Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How can the Pro-life camp justify this?

komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 12:44:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

I can't, but I support animal rights. Pro-life and pro-animal rights stances are not mutually exclusive...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 12:54:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 12:44:40 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

I can't, but I support animal rights. Pro-life and pro-animal rights stances are not mutually exclusive...

Can you be more specific. Do you think that both a fetus in early pregnancy and any animal should be considered a person?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 12:56:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 12:54:40 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:44:40 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

I can't, but I support animal rights. Pro-life and pro-animal rights stances are not mutually exclusive...

Can you be more specific. Do you think that both a fetus in early pregnancy and any animal should be considered a person?

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I don't think either should be considered a person, and that the personhood debate, like the 'is it murder' debate, is purely semantic and detracts from the real issue surrounding abortion. However, I do think that both abortion and animal cruelty should be banned except in extenuating circumstances.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 1:01:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 12:56:55 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:54:40 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:44:40 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

I can't, but I support animal rights. Pro-life and pro-animal rights stances are not mutually exclusive...

Can you be more specific. Do you think that both a fetus in early pregnancy and any animal should be considered a person?

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I don't think either should be considered a person, and that the personhood debate, like the 'is it murder' debate, is purely semantic and detracts from the real issue surrounding abortion. However, I do think that both abortion and animal cruelty should be banned except in extenuating circumstances.

But animals are harmed in a number of ways that don't fall under animal cruelty. Just this thanksgiving, millions of turkeys were killed to provide food, To find vaccines or acquire anti-bodies, millions of rats have to die. What about punishment? should a kid who burns a couple ants on the sidewalk receive the same punishment as a women who gets an abortion. Also why should a person be forced to stay pregnant for the sake of a non-person.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 1:33:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

The FLO argument
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 2:01:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's not just the level of brain development. The simple humanity of a fetus is a factor as well. We don't just kill people who are in comas, do we?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 2:07:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 1:33:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

The FLO argument

The FLO argument relies heavily on the idea of potential. The problem with relying on potential is that one has to consider the full ramifications of this argument. For one thing, there is potential for a new life and a "future like ours" whenever a girl and boy are in the same room. This would mean unless everyone begins having sex at every chance they get, they would be depriving billions of potential people of their future. In reality we base our decisions on what something is, not what its going to be. A terminally ill person is not a corpse, and a scorpion without a stinger cannot sting.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 2:11:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 2:07:53 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 1:33:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

The FLO argument

The FLO argument relies heavily on the idea of potential. The problem with relying on potential is that one has to consider the full ramifications of this argument. For one thing, there is potential for a new life and a "future like ours" whenever a girl and boy are in the same room. This would mean unless everyone begins having sex at every chance they get, they would be depriving billions of potential people of their future. In reality we base our decisions on what something is, not what its going to be. A terminally ill person is not a corpse, and a scorpion without a stinger cannot sting.

Not true. The entity doesn't come into existence until the sperm fertilizes the egg. So the FLO argument is only applied to the fertilized egg, since that is when the being exists to even have a potential future.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 2:20:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 2:11:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:07:53 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 1:33:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

The FLO argument

The FLO argument relies heavily on the idea of potential. The problem with relying on potential is that one has to consider the full ramifications of this argument. For one thing, there is potential for a new life and a "future like ours" whenever a girl and boy are in the same room. This would mean unless everyone begins having sex at every chance they get, they would be depriving billions of potential people of their future. In reality we base our decisions on what something is, not what its going to be. A terminally ill person is not a corpse, and a scorpion without a stinger cannot sting.

Not true. The entity doesn't come into existence until the sperm fertilizes the egg. So the FLO argument is only applied to the fertilized egg, since that is when the being exists to even have a potential future.

Potential is not just limited to a single entity, it can easily apply to the two separate entities. For something to have potential, all it needs to do is have the capability to develop into something else in the future. you'll find that their are a great many things which have the potential to develop into something else. With the right drugs a rat could develop personhood, yet we still kill millions in scientific experiments, depriving countless "futures like ours".
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 2:25:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 2:20:51 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:11:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:07:53 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 1:33:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

The FLO argument

The FLO argument relies heavily on the idea of potential. The problem with relying on potential is that one has to consider the full ramifications of this argument. For one thing, there is potential for a new life and a "future like ours" whenever a girl and boy are in the same room. This would mean unless everyone begins having sex at every chance they get, they would be depriving billions of potential people of their future. In reality we base our decisions on what something is, not what its going to be. A terminally ill person is not a corpse, and a scorpion without a stinger cannot sting.

Not true. The entity doesn't come into existence until the sperm fertilizes the egg. So the FLO argument is only applied to the fertilized egg, since that is when the being exists to even have a potential future.

Potential is not just limited to a single entity, it can easily apply to the two separate entities. For something to have potential, all it needs to do is have the capability to develop into something else in the future. you'll find that their are a great many things which have the potential to develop into something else. With the right drugs a rat could develop personhood, yet we still kill millions in scientific experiments, depriving countless "futures like ours".

That's ridiculous. Rats aren't going to become human, and a sperm nor an egg are human. So a sperm and egg don't have a future like ours, until they meet.

Sonething has to exist, before it can have a future, and a human (if that's what you want to call it), doesn't exist until a sperm meets an egg.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 2:33:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 2:25:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:20:51 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:11:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:07:53 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 1:33:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

The FLO argument

The FLO argument relies heavily on the idea of potential. The problem with relying on potential is that one has to consider the full ramifications of this argument. For one thing, there is potential for a new life and a "future like ours" whenever a girl and boy are in the same room. This would mean unless everyone begins having sex at every chance they get, they would be depriving billions of potential people of their future. In reality we base our decisions on what something is, not what its going to be. A terminally ill person is not a corpse, and a scorpion without a stinger cannot sting.

Not true. The entity doesn't come into existence until the sperm fertilizes the egg. So the FLO argument is only applied to the fertilized egg, since that is when the being exists to even have a potential future.

Potential is not just limited to a single entity, it can easily apply to the two separate entities. For something to have potential, all it needs to do is have the capability to develop into something else in the future. you'll find that their are a great many things which have the potential to develop into something else. With the right drugs a rat could develop personhood, yet we still kill millions in scientific experiments, depriving countless "futures like ours".

That's ridiculous. Rats aren't going to become human, and a sperm nor an egg are human. So a sperm and egg don't have a future like ours, until they meet.

Sonething has to exist, before it can have a future, and a human (if that's what you want to call it), doesn't exist until a sperm meets an egg.

A sperm and egg have the potential to meet, leading to a human, which then has the potential to become a person. Therefore a sperm and an egg being in the same room have the potential to create a person.

Also while the technology to give rats the traits for personhood doesn't exist now, there still is the potential for it to exists, therefore the potential that those rats have to become a person exists as well.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 2:37:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 2:33:45 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:25:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:20:51 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:11:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:07:53 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 1:33:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

The FLO argument

The FLO argument relies heavily on the idea of potential. The problem with relying on potential is that one has to consider the full ramifications of this argument. For one thing, there is potential for a new life and a "future like ours" whenever a girl and boy are in the same room. This would mean unless everyone begins having sex at every chance they get, they would be depriving billions of potential people of their future. In reality we base our decisions on what something is, not what its going to be. A terminally ill person is not a corpse, and a scorpion without a stinger cannot sting.

Not true. The entity doesn't come into existence until the sperm fertilizes the egg. So the FLO argument is only applied to the fertilized egg, since that is when the being exists to even have a potential future.

Potential is not just limited to a single entity, it can easily apply to the two separate entities. For something to have potential, all it needs to do is have the capability to develop into something else in the future. you'll find that their are a great many things which have the potential to develop into something else. With the right drugs a rat could develop personhood, yet we still kill millions in scientific experiments, depriving countless "futures like ours".

That's ridiculous. Rats aren't going to become human, and a sperm nor an egg are human. So a sperm and egg don't have a future like ours, until they meet.

Sonething has to exist, before it can have a future, and a human (if that's what you want to call it), doesn't exist until a sperm meets an egg.

A sperm and egg have the potential to meet, leading to a human, which then has the potential to become a person. Therefore a sperm and an egg being in the same room have the potential to create a person.

Also while the technology to give rats the traits for personhood doesn't exist now, there still is the potential for it to exists, therefore the potential that those rats have to become a person exists as well.

Yes, a sperm and an egg have the potential to become a human, but they don't have a human future, because that is a seperate entity that is created upon their meeting each other. Once they meet each other, they are no longer sperm or egg. In some respect, both have died and become a human. A human with a future like ours (potentially).

It should be noted, that this assumes that the future does not exist yet.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 2:41:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 2:37:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:33:45 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:25:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:20:51 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:11:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:07:53 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 1:33:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

The FLO argument

The FLO argument relies heavily on the idea of potential. The problem with relying on potential is that one has to consider the full ramifications of this argument. For one thing, there is potential for a new life and a "future like ours" whenever a girl and boy are in the same room. This would mean unless everyone begins having sex at every chance they get, they would be depriving billions of potential people of their future. In reality we base our decisions on what something is, not what its going to be. A terminally ill person is not a corpse, and a scorpion without a stinger cannot sting.

Not true. The entity doesn't come into existence until the sperm fertilizes the egg. So the FLO argument is only applied to the fertilized egg, since that is when the being exists to even have a potential future.

Potential is not just limited to a single entity, it can easily apply to the two separate entities. For something to have potential, all it needs to do is have the capability to develop into something else in the future. you'll find that their are a great many things which have the potential to develop into something else. With the right drugs a rat could develop personhood, yet we still kill millions in scientific experiments, depriving countless "futures like ours".

That's ridiculous. Rats aren't going to become human, and a sperm nor an egg are human. So a sperm and egg don't have a future like ours, until they meet.

Sonething has to exist, before it can have a future, and a human (if that's what you want to call it), doesn't exist until a sperm meets an egg.

A sperm and egg have the potential to meet, leading to a human, which then has the potential to become a person. Therefore a sperm and an egg being in the same room have the potential to create a person.

Also while the technology to give rats the traits for personhood doesn't exist now, there still is the potential for it to exists, therefore the potential that those rats have to become a person exists as well.

Yes, a sperm and an egg have the potential to become a human, but they don't have a human future, because that is a seperate entity that is created upon their meeting each other. Once they meet each other, they are no longer sperm or egg. In some respect, both have died and become a human. A human with a future like ours (potentially).

It should be noted, that this assumes that the future does not exist yet.

It doesn't matter that they are two separate entities, all they have to do is have the ability to develop into something else, which is exactly what a sperm and egg can do.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 2:48:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 2:41:44 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:37:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:33:45 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:25:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:20:51 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:11:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:07:53 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 1:33:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

The FLO argument

The FLO argument relies heavily on the idea of potential. The problem with relying on potential is that one has to consider the full ramifications of this argument. For one thing, there is potential for a new life and a "future like ours" whenever a girl and boy are in the same room. This would mean unless everyone begins having sex at every chance they get, they would be depriving billions of potential people of their future. In reality we base our decisions on what something is, not what its going to be. A terminally ill person is not a corpse, and a scorpion without a stinger cannot sting.

Not true. The entity doesn't come into existence until the sperm fertilizes the egg. So the FLO argument is only applied to the fertilized egg, since that is when the being exists to even have a potential future.

Potential is not just limited to a single entity, it can easily apply to the two separate entities. For something to have potential, all it needs to do is have the capability to develop into something else in the future. you'll find that their are a great many things which have the potential to develop into something else. With the right drugs a rat could develop personhood, yet we still kill millions in scientific experiments, depriving countless "futures like ours".

That's ridiculous. Rats aren't going to become human, and a sperm nor an egg are human. So a sperm and egg don't have a future like ours, until they meet.

Sonething has to exist, before it can have a future, and a human (if that's what you want to call it), doesn't exist until a sperm meets an egg.

A sperm and egg have the potential to meet, leading to a human, which then has the potential to become a person. Therefore a sperm and an egg being in the same room have the potential to create a person.

Also while the technology to give rats the traits for personhood doesn't exist now, there still is the potential for it to exists, therefore the potential that those rats have to become a person exists as well.

Yes, a sperm and an egg have the potential to become a human, but they don't have a human future, because that is a seperate entity that is created upon their meeting each other. Once they meet each other, they are no longer sperm or egg. In some respect, both have died and become a human. A human with a future like ours (potentially).

It should be noted, that this assumes that the future does not exist yet.

It doesn't matter that they are two separate entities, all they have to do is have the ability to develop into something else, which is exactly what a sperm and egg can do.

It does matter. Because the future of the sperm egg, ends at meeting, and then only the potential future of a human remains.

Somethings that does not exist, does not have a future. So the unfertilized egg, is not a potential future like ours. The unfertilized egg is only a potential egg. The egg stops existing once it's fertilized. Though the material is used to make a human, the human is not a future egg, just a result of the processes used by the egg.

The egg for all intents and purposes, along with the sperm are dead upon meeting. (To help illustrate a point) after their death, a new life emerges, but that new life isn't the egg life or the sperm life, it is a different one.

I can't break this down any further. If you can't grasp this, than philosophy just isn't for you. Or you can seek out an explanation from somewhere else.

There is good criticisms of the FLO, but yours isn't one of them, because the argument isn't applicable, for the reasons I stated
citizen_canine
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 2:58:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 2:01:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's not just the level of brain development. The simple humanity of a fetus is a factor as well. We don't just kill people who are in comas, do we?

Coma is not analogous to a fetus before 24 weeks. Brain death is. We can and do terminate brain-dead patients. A person in a coma has a functional cerebral cortex and retains the rights that come with it, of which life is one.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 3:05:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 2:48:27 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:41:44 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:37:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:33:45 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:25:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:20:51 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:11:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:07:53 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 1:33:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

The FLO argument

The FLO argument relies heavily on the idea of potential. The problem with relying on potential is that one has to consider the full ramifications of this argument. For one thing, there is potential for a new life and a "future like ours" whenever a girl and boy are in the same room. This would mean unless everyone begins having sex at every chance they get, they would be depriving billions of potential people of their future. In reality we base our decisions on what something is, not what its going to be. A terminally ill person is not a corpse, and a scorpion without a stinger cannot sting.

Not true. The entity doesn't come into existence until the sperm fertilizes the egg. So the FLO argument is only applied to the fertilized egg, since that is when the being exists to even have a potential future.

Potential is not just limited to a single entity, it can easily apply to the two separate entities. For something to have potential, all it needs to do is have the capability to develop into something else in the future. you'll find that their are a great many things which have the potential to develop into something else. With the right drugs a rat could develop personhood, yet we still kill millions in scientific experiments, depriving countless "futures like ours".

That's ridiculous. Rats aren't going to become human, and a sperm nor an egg are human. So a sperm and egg don't have a future like ours, until they meet.

Sonething has to exist, before it can have a future, and a human (if that's what you want to call it), doesn't exist until a sperm meets an egg.

A sperm and egg have the potential to meet, leading to a human, which then has the potential to become a person. Therefore a sperm and an egg being in the same room have the potential to create a person.

Also while the technology to give rats the traits for personhood doesn't exist now, there still is the potential for it to exists, therefore the potential that those rats have to become a person exists as well.

Yes, a sperm and an egg have the potential to become a human, but they don't have a human future, because that is a seperate entity that is created upon their meeting each other. Once they meet each other, they are no longer sperm or egg. In some respect, both have died and become a human. A human with a future like ours (potentially).

It should be noted, that this assumes that the future does not exist yet.

It doesn't matter that they are two separate entities, all they have to do is have the ability to develop into something else, which is exactly what a sperm and egg can do.

It does matter. Because the future of the sperm egg, ends at meeting, and then only the potential future of a human remains.

Somethings that does not exist, does not have a future. So the unfertilized egg, is not a potential future like ours. The unfertilized egg is only a potential egg. The egg stops existing once it's fertilized. Though the material is used to make a human, the human is not a future egg, just a result of the processes used by the egg.

The egg for all intents and purposes, along with the sperm are dead upon meeting. (To help illustrate a point) after their death, a new life emerges, but that new life isn't the egg life or the sperm life, it is a different one.

I can't break this down any further. If you can't grasp this, than philosophy just isn't for you. Or you can seek out an explanation from somewhere else.

There is good criticisms of the FLO, but yours isn't one of them, because the argument isn't applicable, for the reasons I stated

Firstly the sperm and egg do not cease to exist entirely, the DNA they are carrying continues to exist in the embryo. This also doesn't change the fact that the fetus exists for the sole reason that the egg and sperm fused. Just because the sperm and egg changed form, doesn't mean that they didn't directly cause the embryo to come into existence. This clearly shows how when one considerers the full scope of the FLO argument, it quickly falls apart.
citizen_canine
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 3:10:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 1:33:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

The FLO argument

Which is a stupid argument. You can't harm a ~potential~ life. Only actual life can experience harm. If you deprive a person with a functioning cerebral cortex of future life experiences, that is a loss because the person knows the joy of living, and therefore that loss is harmful. There is no harm to one who cannot experience the loss.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 3:14:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Firstly the sperm and egg do not cease to exist entirely, the DNA they are carrying continues to exist in the embryo.

Well, I guess you could say a tree doesn't stop existing when you chop it up and make chairs out of it, but I think you know that would be intellectually dishonest and stupid to make the statement that the chair's future is actually a tree's future.

This also doesn't change the fact that the fetus exists for the sole reason that the egg and sperm fused. Just because the sperm and egg changed form, doesn't mean that they didn't directly cause the embryo to come into existence.

Sure they cause it, but they aren't it. Just like the tree isn't a tree, when it's chopped down and used for fire wood. It would be dumb to call the tree or the match that lit the fire wood, the same entity as the fire.

This clearly shows how when one considerers the full scope of the FLO argument, it quickly falls apart.

This is coming from your misunderstanding of the FLO argument, and as well as I've explained it, there is no excuse for you to not understand it.

This is just common sense to a certain extent. A human doesn't have a future, until it's a human. A sperm and an egg aren't a human, so they don't have a human future. They have a sperm and egg future, though their future could end, and their material be used to create a new life form, but it's not like a moth becoming a butterfly. The butterfly is the moth, but the chair isn't the tree, the person is not the sperm, your computer is not random pieces of plastic and metal.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 3:16:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 3:10:52 AM, citizen_canine wrote:
At 11/29/2015 1:33:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

The FLO argument

Which is a stupid argument. You can't harm a ~potential~ life. Only actual life can experience harm. If you deprive a person with a functioning cerebral cortex of future life experiences, that is a loss because the person knows the joy of living, and therefore that loss is harmful. There is no harm to one who cannot experience the loss.

Well, that's a dumb argument. Murder isn't wrong because it's harmful. If you don't see a murder coming, and it's painless, we still consider it wrong. It's wrong because we deprive somebody of a future.

A fetus isn't a potential life either, it is a life. If it were a potential life, the FLO argument would not work.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 3:23:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 3:14:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
Firstly the sperm and egg do not cease to exist entirely, the DNA they are carrying continues to exist in the embryo.

Well, I guess you could say a tree doesn't stop existing when you chop it up and make chairs out of it, but I think you know that would be intellectually dishonest and stupid to make the statement that the chair's future is actually a tree's future.


Hense the word "entirely", just like the sperm and egg, parts of the tree are still being used. Also just like with the sperm and egg, the tree has the potential to become a chair.

This also doesn't change the fact that the fetus exists for the sole reason that the egg and sperm fused. Just because the sperm and egg changed form, doesn't mean that they didn't directly cause the embryo to come into existence.

Sure they cause it, but they aren't it. Just like the tree isn't a tree, when it's chopped down and used for fire wood. It would be dumb to call the tree or the match that lit the fire wood, the same entity as the fire.

I never said that they are the same entity, I clearly state that the sperm and egg cause a fetus to form. Because the egg and sperm are in the same room, the potential for a person exists.

This clearly shows how when one considerers the full scope of the FLO argument, it quickly falls apart.

This is coming from your misunderstanding of the FLO argument, and as well as I've explained it, there is no excuse for you to not understand it.

The FLO argument comes directly from the potential argument, both deal with the idea that because the fetus will eventually become a person with experiences it should be treated as such. I have thoroughly debunked this idea of treating something based on potential.

This is just common sense to a certain extent. A human doesn't have a future, until it's a human. A sperm and an egg aren't a human, so they don't have a human future. They have a sperm and egg future, though their future could end, and their material be used to create a new life form, but it's not like a moth becoming a butterfly. The butterfly is the moth, but the chair isn't the tree, the person is not the sperm, your computer is not random pieces of plastic and metal.

The human exists because a sperm and egg fused, this means that whenever it is possible for two people to have sex, a potential person exists. The chair cannot exist without their being a tree first. They may be different entities but without the tree, the chair would never exist.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 3:27:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 2:58:42 AM, citizen_canine wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:01:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's not just the level of brain development. The simple humanity of a fetus is a factor as well. We don't just kill people who are in comas, do we?

Coma is not analogous to a fetus before 24 weeks. Brain death is. We can and do terminate brain-dead patients. A person in a coma has a functional cerebral cortex and retains the rights that come with it, of which life is one.

Even with a developed brain the man in the coma is largely unable to use it.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 3:33:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 3:23:52 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 3:14:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
Firstly the sperm and egg do not cease to exist entirely, the DNA they are carrying continues to exist in the embryo.

Well, I guess you could say a tree doesn't stop existing when you chop it up and make chairs out of it, but I think you know that would be intellectually dishonest and stupid to make the statement that the chair's future is actually a tree's future.


Hense the word "entirely", just like the sperm and egg, parts of the tree are still being used. Also just like with the sperm and egg, the tree has the potential to become a chair.

Sure, but the chairs future, belongs to the chair, and the trees future ends when it becomes a chair. This is getting tedious.

This also doesn't change the fact that the fetus exists for the sole reason that the egg and sperm fused. Just because the sperm and egg changed form, doesn't mean that they didn't directly cause the embryo to come into existence.

Sure they cause it, but they aren't it. Just like the tree isn't a tree, when it's chopped down and used for fire wood. It would be dumb to call the tree or the match that lit the fire wood, the same entity as the fire.

I never said that they are the same entity, I clearly state that the sperm and egg cause a fetus to form. Because the egg and sperm are in the same room, the potential for a person exists.

The FLO argument only applies to the human entity. So whether they are the same entity or not, is extremely important.

This clearly shows how when one considerers the full scope of the FLO argument, it quickly falls apart.

This is coming from your misunderstanding of the FLO argument, and as well as I've explained it, there is no excuse for you to not understand it.

The FLO argument comes directly from the potential argument, both deal with the idea that because the fetus will eventually become a person with experiences it should be treated as such. I have thoroughly debunked this idea of treating something based on potential.

No, the FLO argument is not talking about the potential to become a person, but to have a future like ours. The fetus is human, the argument over the ethics of abortion, usually deal with when the fetus becomes conscious, but the flow argument, only considers it's human ness, not whether it has reached consciousness.

This is just common sense to a certain extent. A human doesn't have a future, until it's a human. A sperm and an egg aren't a human, so they don't have a human future. They have a sperm and egg future, though their future could end, and their material be used to create a new life form, but it's not like a moth becoming a butterfly. The butterfly is the moth, but the chair isn't the tree, the person is not the sperm, your computer is not random pieces of plastic and metal.

The human exists because a sperm and egg fused, this means that whenever it is possible for two people to have sex, a potential person exists. The chair cannot exist without their being a tree first. They may be different entities but without the tree, the chair would never exist.

I'm not sure how that's relevant, but cool
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 3:43:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 3:33:46 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 3:23:52 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 3:14:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
Firstly the sperm and egg do not cease to exist entirely, the DNA they are carrying continues to exist in the embryo.

Well, I guess you could say a tree doesn't stop existing when you chop it up and make chairs out of it, but I think you know that would be intellectually dishonest and stupid to make the statement that the chair's future is actually a tree's future.


Hense the word "entirely", just like the sperm and egg, parts of the tree are still being used. Also just like with the sperm and egg, the tree has the potential to become a chair.

Sure, but the chairs future, belongs to the chair, and the trees future ends when it becomes a chair. This is getting tedious.

This also doesn't change the fact that the fetus exists for the sole reason that the egg and sperm fused. Just because the sperm and egg changed form, doesn't mean that they didn't directly cause the embryo to come into existence.

Sure they cause it, but they aren't it. Just like the tree isn't a tree, when it's chopped down and used for fire wood. It would be dumb to call the tree or the match that lit the fire wood, the same entity as the fire.

I never said that they are the same entity, I clearly state that the sperm and egg cause a fetus to form. Because the egg and sperm are in the same room, the potential for a person exists.

The FLO argument only applies to the human entity. So whether they are the same entity or not, is extremely important.

The FLO argument is about a potential future, a potential future for a potential person which used to be a potential fetus, created when a sperm and egg fused. The sperm and egg are pivotal to the creation of this future.

This clearly shows how when one considerers the full scope of the FLO argument, it quickly falls apart.

This is coming from your misunderstanding of the FLO argument, and as well as I've explained it, there is no excuse for you to not understand it.

The FLO argument comes directly from the potential argument, both deal with the idea that because the fetus will eventually become a person with experiences it should be treated as such. I have thoroughly debunked this idea of treating something based on potential.

No, the FLO argument is not talking about the potential to become a person, but to have a future like ours. The fetus is human, the argument over the ethics of abortion, usually deal with when the fetus becomes conscious, but the flow argument, only considers it's human ness, not whether it has reached consciousness.

Both deal with potential, whether it be a potential future or potential person, both go all the way back to the sperm and egg. Without those two entities, the person and future would not exist. This is the meat of the argument, whenever a two people have the ability to have sex, there exists the potential for a person or future.

This is just common sense to a certain extent. A human doesn't have a future, until it's a human. A sperm and an egg aren't a human, so they don't have a human future. They have a sperm and egg future, though their future could end, and their material be used to create a new life form, but it's not like a moth becoming a butterfly. The butterfly is the moth, but the chair isn't the tree, the person is not the sperm, your computer is not random pieces of plastic and metal.

The human exists because a sperm and egg fused, this means that whenever it is possible for two people to have sex, a potential person exists. The chair cannot exist without their being a tree first. They may be different entities but without the tree, the chair would never exist.

I'm not sure how that's relevant, but cool

It deals with potential and is very relevant to the conversation at hand.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 3:45:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 1:01:58 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:56:55 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:54:40 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:44:40 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:21:14 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
Dear Pro-life camp.
How can you justify giving personhood to a fetus before the brain has developed, however deny personhood to the thousands of species with brains far larger than that of an early fetus?
Scientists have determined that a fetus doesn't even have the required connections to be aware until around 24 weeks. So why is a fetus before this time a person, when a lab rat is not?
https://www.rcog.org.uk...

I can't, but I support animal rights. Pro-life and pro-animal rights stances are not mutually exclusive...

Can you be more specific. Do you think that both a fetus in early pregnancy and any animal should be considered a person?

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I don't think either should be considered a person, and that the personhood debate, like the 'is it murder' debate, is purely semantic and detracts from the real issue surrounding abortion. However, I do think that both abortion and animal cruelty should be banned except in extenuating circumstances.

But animals are harmed in a number of ways that don't fall under animal cruelty. Just this thanksgiving, millions of turkeys were killed to provide food, To find vaccines or acquire anti-bodies, millions of rats have to die.
Given the current state of agriculture, I sincerely doubt the turkeys were not cruelly treated... A quick search shows this: http://freefromharm.org... :O

If a vaccine can potentially save millions of people from a devastating disease, then I'd say it falls under extenuating circumstances.

What about punishment? should a kid who burns a couple ants on the sidewalk receive the same punishment as a women who gets an abortion.
Well, obviously punishment should be considered on a case-by-case basis. It's hard for a person to see an ant's feelings. Plus, the foetus is the woman's own flesh and blood, but the ants aren't the boy's own flesh and blood. In this case, it's clear that the kids burning ants has committed a much less severe wrongdoing.
Also why should a person be forced to stay pregnant for the sake of a non-person.
-It is not benevolent, and therefore unvirtuous, to kill a foetus, especially when it's your own flesh and blood.
-If the couple has had premarital sex, they should be responsible for their own wrongdoing and not evade this responsibility.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 3:47:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 3:43:22 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 3:33:46 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 3:23:52 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 3:14:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
Firstly the sperm and egg do not cease to exist entirely, the DNA they are carrying continues to exist in the embryo.

Well, I guess you could say a tree doesn't stop existing when you chop it up and make chairs out of it, but I think you know that would be intellectually dishonest and stupid to make the statement that the chair's future is actually a tree's future.


Hense the word "entirely", just like the sperm and egg, parts of the tree are still being used. Also just like with the sperm and egg, the tree has the potential to become a chair.

Sure, but the chairs future, belongs to the chair, and the trees future ends when it becomes a chair. This is getting tedious.

This also doesn't change the fact that the fetus exists for the sole reason that the egg and sperm fused. Just because the sperm and egg changed form, doesn't mean that they didn't directly cause the embryo to come into existence.

Sure they cause it, but they aren't it. Just like the tree isn't a tree, when it's chopped down and used for fire wood. It would be dumb to call the tree or the match that lit the fire wood, the same entity as the fire.

I never said that they are the same entity, I clearly state that the sperm and egg cause a fetus to form. Because the egg and sperm are in the same room, the potential for a person exists.

The FLO argument only applies to the human entity. So whether they are the same entity or not, is extremely important.

The FLO argument is about a potential future, a potential future for a potential person which used to be a potential fetus, created when a sperm and egg fused. The sperm and egg are pivotal to the creation of this future.

Not true at all. I'm tired of talking to you. You're clearly never going to have the intellectual capacity to know that the FLO argument has nothing to do with potential life, but the future of an actual life.

This clearly shows how when one considerers the full scope of the FLO argument, it quickly falls apart.

This is coming from your misunderstanding of the FLO argument, and as well as I've explained it, there is no excuse for you to not understand it.

The FLO argument comes directly from the potential argument, both deal with the idea that because the fetus will eventually become a person with experiences it should be treated as such. I have thoroughly debunked this idea of treating something based on potential.

No, the FLO argument is not talking about the potential to become a person, but to have a future like ours. The fetus is human, the argument over the ethics of abortion, usually deal with when the fetus becomes conscious, but the flow argument, only considers it's human ness, not whether it has reached consciousness.

Both deal with potential, whether it be a potential future or potential person, both go all the way back to the sperm and egg. Without those two entities, the person and future would not exist. This is the meat of the argument, whenever a two people have the ability to have sex, there exists the potential for a person or future.

This is just common sense to a certain extent. A human doesn't have a future, until it's a human. A sperm and an egg aren't a human, so they don't have a human future. They have a sperm and egg future, though their future could end, and their material be used to create a new life form, but it's not like a moth becoming a butterfly. The butterfly is the moth, but the chair isn't the tree, the person is not the sperm, your computer is not random pieces of plastic and metal.

The human exists because a sperm and egg fused, this means that whenever it is possible for two people to have sex, a potential person exists. The chair cannot exist without their being a tree first. They may be different entities but without the tree, the chair would never exist.

I'm not sure how that's relevant, but cool

It deals with potential and is very relevant to the conversation at hand.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 3:49:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 3:47:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 3:43:22 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 3:33:46 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/29/2015 3:23:52 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 3:14:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
Firstly the sperm and egg do not cease to exist entirely, the DNA they are carrying continues to exist in the embryo.

Well, I guess you could say a tree doesn't stop existing when you chop it up and make chairs out of it, but I think you know that would be intellectually dishonest and stupid to make the statement that the chair's future is actually a tree's future.


Hense the word "entirely", just like the sperm and egg, parts of the tree are still being used. Also just like with the sperm and egg, the tree has the potential to become a chair.

Sure, but the chairs future, belongs to the chair, and the trees future ends when it becomes a chair. This is getting tedious.

This also doesn't change the fact that the fetus exists for the sole reason that the egg and sperm fused. Just because the sperm and egg changed form, doesn't mean that they didn't directly cause the embryo to come into existence.

Sure they cause it, but they aren't it. Just like the tree isn't a tree, when it's chopped down and used for fire wood. It would be dumb to call the tree or the match that lit the fire wood, the same entity as the fire.

I never said that they are the same entity, I clearly state that the sperm and egg cause a fetus to form. Because the egg and sperm are in the same room, the potential for a person exists.

The FLO argument only applies to the human entity. So whether they are the same entity or not, is extremely important.

The FLO argument is about a potential future, a potential future for a potential person which used to be a potential fetus, created when a sperm and egg fused. The sperm and egg are pivotal to the creation of this future.

Not true at all. I'm tired of talking to you. You're clearly never going to have the intellectual capacity to know that the FLO argument has nothing to do with potential life, but the future of an actual life.

potential future
have a nice day :)

This clearly shows how when one considerers the full scope of the FLO argument, it quickly falls apart.

This is coming from your misunderstanding of the FLO argument, and as well as I've explained it, there is no excuse for you to not understand it.

The FLO argument comes directly from the potential argument, both deal with the idea that because the fetus will eventually become a person with experiences it should be treated as such. I have thoroughly debunked this idea of treating something based on potential.

No, the FLO argument is not talking about the potential to become a person, but to have a future like ours. The fetus is human, the argument over the ethics of abortion, usually deal with when the fetus becomes conscious, but the flow argument, only considers it's human ness, not whether it has reached consciousness.

Both deal with potential, whether it be a potential future or potential person, both go all the way back to the sperm and egg. Without those two entities, the person and future would not exist. This is the meat of the argument, whenever a two people have the ability to have sex, there exists the potential for a person or future.

This is just common sense to a certain extent. A human doesn't have a future, until it's a human. A sperm and an egg aren't a human, so they don't have a human future. They have a sperm and egg future, though their future could end, and their material be used to create a new life form, but it's not like a moth becoming a butterfly. The butterfly is the moth, but the chair isn't the tree, the person is not the sperm, your computer is not random pieces of plastic and metal.

The human exists because a sperm and egg fused, this means that whenever it is possible for two people to have sex, a potential person exists. The chair cannot exist without their being a tree first. They may be different entities but without the tree, the chair would never exist.

I'm not sure how that's relevant, but cool

It deals with potential and is very relevant to the conversation at hand.
citizen_canine
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 4:11:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 3:27:38 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:58:42 AM, citizen_canine wrote:
At 11/29/2015 2:01:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's not just the level of brain development. The simple humanity of a fetus is a factor as well. We don't just kill people who are in comas, do we?

Coma is not analogous to a fetus before 24 weeks. Brain death is. We can and do terminate brain-dead patients. A person in a coma has a functional cerebral cortex and retains the rights that come with it, of which life is one.

Even with a developed brain the man in the coma is largely unable to use it.

He doesn't lose the right to life he's already been given just because he's non-responsive for a time. Besides, people in comas do dream and can have awareness. Many report being able to hear what's going on around them, but not being able to respond. Your argument could just as easily apply to somebody who is asleep. The fetus, OTOH, has never attained awareness of living and thus does not need the right to live. It needs that right if it is gestated to a point when it is aware, sometime around 24 weeks. I'm okay with restricting abortion to cases where the mother's health is threatened at that point. We could even limit it to 22 weeks just to be on the safe side.

Perhaps you mean a persistent vegetative state rather than coma? That's equal to brain death.