intruding at all but I'm glad you brought up vegetative state because that was actually one of the things on my mind at the time.

Is someone who is in a vegetative state the same person that their family once knew them to be? Can they communicate? Can they remember people?

If you could preserve someone's body but you were unable to communicate with them, would you?
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 6:14:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 10:15:09 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/2/2015 11:58:14 AM, treeless wrote:
Now come the tough questions. Can a fetus declare itself a person? Can a fetus exercise fundamental rights such as life, liberty, and property? Can a fetus exercise free speech or exercise a freedom to practice a religion?

I apologize for intruding upon the discourse, but I felt inclined to point out that none of those things are requirements to be human. A person in a vegetative state can do none of those things, that does not mean they are legally no longer a person. And while you ask a lot of questions, I am wondering what you yourself qualify as a human being in the first place.

You're not intruding at all but I'm glad you brought up vegetative state because that was actually one of the things on my mind at the time.

Is someone who is in a vegetative state the same person that their family once knew them to be? Can they communicate? Can they remember people?'

This is a fair question, and I will address my answer below.


If you could preserve someone's body but you were unable to communicate with them, would you?

I also wouldn't be able to communicate with someone in a coma, but that would not make that person less human to me or worth preserving. A person in a vegetative state still has a chance of regaining brain activity, albeit the occurrence is rare. I don't know how reliable the source is a below, but that is one example.

I also would like to ask once more, if you don't mind, what you yourself constitute as a "person". It seems if you admit that the fetus is human, you are giving it human rights. The argument would be better served, in my opinion, if you were to argue from a standpoint where the fetus is not yet human but merely in the process of becoming one.

http://www.rense.com...
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 6:31:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 6:14:54 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/2/2015 10:15:09 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/2/2015 11:58:14 AM, treeless wrote:
Now come the tough questions. Can a fetus declare itself a person? Can a fetus exercise fundamental rights such as life, liberty, and property? Can a fetus exercise free speech or exercise a freedom to practice a religion?

I apologize for intruding upon the discourse, but I felt inclined to point out that none of those things are requirements to be human. A person in a vegetative state can do none of those things, that does not mean they are legally no longer a person. And while you ask a lot of questions, I am wondering what you yourself qualify as a human being in the first place.

You're not intruding at all but I'm glad you brought up vegetative state because that was actually one of the things on my mind at the time.

Is someone who is in a vegetative state the same person that their family once knew them to be? Can they communicate? Can they remember people?'

This is a fair question, and I will address my answer below.


If you could preserve someone's body but you were unable to communicate with them, would you?

I also wouldn't be able to communicate with someone in a coma, but that would not make that person less human to me or worth preserving. A person in a vegetative state still has a chance of regaining brain activity, albeit the occurrence is rare. I don't know how reliable the source is a below, but that is one example.


You didn't quite answer my question but maybe that's because I wasn't specific enough in asking. So let me try again. If you could preserve someone's body but you were unable to communicate with them indefinitely, would you?

After four weeks the patient is deemed in a persistent vegetative state. After three months the patient is deemed in a permanent vegetative state.

I also would like to ask once more, if you don't mind, what you yourself constitute as a "person". It seems if you admit that the fetus is human, you are giving it human rights. The argument would be better served, in my opinion, if you were to argue from a standpoint where the fetus is not yet human but merely in the process of becoming one.

http://www.rense.com...

I don't recall saying the fetus is a human being.

I think people deem others people. Women were not deemed people at a time in history. Slaves too.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 10:58:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You didn't quite answer my question but maybe that's because I wasn't specific enough in asking. So let me try again. If you could preserve someone's body but you were unable to communicate with them indefinitely, would you?

That would depend on what the person's wishes were. If the person left behind some sort of will that stated he would prefer not to live in such a state, then I would respect his wishes. In the absence of such a will, I would have to weigh my options and see. As I have already pointed out, there are cases that people in vegetative states have regained consciousness. That said, it is not for me to say, whether that person is not worth living, or that the person in question is no longer a person or human being.

I don't recall saying the fetus is a human being.

Perhaps it was another user, but it seems you are conceding that point, when you make the argument below.


I think people deem others people. Women were not deemed people at a time in history. Slaves too.

The question is if people deeming others people is what makes them people. Or are people inherently people, and people make needless distinctions to distort the fact to their advantage. I believe the latter is more logically sound.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 11:20:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 10:58:31 AM, treeless wrote:
You didn't quite answer my question but maybe that's because I wasn't specific enough in asking. So let me try again. If you could preserve someone's body but you were unable to communicate with them indefinitely, would you?

That would depend on what the person's wishes were. If the person left behind some sort of will that stated he would prefer not to live in such a state, then I would respect his wishes. In the absence of such a will, I would have to weigh my options and see. As I have already pointed out, there are cases that people in vegetative states have regained consciousness.

Good answers. Now, let us say that they are sure to regain consciousness, but will have no memories at all. Why is it worth saving them then?

That said, it is not for me to say, whether that person is not worth living, or that the person in question is no longer a person or human being.

I don't recall saying the fetus is a human being.

Perhaps it was another user, but it seems you are conceding that point, when you make the argument below.


I said people not human beings. There is a distinction. If you followed what I wrote earlier, I asked specifically, where does it say anything in the law about human beings. It addresses people. Not human beings.

Secondly, I don't see how anything I've said below related to me conceding that a fetus is a human being or a person. I'm not sure what you're looking at that I don't see.


I think people deem others people. Women were not deemed people at a time in history. Slaves too.

The question is if people deeming others people is what makes them people. Or are people inherently people, and people make needless distinctions to distort the fact to their advantage. I believe the latter is more logically sound.

What makes them people is... other people. I thought I answered that plainly. If human beings are inherently people then women and slaves would have never been property. But they were property. Therefore they're not inherently people. People eventually deemed them to be people. The same is happening with animal rights. I think these are hard things to dispute; totally uncontroversial.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 11:34:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Good answers. Now, let us say that they are sure to regain consciousness, but will have no memories at all. Why is it worth saving them then?

Because a person without memories is still a person. A person without memories can live a meaningful life and make new memories.

I said people not human beings. There is a distinction. If you followed what I wrote earlier, I asked specifically, where does it say anything in the law about human beings. It addresses people. Not human beings.

I do see the distinction you are trying to make. I don't see how the distinction is true.


Secondly, I don't see how anything I've said below related to me conceding that a fetus is a human being or a person. I'm not sure what you're looking at that I don't see.

Why make the argument human beings are not people, if the fetus is not a human being? The argument becomes needless in the first place.

What makes them people is... other people. I thought I answered that plainly. If human beings are inherently people then women and slaves would have never been property. But they were property. Therefore they're not inherently people. People eventually deemed them to be people. The same is happening with animal rights. I think these are hard things to dispute; totally uncontroversial.

I would debate you on this topic on a formal debate. Would you be interested in accepting?
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 10:51:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 11:34:42 AM, treeless wrote:
Good answers. Now, let us say that they are sure to regain consciousness, but will have no memories at all. Why is it worth saving them then?

Because a person without memories is still a person. A person without memories can live a meaningful life and make new memories.


Suppose we have two individuals born, A and B, who are twins. A lives a normal life while B is kept frozen in a chamber where their body is preserved but nevertheless develops at the same rate as A.

At the age of 25, A suffers brain trauma and slumps into a vegetative state. Weeks pass and A is now deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state. Months pass and A is now deemed to be in a permanent vegetative state. A's doctors notify the family that if A does wake up, the brain damage has wiped clean all memories from eating, motor function, including A's knowledge and experience of the world A once knew for 25 or so years.

Now the tough questions.

How different is A from B?

If A were to be allowed to die but B were to be brought back to life, would there be any true difference besides that A is the body of someone who once had memories and experiences vs B, a body that has never been in contact with the family or friends of A?

Let me further ask this.

The doctors say that they can revive B now while A may be revived sometime in the future but it is not a guarantee.

Should the family revive B or wait for A to "wake up"?

I said people not human beings. There is a distinction. If you followed what I wrote earlier, I asked specifically, where does it say anything in the law about human beings. It addresses people. Not human beings.

I do see the distinction you are trying to make. I don't see how the distinction is true.


The law does not specify human beings. Slaves were once property. I'm assuming you're from the U.S. and you understand this. Check out the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. If you're not from the U.S. Ancient Greece is an example of both slaves and women as property. If they didn't regard them as human beings then they were surely stupid because women or slaves didn't look like some other animal. They looked like human beings. They simply thought they are inferior human beings or subhuman to the superior humans; the true people of society. This is of course scientifically false. They are human and "degrees" of humanity is a societal invention not a scientific fact.


Secondly, I don't see how anything I've said below related to me conceding that a fetus is a human being or a person. I'm not sure what you're looking at that I don't see.

Why make the argument human beings are not people, if the fetus is not a human being? The argument becomes needless in the first place.


I didn't make an argument. I asked a question. And I wanted to demonstrate by asking this question that there exists no language in the law mentioning human beings but only persons/people. Therefore the discussion ought be framed in talking about persons since this is about laws. Whether or not a fetus is a human being is actually irrelevant. Corporations are legal persons. Animals have some personhood. Now if you want to propose a constitutional amendment that states human beings are people, that's fine.

What makes them people is... other people. I thought I answered that plainly. If human beings are inherently people then women and slaves would have never been property. But they were property. Therefore they're not inherently people. People eventually deemed them to be people. The same is happening with animal rights. I think these are hard things to dispute; totally uncontroversial.

I would debate you on this topic on a formal debate. Would you be interested in accepting?

Let me ask some questions first before I make that decision because I think I know where you are confused and perhaps I can clear something up.

If a slave was deemed property and they were inherently a person (as you suggest), why did nobody acknowledge their personhood existed?
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 6:29:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Liberal/Prolife is an oxymoron. This has to do with the concept of a human life begins at conception. Believing this makes you conservative. Not believing this makes you liberal.