Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Abortion debate (Science)

UseYOURname
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.

To draw any line of the human life other than conception is impossible.

Fallacy one: Life starts at the first breath
Rebuttal: Is it ok to stab fully formed adults with iron lungs
Fallacy two: Life starts as the child physically exits the womb
Rebuttal: The child is exactly the same 1 second before exit from the womb as it is 1 second after exit from the womb. Defend killing identical children based on their location.
Fallacy three: Life starts when the child becomes sentient
Rebuttal: Is it ok to kill fully formed adults in comas?
Fallacy four: Life starts at the heartbeat
Rebuttal: If a fully formed adult is using a pacemaker can I stab said adult?
Fallacy Five: Life starts when the child isn"t depending on any outside force.
Rebuttal: If you are on a respirator can I stab you.
Fallacy Six: Abortion is ok because the child does"t feel pain.
Rebuttal: Can I kill you if you are on anesthesia
Fallacy Seven: Abortion is necessary to prevent parents from being financially incapacitated
Rebuttal: You don"t get to kill children for money, you don"t get to kill children for your own convenience

The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children. It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

P.S
Sorry for the weird apostrophes, it"s changing then into quotes for some reason.
FungusOfHam
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2018 3:07:39 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.

To draw any line of the human life other than conception is impossible.

Fallacy one: Life starts at the first breath
Rebuttal: Is it ok to stab fully formed adults with iron lungs
Fallacy two: Life starts as the child physically exits the womb
Rebuttal: The child is exactly the same 1 second before exit from the womb as it is 1 second after exit from the womb. Defend killing identical children based on their location.
Fallacy three: Life starts when the child becomes sentient
Rebuttal: Is it ok to kill fully formed adults in comas?
Fallacy four: Life starts at the heartbeat
Rebuttal: If a fully formed adult is using a pacemaker can I stab said adult?
Fallacy Five: Life starts when the child isn"t depending on any outside force.
Rebuttal: If you are on a respirator can I stab you.
Fallacy Six: Abortion is ok because the child does"t feel pain.
Rebuttal: Can I kill you if you are on anesthesia
Fallacy Seven: Abortion is necessary to prevent parents from being financially incapacitated
Rebuttal: You don"t get to kill children for money, you don"t get to kill children for your own convenience

The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children. It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

P.S
Sorry for the weird apostrophes, it"s changing then into quotes for some reason.::

1)I'm pro life

2)Do you feel there are ever any acceptions? Meaning, is it ever morally reasonable to abort a baby?
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2018 3:25:25 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

But we are always happy to end life if it is convenient. We kill for food, we kill bacteria to stop them making us sick, we kill insects just because they annoy us. The fact something is life does not stop us killing it.

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.

Sure. That does not mean it has yet obtained rights as a person.

To draw any line of the human life other than conception is impossible.

No, but to draw the line as to when rights are assumed to have been granted is not impossible.

Fallacy one: Life starts at the first breath
Rebuttal: Is it ok to stab fully formed adults with iron lungs
Fallacy two: Life starts as the child physically exits the womb
Rebuttal: The child is exactly the same 1 second before exit from the womb as it is 1 second after exit from the womb. Defend killing identical children based on their location.
Fallacy three: Life starts when the child becomes sentient
Rebuttal: Is it ok to kill fully formed adults in comas?
Fallacy four: Life starts at the heartbeat
Rebuttal: If a fully formed adult is using a pacemaker can I stab said adult?
Fallacy Five: Life starts when the child isn"t depending on any outside force.
Rebuttal: If you are on a respirator can I stab you.
Fallacy Six: Abortion is ok because the child does"t feel pain.
Rebuttal: Can I kill you if you are on anesthesia
Fallacy Seven: Abortion is necessary to prevent parents from being financially incapacitated
Rebuttal: You don"t get to kill children for money, you don"t get to kill children for your own convenience

Noe of these are relevant because they pre-suppose the personhood of the fetus- that has not been established.

The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children.

Because being a "child" assumes being a "person". We haven't made that connection.

It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

That has not been shown.

I am not comfortable with abortion in many ways- it's a difficult question.

But you have not answered it here.
UseYOURname
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2018 1:49:33 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/16/2018 3:25:25 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

But we are always happy to end life if it is convenient. We kill for food, we kill bacteria to stop them making us sick, we kill insects just because they annoy us. The fact something is life does not stop us killing it.

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.

Sure. That does not mean it has yet obtained rights as a person.

To draw any line of the human life other than conception is impossible.

No, but to draw the line as to when rights are assumed to have been granted is not impossible.

Fallacy one: Life starts at the first breath
Rebuttal: Is it ok to stab fully formed adults with iron lungs
Fallacy two: Life starts as the child physically exits the womb
Rebuttal: The child is exactly the same 1 second before exit from the womb as it is 1 second after exit from the womb. Defend killing identical children based on their location.
Fallacy three: Life starts when the child becomes sentient
Rebuttal: Is it ok to kill fully formed adults in comas?
Fallacy four: Life starts at the heartbeat
Rebuttal: If a fully formed adult is using a pacemaker can I stab said adult?
Fallacy Five: Life starts when the child isn"t depending on any outside force.
Rebuttal: If you are on a respirator can I stab you.
Fallacy Six: Abortion is ok because the child does"t feel pain.
Rebuttal: Can I kill you if you are on anesthesia
Fallacy Seven: Abortion is necessary to prevent parents from being financially incapacitated
Rebuttal: You don"t get to kill children for money, you don"t get to kill children for your own convenience

Noe of these are relevant because they pre-suppose the personhood of the fetus- that has not been established.

The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children.

Because being a "child" assumes being a "person". We haven't made that connection.

It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

That has not been shown.

I am not comfortable with abortion in many ways- it's a difficult question.

But you have not answered it here.

You agree that it's a life, however you are still think that it should be killed? I'm confused. You compare the human life to a fly, this is faulty. To suggest that the human life is nearly on the same level of a gnat or cow is horrendous. Humans are conscious, humans build things, humans are the future of this universe. To compare a conscious race capable of building great and complex machines to a gadfly is unbelievably dumb.

Your next argument doesn't make any sense and is honestly inconsistent. You argue about why being able to kill living things is OK and then you say that the fetus isn't a living thing. The entire paragraph was directed towards establishing the premise that fertilized eggs confer person hood and then you say that that premise wasn't established.

Child and person are the same thing, children are adolescent forms of adults. You can't stab a five year old, it has undeniable intrinsic value, the point of the paragraph is to articulate that the intrinsic value is identical.

It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

That has not been shown.

I just showed you why?

To conclude:

1) The human life is of superior intrinsic value then any other discovered race of living beings.
2) Fetuses are children
3) You can't stab children
UseYOURname
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2018 1:50:12 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/16/2018 3:25:25 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

But we are always happy to end life if it is convenient. We kill for food, we kill bacteria to stop them making us sick, we kill insects just because they annoy us. The fact something is life does not stop us killing it.

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.

Sure. That does not mean it has yet obtained rights as a person.

To draw any line of the human life other than conception is impossible.

No, but to draw the line as to when rights are assumed to have been granted is not impossible.

Fallacy one: Life starts at the first breath
Rebuttal: Is it ok to stab fully formed adults with iron lungs
Fallacy two: Life starts as the child physically exits the womb
Rebuttal: The child is exactly the same 1 second before exit from the womb as it is 1 second after exit from the womb. Defend killing identical children based on their location.
Fallacy three: Life starts when the child becomes sentient
Rebuttal: Is it ok to kill fully formed adults in comas?
Fallacy four: Life starts at the heartbeat
Rebuttal: If a fully formed adult is using a pacemaker can I stab said adult?
Fallacy Five: Life starts when the child isn"t depending on any outside force.
Rebuttal: If you are on a respirator can I stab you.
Fallacy Six: Abortion is ok because the child does"t feel pain.
Rebuttal: Can I kill you if you are on anesthesia
Fallacy Seven: Abortion is necessary to prevent parents from being financially incapacitated
Rebuttal: You don"t get to kill children for money, you don"t get to kill children for your own convenience

Noe of these are relevant because they pre-suppose the personhood of the fetus- that has not been established.

The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children.

Because being a "child" assumes being a "person". We haven't made that connection.

It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

That has not been shown.

I am not comfortable with abortion in many ways- it's a difficult question.

But you have not answered it here.

You agree that it's a life, however you are still think that it should be killed? I'm confused. You compare the human life to a fly, this is faulty. To suggest that the human life is nearly on the same level of a gnat or cow is horrendous. Humans are conscious, humans build things, humans are the future of this universe. To compare a conscious race capable of building great and complex machines to a gadfly is unbelievably dumb.

Your next argument doesn't make any sense and is honestly inconsistent. You argue about why being able to kill living things is OK and then you say that the fetus isn't a living thing. The entire paragraph was directed towards establishing the premise that fertilized eggs confer person hood and then you say that that premise wasn't established.

Child and person are the same thing, children are adolescent forms of adults. You can't stab a five year old, it has undeniable intrinsic value, the point of the paragraph is to articulate that the intrinsic value is identical.

It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

That has not been shown.:

I just showed you why?

To conclude:

1) The human life is of superior intrinsic value then any other discovered race of living beings.
2) Fetuses are children
3) You can't stab children
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2018 6:02:47 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/17/2018 1:49:33 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
At 6/16/2018 3:25:25 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

But we are always happy to end life if it is convenient. We kill for food, we kill bacteria to stop them making us sick, we kill insects just because they annoy us. The fact something is life does not stop us killing it.

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.

Sure. That does not mean it has yet obtained rights as a person.

To draw any line of the human life other than conception is impossible.

No, but to draw the line as to when rights are assumed to have been granted is not impossible.

Fallacy one: Life starts at the first breath
Rebuttal: Is it ok to stab fully formed adults with iron lungs
Fallacy two: Life starts as the child physically exits the womb
Rebuttal: The child is exactly the same 1 second before exit from the womb as it is 1 second after exit from the womb. Defend killing identical children based on their location.
Fallacy three: Life starts when the child becomes sentient
Rebuttal: Is it ok to kill fully formed adults in comas?
Fallacy four: Life starts at the heartbeat
Rebuttal: If a fully formed adult is using a pacemaker can I stab said adult?
Fallacy Five: Life starts when the child isn"t depending on any outside force.
Rebuttal: If you are on a respirator can I stab you.
Fallacy Six: Abortion is ok because the child does"t feel pain.
Rebuttal: Can I kill you if you are on anesthesia
Fallacy Seven: Abortion is necessary to prevent parents from being financially incapacitated
Rebuttal: You don"t get to kill children for money, you don"t get to kill children for your own convenience

Noe of these are relevant because they pre-suppose the personhood of the fetus- that has not been established.

The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children.

Because being a "child" assumes being a "person". We haven't made that connection.

It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

That has not been shown.

I am not comfortable with abortion in many ways- it's a difficult question.

But you have not answered it here.

You agree that it's a life, however you are still think that it should be killed?

The fact is is a human life does not mean it is a person, and therefore has not necessarily assumed Human rights. One person that IS a person is the mother, who absolutely has rights.

We are therefore in the situation of weighing the respective rights of an Adult Human and a semi-formed fetus.

I'm confused. You compare the human life to a fly, this is faulty. To suggest that the human life is nearly on the same level of a gnat or cow is horrendous.

But your whole argument was a fetus should not be killed as it met the requirements to be classified as life. So does a fly and a cow, so clearly simply being life doesn't exclude killing. Being a PERSON does- and it is that you have not established.

Indeed- at the stage we are talking about, a fetus has nowhere near the functionality or intellect of a cow.

Humans are conscious, humans build things,

Fetuses don't.

humans are the future of this universe.

I have no idea what you mean by that- in fact we're doing a pretty good job of ruining our own tiny piece of the Universe.

To compare a conscious race capable of building great and complex machines to a gadfly is unbelievably dumb.

Suggesting a fetus can do any of that is dumber.

Your next argument doesn't make any sense and is honestly inconsistent. You argue about why being able to kill living things is OK and then you say that the fetus isn't a living thing.

I did not say it wasn't a living thing, I said it wasn't a PERSON.

The entire paragraph was directed towards establishing the premise that fertilized eggs confer person hood and then you say that that premise wasn't established.

It wasn't.

Child and person are the same thing,

Child yes- Fetus, not established.

children are adolescent forms of adults. You can't stab a five year old, it has undeniable intrinsic value, the point of the paragraph is to articulate that the intrinsic value is identical.

A fetus is not a five year old, and a five year olds existence does not require it to live inside the womb of a person with sovereign rights to their own body


It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception.
This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

That has not been shown.

I just showed you why?

No you did not, you merely asserted it.

To conclude:

1) The human life is of superior intrinsic value then any other discovered race of living beings.

No, it is not. We have no greater or lesser intrinsic right to life than a mushroom. We have DECIDED as a species to put our own interests as paramount, and I have no problem with that, but it is not intrinsic.

2) Fetuses are children

No they are not.

3) You can't stab children

I'm not suggesting we do.
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 2:48:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/17/2018 3:29:17 PM, UseYOURname wrote:
When do you believe personhood starts if not at conception.

That's the whole point- it is a matter of opinion. I may have one, but it does not constitute a fact.

Some suggest the point at which the Fetus cold live outside the womb- I personally don't see that as being relevant- you wouldn't induce the birth of an otherwise healthy fetus at 24 weeks as the chances of complications are so high.

Some suggest when a nervous system has formed, and thus a pain response can be postulated, but an involuntary reaction to stimuli is not necessarily the same thing as "feeling pain".

However, while I was saying, and maintain, that you have not established the personhood of the fetus, even if you do you are still faced with a dilemma.

One person cannot be coerced into risking their health and livelihood for the benefit of another, even if the others life depends on it. I can't be forced to donate blood for you, even if we share a rare blood type nd me refusing will result in your death.

There is therefore a valid argument that at no stage, person or not, is a woman obliged to have her body used as another's incubator , this should be her choice.

I'm not saying I totally agree with that- i'm pointing out, as I have from the start, that none of this is clear-cut and if you think your OP was a slam-dunk argument against abortion, you are very wrong.

PERSONALLY I would like to see a limit of around 12 weeks- but ONLY in the situation where women have easy access to sex education (REAL sex education, not "abstinence only" education), contraception and comprehensive health care.

I feel that in those circumstances, women have enough opportunity to understand the consequences of sex, minimize the prospect of unwanted pregnancy, and have access to detection and termination of unwanted pregnancies in early term.

None of this exists in many states in America- particularly the most supposedly "pro life' ones, so 24 weeks seems more reasonable there.

I would make an absolute exception for rape, incest, under aged girls and cases of coercion by spouse or family.

I'm also in favor of the Scandinavian idea of "male abortion" where a man can divorce himself from, but gives up any parental rights to a baby, in a situation where he wants an abortion but the mother decides to have the child.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 4:37:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.

Wiz is doing a great job of exposing how just the criteria you mention lack, so I am going to address the so called fallacies you list below.

To draw any line of the human life other than conception is impossible.

Fallacy one: Life starts at the first breath
Rebuttal: Is it ok to stab fully formed adults with iron lungs

Life starts at the first breath, those in iron lungs have already had their first breath, and are still alive, even if they are not breathing on their own.

Fallacy two: Life starts as the child physically exits the womb
Rebuttal: The child is exactly the same 1 second before exit from the womb as it is 1 second after exit from the womb. Defend killing identical children based on their location.

This isn't a rebuttal, you are asking for justification, not rebutting the point. Whether or not the life is the same is not in question, nor is your location argument germane to the point. Arguably, a man in a residence uninvited vs outside a residence enjoys a variety of difference protections.

Fallacy three: Life starts when the child becomes sentient
Rebuttal: Is it ok to kill fully formed adults in comas?

Yes, though indirectly.

Fallacy four: Life starts at the heartbeat
Rebuttal: If a fully formed adult is using a pacemaker can I stab said adult?

I don't see why. Pacemakers don't generate heart beats.

Fallacy Five: Life starts when the child isn"t depending on any outside force.
Rebuttal: If you are on a respirator can I stab you.

Depends on if its your respirator on not. See refer to my previous about 'protections' and 'location'.

Fallacy Six: Abortion is ok because the child does"t feel pain.
Rebuttal: Can I kill you if you are on anesthesia

This one is a strawman, no one is saying that its 'okay' (morally right), its a matter of more humane than other possibilities.

Fallacy Seven: Abortion is necessary to prevent parents from being financially incapacitated
Rebuttal: You don"t get to kill children for money, you don"t get to kill children for your own convenience

This depends upon the nature of the fetus. I would argue that if the fetus poses some variety of high risk, or noticed deformation, one that might require a lifetime of care with absolutely no chance of recovery, that yes, an abortion very well might be reasonable.


The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults.

Well, minus the fallacious answers, and plays fast and loose with notions of humanity and humane efforts.

So why is it ok for children. It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves.

Who said life is fair?

The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

P.S
Sorry for the weird apostrophes, it"s changing then into quotes for some reason.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
UseYOURname
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 11:20:53 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/18/2018 4:37:03 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.

Wiz is doing a great job of exposing how just the criteria you mention lack, so I am going to address the so called fallacies you list below.

To draw any line of the human life other than conception is impossible.

Fallacy one: Life starts at the first breath
Rebuttal: Is it ok to stab fully formed adults with iron lungs

Life starts at the first breath, those in iron lungs have already had their first breath, and are still alive, even if they are not breathing on their own.
That"s not necessarily true, there are plenty of people who have been on oxygen their entire life.

Fallacy two: Life starts as the child physically exits the womb
Rebuttal: The child is exactly the same 1 second before exit from the womb as it is 1 second after exit from the womb. Defend killing identical children based on their location.

This isn't a rebuttal, you are asking for justification, not rebutting the point. Whether or not the life is the same is not in question, nor is your location argument germane to the point. Arguably, a man in a residence uninvited vs outside a residence enjoys a variety of difference protections.

Whether or not the life is the same is the question. If it"s the same exact thing, why is it ok to kill it based on its location.
Fallacy three: Life starts when the child becomes sentient
Rebuttal: Is it ok to kill fully formed adults in comas?

Yes, though indirectly.
Only if they have a minor chance of survival. Odds are, this child will be delivered.

Fallacy four: Life starts at the heartbeat
Rebuttal: If a fully formed adult is using a pacemaker can I stab said adult?

I don't see why. Pacemakers don't generate heart beats.
They"re supplementing your heartbeat, if you didn"t have the pacemaker your heart would not beat; therefore your heartbeats are artificial and you aren"t generating heartbeats on your own.

Fallacy Five: Life starts when the child isn"t depending on any outside force.
Rebuttal: If you are on a respirator can I stab you.

Depends on if its your respirator on not. See refer to my previous about 'protections' and 'location'.
This point has nothing to do with location, I was talking about the fetus being unable to exist outside the mothers womb. Some abortionists say that it"s proof that the fetus isn"t living since it"s not viable, I was rebuting that point.

Fallacy Six: Abortion is ok because the child does"t feel pain.
Rebuttal: Can I kill you if you are on anesthesia

This one is a strawman, no one is saying that its 'okay' (morally right), its a matter of more humane than other possibilities.
I did a debate with this girl who claimed that it was ok because they couldn"t feel pain, you can check my profile. I was making my arguement to those people.

Fallacy Seven: Abortion is necessary to prevent parents from being financially incapacitated
Rebuttal: You don"t get to kill children for money, you don"t get to kill children for your own convenience

This depends upon the nature of the fetus. I would argue that if the fetus poses some variety of high risk, or noticed deformation, one that might require a lifetime of care with absolutely no chance of recovery, that yes, an abortion very well might be reasonable.

I would agree here, if the fetus has no chance of living upon birth, then it should be aborted. However if the fetus is going to turn into a child with Down syndrome, I worry that the US will turn into the UK with a 90% fatality rate of fetuses with Down syndrome due to abortions.

The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults.

Well, minus the fallacious answers, and plays fast and loose with notions of humanity and humane efforts.
Not all of the points were addressed to you. I expected dumber people.

So why is it ok for children. It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves.

Who said life is fair?
I want it to be fair, most people are pursuing some sort of justice, in an attempt to right the unfair instances all over the world. It"s basic human nature to correct instances of injustice. This is a dumb arguement

The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

P.S
Sorry for the weird apostrophes, it"s changing then into quotes for some reason.
UseYOURname
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 11:26:13 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/18/2018 2:48:37 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 6/17/2018 3:29:17 PM, UseYOURname wrote:
When do you believe personhood starts if not at conception.

That's the whole point- it is a matter of opinion. I may have one, but it does not constitute a fact.

Some suggest the point at which the Fetus cold live outside the womb- I personally don't see that as being relevant- you wouldn't induce the birth of an otherwise healthy fetus at 24 weeks as the chances of complications are so high.


Some suggest when a nervous system has formed, and thus a pain response can be postulated, but an involuntary reaction to stimuli is not necessarily the same thing as "feeling pain".

However, while I was saying, and maintain, that you have not established the personhood of the fetus, even if you do you are still faced with a dilemma.

One person cannot be coerced into risking their health and livelihood for the benefit of another, even if the others life depends on it. I can't be forced to donate blood for you, even if we share a rare blood type nd me refusing will result in your death.


There is therefore a valid argument that at no stage, person or not, is a woman obliged to have her body used as another's incubator , this should be her choice.

I'm not saying I totally agree with that- i'm pointing out, as I have from the start, that none of this is clear-cut and if you think your OP was a slam-dunk argument against abortion, you are very wrong.

PERSONALLY I would like to see a limit of around 12 weeks- but ONLY in the situation where women have easy access to sex education (REAL sex education, not "abstinence only" education), contraception and comprehensive health care.


I feel that in those circumstances, women have enough opportunity to understand the consequences of sex, minimize the prospect of unwanted pregnancy, and have access to detection and termination of unwanted pregnancies in early term.

None of this exists in many states in America- particularly the most supposedly "pro life' ones, so 24 weeks seems more reasonable there.

I would make an absolute exception for rape, incest, under aged girls and cases of coercion by spouse or family.

I'm also in favor of the Scandinavian idea of "male abortion" where a man can divorce himself from, but gives up any parental rights to a baby, in a situation where he wants an abortion but the mother decides to have the child.

I actually agree with most of this. Except the contraceptive part and the abortion part of course. You can buy a 20 pack of condoms for like 12$ at your local CVS and there is no age limit. I would not make an exception for all underaged girls. I also believe that rape should be punished way more heavily than it is currently, I believe we have over one million untested rape kits. Someone needs to follow through with those and arrest all of those who have done wrong.
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 1:06:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/18/2018 11:26:13 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
At 6/18/2018 2:48:37 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 6/17/2018 3:29:17 PM, UseYOURname wrote:
When do you believe personhood starts if not at conception.

That's the whole point- it is a matter of opinion. I may have one, but it does not constitute a fact.

Some suggest the point at which the Fetus cold live outside the womb- I personally don't see that as being relevant- you wouldn't induce the birth of an otherwise healthy fetus at 24 weeks as the chances of complications are so high.


Some suggest when a nervous system has formed, and thus a pain response can be postulated, but an involuntary reaction to stimuli is not necessarily the same thing as "feeling pain".

However, while I was saying, and maintain, that you have not established the personhood of the fetus, even if you do you are still faced with a dilemma.

One person cannot be coerced into risking their health and livelihood for the benefit of another, even if the others life depends on it. I can't be forced to donate blood for you, even if we share a rare blood type nd me refusing will result in your death.


There is therefore a valid argument that at no stage, person or not, is a woman obliged to have her body used as another's incubator , this should be her choice.

I'm not saying I totally agree with that- i'm pointing out, as I have from the start, that none of this is clear-cut and if you think your OP was a slam-dunk argument against abortion, you are very wrong.

PERSONALLY I would like to see a limit of around 12 weeks- but ONLY in the situation where women have easy access to sex education (REAL sex education, not "abstinence only" education), contraception and comprehensive health care.


I feel that in those circumstances, women have enough opportunity to understand the consequences of sex, minimize the prospect of unwanted pregnancy, and have access to detection and termination of unwanted pregnancies in early term.

None of this exists in many states in America- particularly the most supposedly "pro life' ones, so 24 weeks seems more reasonable there.

I would make an absolute exception for rape, incest, under aged girls and cases of coercion by spouse or family.

I'm also in favor of the Scandinavian idea of "male abortion" where a man can divorce himself from, but gives up any parental rights to a baby, in a situation where he wants an abortion but the mother decides to have the child.

I actually agree with most of this. Except the contraceptive part and the abortion part of course. You can buy a 20 pack of condoms for like 12$ at your local CVS and there is no age limit. I would not make an exception for all underaged girls. I also believe that rape should be punished way more heavily than it is currently, I believe we have over one million untested rape kits. Someone needs to follow through with those and arrest all of those who have done wrong.

It's a complex issue, and one I have very conflicted feelings about.

Thanks for a reasonable discussion.
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 3:14:23 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/17/2018 6:02:47 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 6/17/2018 1:49:33 AM, UseYOURname wrote:

You agree that it's a life, however you are still think that it should be killed?

The fact is is a human life does not mean it is a person, and therefore has not necessarily assumed Human rights. One person that IS a person is the mother, who absolutely has rights.

Ummm... aren't human rights by definition rights that belong to all humans? Our entire legal system is predicated upon the concept of inalienable rights. This means that the rights are intrinsic to the organism and are neither gained nor lost.

One could easily make the same argument 200 years ago:

The fact is is a human life does not mean it is a person, and therefore has not necessarily assumed Human rights. One person that IS a person is the plantation owner, who absolutely has rights.

We have had a very good history of denying fundamental human rights based on saying you must be human AND possess some other subjective quality.

We are therefore in the situation of weighing the respective rights of an Adult Human and a semi-formed fetus.

So the mother is the owner of the child? Funny how it always comes back to slavery.

I'm confused. You compare the human life to a fly, this is faulty. To suggest that the human life is nearly on the same level of a gnat or cow is horrendous.

But your whole argument was a fetus should not be killed as it met the requirements to be classified as life. So does a fly and a cow, so clearly simply being life doesn't exclude killing. Being a PERSON does- and it is that you have not established.

The bigger question is how can you not consider every human to be a person. You would have to deny inalienable rights which means that there are no rights, and personhood is a subjective term. Rather one should view personhood not as a subset, but rather a superset of humanity.

A person was best defined by Boethius as an individual substance of a rational nature.

Indeed- at the stage we are talking about, a fetus has nowhere near the functionality or intellect of a cow.

Sooooo your local burger joint should sell baby burgers?

Your next argument doesn't make any sense and is honestly inconsistent. You argue about why being able to kill living things is OK and then you say that the fetus isn't a living thing.

I did not say it wasn't a living thing, I said it wasn't a PERSON.

Can you prove that? Personhood has become a nebulous term to deny fundamental human right to humans. Just like Germany legally made Jews non-persons.

Child and person are the same thing,

Child yes- Fetus, not established.

It is incongruent to believe that the same organism can have changing inherent rights.

children are adolescent forms of adults. You can't stab a five year old, it has undeniable intrinsic value, the point of the paragraph is to articulate that the intrinsic value is identical.

A fetus is not a five year old, and a five year olds existence does not require it to live inside the womb of a person with sovereign rights to their own body

So level of dependency is the personhood criteria now? Does a woman have absolute sovereign right to her body, when a portion of her body is explicitly designed to protect and nurture her unborn? Would you also say that a woman would have the right to refuse her breast milk to her new born even if it meant the death of the child?

1) The human life is of superior intrinsic value then any other discovered race of living beings.

No, it is not. We have no greater or lesser intrinsic right to life than a mushroom. We have DECIDED as a species to put our own interests as paramount, and I have no problem with that, but it is not intrinsic.

Then you'd better give the US back to England because the entire premise of separating was built upon a faulty assertion.

2) Fetuses are children

No they are not.

Actually it is basic biology that they are the children of the parents.
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 3:50:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/18/2018 3:14:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/17/2018 6:02:47 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 6/17/2018 1:49:33 AM, UseYOURname wrote:

You agree that it's a life, however you are still think that it should be killed?

The fact is is a human life does not mean it is a person, and therefore has not necessarily assumed Human rights. One person that IS a person is the mother, who absolutely has rights.

Ummm... aren't human rights by definition rights that belong to all humans? Our entire legal system is predicated upon the concept of inalienable rights. This means that the rights are intrinsic to the organism and are neither gained nor lost.

No. They don't apply to people who don't yet exist. they are gained when the person comes into existence.

It is not established that conception is the point at which the person comes in to being.

One could easily make the same argument 200 years ago:

The fact is is a human life does not mean it is a person, and therefore has not necessarily assumed Human rights. One person that IS a person is the plantation owner, who absolutely has rights.

We have had a very good history of denying fundamental human rights based on saying you must be human AND possess some other subjective quality.

But even there, it is a disservice because the person being disadvantaged is a person. Things which are not people do not get rights.

We are therefore in the situation of weighing the respective rights of an Adult Human and a semi-formed fetus.

So the mother is the owner of the child? Funny how it always comes back to slavery.

No, the Mother is the owner of the mother. She has rights over her own body. She does not own the child, but nor is she owned BY the child, who has no rights to her body.

I'm confused. You compare the human life to a fly, this is faulty. To suggest that the human life is nearly on the same level of a gnat or cow is horrendous.

But your whole argument was a fetus should not be killed as it met the requirements to be classified as life. So does a fly and a cow, so clearly simply being life doesn't exclude killing. Being a PERSON does- and it is that you have not established.

The bigger question is how can you not consider every human to be a person.

Because they are different things. A single fertilized cell does not meet the requirements, in my opinion, to be called a person.

You would have to deny inalienable rights which means that there are no rights, and personhood is a subjective term.

Yes, it is. That's the point. Not everything is objective in the world. Sorry.

Rather one should view personhood not as a subset, but rather a superset of humanity.

Why?

A person was best defined by Boethius as an individual substance of a rational nature.

A fetus does not meet that standard.

Indeed- at the stage we are talking about, a fetus has nowhere near the functionality or intellect of a cow.

Sooooo your local burger joint should sell baby burgers?

I'd have no moral objection to that- but it doesn't sound economically viable.



Your next argument doesn't make any sense and is honestly inconsistent. You argue about why being able to kill living things is OK and then you say that the fetus isn't a living thing.

I did not say it wasn't a living thing, I said it wasn't a PERSON.

Can you prove that? Personhood has become a nebulous term to deny fundamental human right to humans. Just like Germany legally made Jews non-persons.

Why does it always come down to Nazis? no, I can't prove it. It's a subjective opinion. But it is an EXTREME opinion to say one cell is a person.

Child and person are the same thing,

Child yes- Fetus, not established.

It is incongruent to believe that the same organism can have changing inherent rights.

No, it isn't. Even after birth, a child does not have the same rights as an adult. So suggesting a few cells have the same rights as a fully formed person is facile. AND you are determined to ignore the part that clearly has rights- the mother.

children are adolescent forms of adults. You can't stab a five year old, it has undeniable intrinsic value, the point of the paragraph is to articulate that the intrinsic value is identical.

A fetus is not a five year old, and a five year olds existence does not require it to live inside the womb of a person with sovereign rights to their own body

So level of dependency is the personhood criteria now? Does a woman have absolute sovereign right to her body, when a portion of her body is explicitly designed to protect and nurture her unborn?

The answer would be yes in any case. It's her body. the fact that we are NOT designed makes the question irrelevant anyway.

Would you also say that a woman would have the right to refuse her breast milk to her new born even if it meant the death of the child?

Yes. Do you have the right to not donate a kidney, even if it means death to another?


1) The human life is of superior intrinsic value then any other discovered race of living beings.

No, it is not. We have no greater or lesser intrinsic right to life than a mushroom. We have DECIDED as a species to put our own interests as paramount, and I have no problem with that, but it is not intrinsic.

Then you'd better give the US back to England because the entire premise of separating was built upon a faulty assertion.

I guess so.

2) Fetuses are children

No they are not.

Actually it is basic biology that they are the children of the parents.

Do you wish to argue in good faith, or play semantics?
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 5:16:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/18/2018 3:50:59 PM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 6/18/2018 3:14:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Ummm... aren't human rights by definition rights that belong to all humans? Our entire legal system is predicated upon the concept of inalienable rights. This means that the rights are intrinsic to the organism and are neither gained nor lost.

No. They don't apply to people who don't yet exist. they are gained when the person comes into existence.

Actually they aren't gained. Gained implies that the rights of that person didn't exist at some time. It can be said that someone didn't exist, but their rights are never gained.

It is not established that conception is the point at which the person comes in to being.

Embryology denotes exactly when human life begins to exist. That is conception. Thus that is exactly when a person also comes into being.

We have had a very good history of denying fundamental human rights based on saying you must be human AND possess some other subjective quality.

But even there, it is a disservice because the person being disadvantaged is a person.

Yes, just as the unborn (who are people) are currently being disadvantaged by not having their personhood recognized.

Things which are not people do not get rights.

Fully agree there.

So the mother is the owner of the child? Funny how it always comes back to slavery.

No, the Mother is the owner of the mother.

However, if the mother can kill the child at her whim, she effectively owns the child.

She has rights over her own body. She does not own the child, but nor is she owned BY the child, who has no rights to her body.

Doesn't the child have a right to use her body in the manner that her body was designed and for the purpose that it was designed? We recognize the duty of parents to provide for the child once born - because this is the inherent means by which our species is propagated. Likewise there is a duty to protect and sustain the child until birth. The fact that due to the fragility of life at the youngest ages this can only be accomplished by one person is not a refutation of personhood, but rather the depth of the responsibility

The bigger question is how can you not consider every human to be a person.

Because they are different things. A single fertilized cell does not meet the requirements, in my opinion, to be called a person.

And this is why personhood as a subset of humanity is a joke. It is a subjective opinion and one contrary to the entire concept of rights.

You see every abuse of personhood is that they are human AND some other arbitrary attribute. It is an attempt to circumvent the simple understanding that all human life is inherently equal.

You would have to deny inalienable rights which means that there are no rights, and personhood is a subjective term.

Yes, it is. That's the point. Not everything is objective in the world. Sorry.

Then the entire concept that you are advancing is actually useless. It means that there are no fundamental rights, and it means that any subjugation is just if enacted by law. You have ceded all rights to the government and your rule of law is no more or less just that North Korea's.

Rather one should view personhood not as a subset, but rather a superset of humanity.

Why?

Because many things could be persons, aliens, some future form of AI, God and angels (if they exist). They would all be persons because they would meet the criteria of possessing a rational nature.

A person was best defined by Boethius as an individual substance of a rational nature.

A fetus does not meet that standard.

It does. a fetus possesses a rational nature. It merely requires time until it can express it. The natural state of humans is one of rationality, it is merely an 'accident' of age that it cannot currently express said rationality.

Sooooo your local burger joint should sell baby burgers?

I'd have no moral objection to that- but it doesn't sound economically viable.

Then there is no bother is talking to you. You are the same as the Chinese government that will kick in baby's heads because the mother exceeded the one child policy. You don't actually believe in rights (except you want them applied to you).

Can you prove that? Personhood has become a nebulous term to deny fundamental human right to humans. Just like Germany legally made Jews non-persons.

Why does it always come down to Nazis? no, I can't prove it. It's a subjective opinion. But it is an EXTREME opinion to say one cell is a person.

Why? Just because it doesn't look like you and me yet? You were once one. Being a zygote is no different than being a baby or a teenager. Just a developmental stage that we must all go through.

It is incongruent to believe that the same organism can have changing inherent rights.

No, it isn't. Even after birth, a child does not have the same rights as an adult.

It has the same negative rights. It has (as the US Founding Fathers argued) the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The positive rights that society grants to effectively enable those negative rights are applied to the individual as their ongoing maturity enables them to apply those rights as a fruitful member of society.

So suggesting a few cells have the same rights as a fully formed person is facile. AND you are determined to ignore the part that clearly has rights- the mother.

On the contrary I grant equal rights to all humans - hence human rights and true equality before the law.

So level of dependency is the personhood criteria now? Does a woman have absolute sovereign right to her body, when a portion of her body is explicitly designed to protect and nurture her unborn?

The answer would be yes in any case. It's her body. the fact that we are NOT designed makes the question irrelevant anyway.

Whether it is evolution or God, there is a design. Just as your brain, heart and skin serve a specific purpose, so does a woman's uterus. In fact, we wouldn't even have a sex drive if not for the explicit purpose of procreation.

Would you also say that a woman would have the right to refuse her breast milk to her new born even if it meant the death of the child?

Yes. Do you have the right to not donate a kidney, even if it means death to another?

Ah but my kidney is designed to filter my blood. That I can use it for a secondary purpose makes it my choice. A woman's breasts and milk exist primarily for the nurturing of her child. Her uterus serves no other purpose than the protection and nurturing of her unborn. You are denying the explicit reason that things exist in order to violate natural law and human rights.

Then you'd better give the US back to England because the entire premise of separating was built upon a faulty assertion.

I guess so.

You are just a lawless being if that is the case. Might makes right.

Actually it is basic biology that they are the children of the parents.

Do you wish to argue in good faith, or play semantics?

I am discussing in good faith. From the moment the egg and the sperm merge a new human organism is created. Biologically this organism is the child organism of the parents forever. If you are talking socially, then any human that has not yet reached he age of 18 years after birth is considered a child - this still applies to the unborn.

The only sense in which it does not apply is the usage of child as a youth older than a toddler, but younger than a teenager.

It is more that you do not like to think of the unborn as children, than any misuse of the word on my part.
Hawkingn
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 8:43:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
You think that abortion is a question based on the life of the foetus (which doesn't technically start until the foetus is independent from the mother, until then the foetus is akin to an organ in the mother's body), but that is the wrong metric. The right metric, if you were to ask me, is based on the consciousness of the foetus. Taking this model, i think that abortion is okay, not necessarily because your not killing a living thing, but because your not killing a conscious being. This logic is already applied in plenty of non abortion related places, such as when someone is still alive, but is brain dead, after a few days the plug is pulled, and that person is killed.
One argument that may be used against this line of logic, is that the foetus could develop into a fully conscious being, but to that, i rebut, the same can be said for all sperm and all ovaries, which all can become fully conscious beings eventually.
In conclusion, abortion is not immoral, not because your not killing a living being, but because your not killing a conscious being.

At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.

To draw any line of the human life other than conception is impossible.

Fallacy one: Life starts at the first breath
Rebuttal: Is it ok to stab fully formed adults with iron lungs
Fallacy two: Life starts as the child physically exits the womb
Rebuttal: The child is exactly the same 1 second before exit from the womb as it is 1 second after exit from the womb. Defend killing identical children based on their location.
Fallacy three: Life starts when the child becomes sentient
Rebuttal: Is it ok to kill fully formed adults in comas?
Fallacy four: Life starts at the heartbeat
Rebuttal: If a fully formed adult is using a pacemaker can I stab said adult?
Fallacy Five: Life starts when the child isn"t depending on any outside force.
Rebuttal: If you are on a respirator can I stab you.
Fallacy Six: Abortion is ok because the child does"t feel pain.
Rebuttal: Can I kill you if you are on anesthesia
Fallacy Seven: Abortion is necessary to prevent parents from being financially incapacitated
Rebuttal: You don"t get to kill children for money, you don"t get to kill children for your own convenience

The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children. It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

P.S
Sorry for the weird apostrophes, it"s changing then into quotes for some reason.
Cadmium7
Posts: 216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 11:19:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Very poor arguments from both sides.
Love to be right in the waves
Of your love enchanted with a touch
And it seems to me
We could sail together
In and out of mystery
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 11:21:23 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/18/2018 5:16:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Actually they aren't gained. Gained implies that the rights of that person didn't exist at some time. It can be said that someone didn't exist, but their rights are never gained.

So people not yet conceived have rights? I hardly think so. PEOPLE have rights, so someone has rights once they are a person, not before.

Embryology denotes exactly when human life begins to exist. That is conception. Thus that is exactly when a person also comes into being.

No. That is when life begins. Being a person is a different state, and it has not been definitively established when that takes place.

Yes, just as the unborn (who are people)

That has not been established. You don't get to assert that by fiat.

As an example, the Bible does not place the same value on a fetus as a person, and in one instance RECCOMENDS abortion.

are currently being disadvantaged by not having their personhood recognized.


As recognition as a person is what personhood is, not doing so MEANS they are nit a person.

However, if the mother can kill the child at her whim, she effectively owns the child.


That's like saying you "own" the home invader you shot. If, in asserting her rights, the child dies, it is incidental.

Doesn't the child have a right to use her body in the manner that her body was designed and for the purpose that it was designed?

Firstly it was not designed, it evolved. Secondly, no. You car was designed to carry five people. Are you obliged to pick up hitch hikers? No, because it's YOUR car.

We recognize the duty of parents to provide for the child once born - because this is the inherent means by which our species is propagated. Likewise there is a duty to protect and sustain the child until birth. The fact that due to the fragility of life at the youngest ages this can only be accomplished by one person is not a refutation of personhood, but rather the depth of the responsibility

And here I agree we have a case of competing rights, the mothers versus the child, once the held is a person. That's why I would advocate for restrictions after about 12 weeks.

But even then, the fact that one persons rights overlaps another's does not nullify either- it means a judgement must be made regarding whose rights are paramount.

Like I said to the OP, I'm simply pointing out the situation is complex- you choose to see it as black and white.

And this is why personhood as a subset of humanity is a joke. It is a subjective opinion and one contrary to the entire concept of rights.


Rights are subjective opinions. They are not universal. They are decided upon by societies and vary greatly. Abortion is legal in the USA because your supreme court examined the rights granted by your constitution. You disagree. that shows what is a right is a matter of opinion.

You see every abuse of personhood is that they are human AND some other arbitrary attribute. It is an attempt to circumvent the simple understanding that all human life is inherently equal.


Bald assertion. Two cells are not the equivalent of an adult human.

Then the entire concept that you are advancing is actually useless. It means that there are no fundamental rights,

True. There are not.

and it means that any subjugation is just if enacted by law. You have ceded all rights to the government and your rule of law is no more or less just that North Korea's.


Slippery slope fallacy. Laws are enacted by governments who SHOULD be reflecting the will of the populace. But you're right, there are no rights other than those we collectively decided we want to enforce.

Vegans state we are violating animals rights by eating them. Why don't animals have rights? because we haven't GIVEN them rights. We as a species decided what's right and wrong and we don't always agree.

Because many things could be persons, aliens, some future form of AI, God and angels (if they exist). They would all be persons because they would meet the criteria of possessing a rational nature.



Then we will make a collective decision as to how to deal with them when that happens, but nine are subject to some underlying, law of nature called "rights".

It does. a fetus possesses a rational nature.


Simply untrue. Rationality is a function of mind which requires a functioning brain. Two cells don't have that.

It merely requires time until it can express it. The natural state of humans is one of rationality, it is merely an 'accident' of age that it cannot currently express said rationality.


It is not an "accident", it is a deficiency. A fetus, indeed a baby, is not a rational creature any more than a hedgehog is.

Then there is no bother is talking to you. You are the same as the Chinese government that will kick in baby's heads because the mother exceeded the one child policy. You don't actually believe in rights (except you want them applied to you).


You asked a silly question and you got a silly answer.

Yes I believe in rights and I believe they should be applied to all people. I just understand that what those rights are is not always clear cut.

You, for instance, don't believe a Woman has the right to sovereignty over her own body. Shall I hysterically say you don't believe in rights and want to subjugate all women, or shall we keep the conversation reasonable?

Why? Just because it doesn't look like you and me yet?

Because it does not have the functional characteristics of a person.

You were once one. Being a zygote is no different than being a baby or a teenager. Just a developmental stage that we must all go through.

And our status and rights change as we go through those stages. All stages after birth do not require a woman to give over her womb to another.

It has the same negative rights.

Yes. Because we have decided it does. that's a decision we have made.

It has (as the US Founding Fathers argued) the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.



The US founding fathers were not the arbiter of Universal rights. I'm Australian. Your constitution doesn't go as far as ensuring the rights of non-Americans, does it- as you Southern border is currently demonstrating, and your Founding Fathers at the time did not apparently mean black people or women.

You apply those rights as you have decided to do, and how you do so has changed throughout your history.

The positive rights that society grants to effectively enable those negative rights are applied to the individual as their ongoing maturity enables them to apply those rights as a fruitful member of society.

Not true. Bums have the same rights as rocket engineers. They have those rights because you infer them upon people. Who and when you do so is up to you.

On the contrary I grant equal rights to all humans - hence human rights and true equality before the law.


You aren't in a position to grant right to anyone. You can have an OPINION on what rights people should have, but your granting the right to freedom on the North Korean Gulag inhabitants doesn't seem to be working, does it?

But the problem here is COMPETEIMNG rights- you simply continue to ignore a mothers right to sovereignty over her body- a right your constitution ensures and your supreme court has upheld.

Whether it is evolution or God, there is a design.



No, there is not. Design implies purpose. Evolution is not directed, it's just something that happened.

Just as your brain, heart and skin serve a specific purpose, so does a woman's uterus. In fact, we
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 11:38:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/18/2018 5:16:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Just as your brain, heart and skin serve a specific purpose, so does a woman's uterus. In fact, we wouldn't even have a sex drive if not for the explicit purpose of procreation.



True and irrelevant. I don't have the right to your heart, skin or blood. It's YOURS.

You are committing the fallacy of an appeal to naturalism- that we are somehow duty bound to do the things that have up until now has an evolutionary purpose. It is what happens when religious thinking meets naturalism.

It doesn't matter what our bodies have evolved to do, what "purpose" you think that implies- we have no duty to do anything- procreate as an example- just because our ancestors did. You are looking for an intrinsic rule book in nature to replace the one religious people believe was handed down from on high.

It doesn't exists.

As intelligent agent we get to decide what we want to do, within the bounds of rule set by the societies we choose to live in. there is no biological necessity to do anything, up to and including continuing to be alive. It is a decision for us to make.

Ah but my kidney is designed to filter my blood. That I can use it for a secondary purpose makes it my choice. A woman's breasts and milk exist primarily for the nurturing of her child. Her uterus serves no other purpose than the protection and nurturing of her unborn. You are denying the explicit reason that things exist in order to violate natural law and human rights.


Yes, I absolutely dent that they have an "implicit" purpose, that is the appeal to naturalism I explained above- you basically admit it by referring to "natural law"- there us no such thing.

It doesn't matter what a persons body was MEANT to do- that does not make it such that they HAVE or even SHOULD use it for that purpose. That's up to them.

You are just a lawless being if that is the case. Might makes right.

No. WE make right. Refer to what I previously said- your founding fathers separated in order to ensure the rights of white men- no one else. You have changed their definitions of what is right, don't pretend it is intrinsic.

I am discussing in good faith.

You were. the "child" remark was an exercise in flippant semantics.

From the moment the egg and the sperm merge a new human organism is created. Biologically this organism is the child organism of the parents forever.

And this is semantics. the word "child" has different connotations depending on context. The fact a word can be used in a particular way does not change the reality of a situation, it just shows the imperfection of the language. Two cells might be described as a persons "child", that does not make it a person.

If you are talking socially, then any human that has not yet reached he age of 18 years after birth is considered a child - this still applies to the unborn.

Again, semantics- use the word as you will. That does not make it a person.

The only sense in which it does not apply is the usage of child as a youth older than a toddler, but younger than a teenager.

It is more that you do not like to think of the unborn as children, than any misuse of the word on my part.


And you don't like to think of Women as having rights that conflict with a fetuses, or to think that a few cells or a very basic biology is a person.

I guess we all think a little differently. The mistake is thinking that difference is because one is intrinsically right and one isn't. It doesn't work that way.
Envisage
Posts: 3,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2018 2:05:07 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.
a) Yes it indeed does
b) So what? Bacteria and yeast also fulfil those same criteria, yet I don"t give a crap about killing them by the billions when I bake bread. Why should I care just because it has a human genome inside of it instead of a bacterial one? Being a living human isn"t sufficient for me to extend any rights to something. It needs something more than that - which is partially why we delineate between humans (from a biological perspective) and persons (from an ethical perspective).

The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children.

They aren"t children, they are foetuses, with very different stages of cognitive development - which is the thing I care about when discussing ethics - be it humans or other species.

It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

Depends on how you choose to define evil.

P.S
Sorry for the weird apostrophes, it"s changing then into quotes for some reason.
UseYOURname
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2018 11:34:20 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/19/2018 2:05:07 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.
a) Yes it indeed does
b) So what? Bacteria and yeast also fulfil those same criteria, yet I don"t give a crap about killing them by the billions when I bake bread. Why should I care just because it has a human genome inside of it instead of a bacterial one? Being a living human isn"t sufficient for me to extend any rights to something. It needs something more than that - which is partially why we delineate between humans (from a biological perspective) and persons (from an ethical perspective).

Adding some sort of extra criteria for when rights can be bestowed is fascist. Within our constitution, it says
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Men is short for mankind, which is short for humankind. By your criteria, since you agree that the zygote is a living human, it is endowed with these rights. If you choose to disagree with that clause of the constitution, I ask you to set the criteria for a human to obtain rights. It"s quite the coincidence that the arguement for abortion is exactly the same as the arguement for slavery: "These people are human, but they don"t deserve rights since they don"t fit the criteria we set for someone eligible for rights!" is almost the same as, "These fetuses are human but they don"t deserve rights because they don"t fit the criteria we set for someone eligible for rights." We shouldn"t be the ones setting the criteria, it"s either everyone has rights, or no one has rights; otherwise the government gets to decide who has rights and we turn into fascists.
The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children.

They aren"t children, they are foetuses, with very different stages of cognitive development - which is the thing I care about when discussing ethics - be it humans or other species.

What about retarded people? They have low cognitive development, I"d be hard-pressed to find someone killing living retarded people.
It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

Depends on how you choose to define evil.

P.S
Sorry for the weird apostrophes, it"s changing then into quotes for some reason.
Flatlander
Posts: 246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2018 1:30:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.

To draw any line of the human life other than conception is impossible.

Fallacy one: Life starts at the first breath
Rebuttal: Is it ok to stab fully formed adults with iron lungs
Fallacy two: Life starts as the child physically exits the womb
Rebuttal: The child is exactly the same 1 second before exit from the womb as it is 1 second after exit from the womb. Defend killing identical children based on their location.
Fallacy three: Life starts when the child becomes sentient
Rebuttal: Is it ok to kill fully formed adults in comas?
Fallacy four: Life starts at the heartbeat
Rebuttal: If a fully formed adult is using a pacemaker can I stab said adult?
Fallacy Five: Life starts when the child isn"t depending on any outside force.
Rebuttal: If you are on a respirator can I stab you.
Fallacy Six: Abortion is ok because the child does"t feel pain.
Rebuttal: Can I kill you if you are on anesthesia
Fallacy Seven: Abortion is necessary to prevent parents from being financially incapacitated
Rebuttal: You don"t get to kill children for money, you don"t get to kill children for your own convenience

The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children. It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

P.S
Sorry for the weird apostrophes, it"s changing then into quotes for some reason.

The goal is to limit the suffering of humans. Not to preserve human life.
So your argument on whether or not it is a human life yet, is irrelevant.

I think everyone would agree that forcing a woman to have an abortion is bad. And everyone would agree forcing a woman to get pregnant and have a child is bad.

But if a woman gets pregnant by accident or against her will suddenly people fall into 2 groups.

Group A: Thinks preventing a birth is the same as killing a baby. And murder is wrong.
Group B: Thinks preventing a birth is the same as birth control. No murder happens.

I think this argument is dumb on both sides.

The reason Abortion should be legal and offered is so that unwanted children aren't born into the world. Forcing women to have children they do not want has a high chance of causing suffering on both the future child and the parents. This is not the best way to reduce the suffering of humans in a society.
John_C_1812
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2018 1:31:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.

To draw any line of the human life other than conception is impossible.

Fallacy one: Life starts at the first breath
Rebuttal: Is it ok to stab fully formed adults with iron lungs
Fallacy two: Life starts as the child physically exits the womb
Rebuttal: The child is exactly the same 1 second before exit from the womb as it is 1 second after exit from the womb. Defend killing identical children based on their location.
Fallacy three: Life starts when the child becomes sentient
Rebuttal: Is it ok to kill fully formed adults in comas?
Fallacy four: Life starts at the heartbeat
Rebuttal: If a fully formed adult is using a pacemaker can I stab said adult?
Fallacy Five: Life starts when the child isn"t depending on any outside force.
Rebuttal: If you are on a respirator can I stab you.
Fallacy Six: Abortion is ok because the child does"t feel pain.
Rebuttal: Can I kill you if you are on anesthesia
Fallacy Seven: Abortion is necessary to prevent parents from being financially incapacitated
Rebuttal: You don"t get to kill children for money, you don"t get to kill children for your own convenience

The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children. It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

P.S
Sorry for the weird apostrophes, it"s changing then into quotes for some reason.

UseYOURname

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
No there is only one criteria necessary to establish an understanding of life to science it is the precedent set by peers of science.

.The embryo and sperm are both already alive the use of cryogenics with human embryo and sperm stored in banks already scientifically set this precedent.
.All practice of science is to lengthen the state of natural life started before insemination or conception. Two independent states of life are merged to form one longer life at the point of conception artificial or not.

.Something that is documented as living is a life. There are causes of death natural and unnatural. These are basic principles and not interpretations that create a conflict of interest within science.

. In a life"s quest for independence an end result can be seen as death. Female Specific Amputation is an answer in relationship to a Hippocratic Oath. Evil is a described vice of inherent indulgent sacrifice to the simpler minds choice of nothing more than less loss.
UseYOURname
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2018 7:20:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Flatlander wrote:
The goal is to limit the suffering of humans. Not to preserve human life.
So your argument on whether or not it is a human life yet, is irrelevant.

I think everyone would agree that forcing a woman to have an abortion is bad. And everyone would agree forcing a woman to get pregnant and have a child is bad.

But if a woman gets pregnant by accident or against her will suddenly people fall into 2 groups.

Group A: Thinks preventing a birth is the same as killing a baby. And murder is wrong.
Group B: Thinks preventing a birth is the same as birth control. No murder happens.

. You can use birth control to prevent pregnancy, you cannot use abortion to prevent pregnancy. There is important distinction between birth and pregnancy.
I think this argument is dumb on both sides.

You have only argued for pro-choice, saying it"s dumb on both sides is just a scapegoat.
The reason Abortion should be legal and offered is so that unwanted children aren't born into the world. Forcing women to have children they do not want has a high chance of causing suffering on both the future child and the parents. This is not the best way to reduce the suffering of humans in a society.
Forcing women to have children that they do not want to have, yet irresponsibly created is perfectly moral. If you don"t want to deal with the consequences of having unprotected sex then don"t have it, but if you do have it, and those consequences arise; then don"t murder your child. For you to agree that it"s a human life and then say it is still alright to kill it means that you argee with murder. Killing a human is murder. You don"t get to kill to prevent your eventual suffering that was onset by your individual irresponsibility.
Flatlander
Posts: 246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2018 7:29:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/19/2018 7:20:07 PM, UseYOURname wrote:
Flatlander wrote:
The goal is to limit the suffering of humans. Not to preserve human life.
So your argument on whether or not it is a human life yet, is irrelevant.

I think everyone would agree that forcing a woman to have an abortion is bad. And everyone would agree forcing a woman to get pregnant and have a child is bad.

But if a woman gets pregnant by accident or against her will suddenly people fall into 2 groups.

Group A: Thinks preventing a birth is the same as killing a baby. And murder is wrong.
Group B: Thinks preventing a birth is the same as birth control. No murder happens.

. You can use birth control to prevent pregnancy, you cannot use abortion to prevent pregnancy. There is important distinction between birth and pregnancy.
I think this argument is dumb on both sides.

You have only argued for pro-choice, saying it"s dumb on both sides is just a scapegoat.
The reason Abortion should be legal and offered is so that unwanted children aren't born into the world. Forcing women to have children they do not want has a high chance of causing suffering on both the future child and the parents. This is not the best way to reduce the suffering of humans in a society.
Forcing women to have children that they do not want to have, yet irresponsibly created is perfectly moral. If you don"t want to deal with the consequences of having unprotected sex then don"t have it, but if you do have it, and those consequences arise; then don"t murder your child. For you to agree that it"s a human life and then say it is still alright to kill it means that you argee with murder. Killing a human is murder. You don"t get to kill to prevent your eventual suffering that was onset by your individual irresponsibility.

Let me ask you, why is murder a bad thing? (I'm not saying it's a good thing, I want to know why you think killing another human is bad)
Envisage
Posts: 3,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2018 7:45:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/19/2018 11:34:20 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
At 6/19/2018 2:05:07 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.
a) Yes it indeed does
b) So what? Bacteria and yeast also fulfil those same criteria, yet I don"t give a crap about killing them by the billions when I bake bread. Why should I care just because it has a human genome inside of it instead of a bacterial one? Being a living human isn"t sufficient for me to extend any rights to something. It needs something more than that - which is partially why we delineate between humans (from a biological perspective) and persons (from an ethical perspective).

Adding some sort of extra criteria for when rights can be bestowed is fascist. Within our constitution, it says

Eh, fascist? Interested to see how you come to this conclusion:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

The US constitution is a claim to unalienable rights.

A claim.

I reject that claim. Self-evidence is evidence of nothing, except perhaps consciousness.

Men is short for mankind, which is short for humankind. By your criteria, since you agree that the zygote is a living human, it is endowed with these rights.

By the US and it's constitution perhaps. Again, why should anyone but the 5% of the world that lives there (if even then) care about that? I certainly don't.

If you choose to disagree with that clause of the constitution, I ask you to set the criteria for a human to obtain rights.

Rights are what we as society arbitrarily choose to endow. My criteria for a human to obtain rights is that it is a person. That is, a conscious entity with values and emotions.

Because that is that humans tend to value, rather than a cluster of cells by mere fact that it is a living thing containing human DNA...

Moreover persons are not human-specific, it would also extend to animals/aliens/AI/whatever if it meets the criteria of persons. The US constitution arbitrarily assigns universal value to one specific species - humans (if even that).

It"s quite the coincidence that the arguement for abortion is exactly the same as the arguement for slavery: "These people are human, but they don"t deserve rights since they don"t fit the criteria we set for someone eligible for rights!"

Show me where one slavery advocate actually stated that the enslaved race are not persons that have values, consciousness, or emotions, or anything to that effect.

Even if you could, that person would simply be factually incorrect, since they do. It's why dehumanisation is an effective tactic for enabling human atrocities.

is almost the same as, "These fetuses are human but they don"t deserve rights because they don"t fit the criteria we set for someone eligible for rights."
We shouldn"t be the ones setting the criteria, it"s either everyone has rights, or no one has rights; otherwise the government gets to decide who has rights and we turn into fascists.

a) The government does decide who gets rights, since they are the ones who enforce them. Sorry I don't share your illusion that there is this nebulous "rights" thing that people naturally have. It's not a thing, it is a social construct, one that is granted and enforced by society.

b) You lack any understanding of what fascism is, it's like accusing water of being a type of song, or the lion king movie being "delicious". It's nonsensical. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children.

They aren"t children, they are foetuses, with very different stages of cognitive development - which is the thing I care about when discussing ethics - be it humans or other species.

What about retarded people? They have low cognitive development, I"d be hard-pressed to find someone killing living retarded people.

Are retarded people persons, conscious with values and emotions? If no then I have no issue with killing them. Other humans might though, so probably wouldn't be something we should do in today's society. If a person has comparable cognitive, emotional and consciousness to an animal, then I see no inherent reason to treat them any differently to that animal.

Let me ask you - why does the US Constitution arbitrarily choose to bestow the human species with all of these rights? The simplest explanation is that it is just in the self-interest of the species to promote its own well-being and survival. There is nothing morally right or wrong about it.
UseYOURname
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2018 2:38:09 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 6/19/2018 7:45:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2018 11:34:20 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
At 6/19/2018 2:05:07 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.
a) Yes it indeed does
b) So what? Bacteria and yeast also fulfil those same criteria, yet I don"t give a crap about killing them by the billions when I bake bread. Why should I care just because it has a human genome inside of it instead of a bacterial one? Being a living human isn"t sufficient for me to extend any rights to something. It needs something more than that - which is partially why we delineate between humans (from a biological perspective) and persons (from an ethical perspective).

Adding some sort of extra criteria for when rights can be bestowed is fascist. Within our constitution, it says

Eh, fascist? Interested to see how you come to this conclusion:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

The US constitution is a claim to unalienable rights.

A claim.

I reject that claim. Self-evidence is evidence of nothing, except perhaps consciousness.

Men is short for mankind, which is short for humankind. By your criteria, since you agree that the zygote is a living human, it is endowed with these rights.

By the US and it's constitution perhaps. Again, why should anyone but the 5% of the world that lives there (if even then) care about that? I certainly don't.

If you choose to disagree with that clause of the constitution, I ask you to set the criteria for a human to obtain rights.

Rights are what we as society arbitrarily choose to endow. My criteria for a human to obtain rights is that it is a person. That is, a conscious entity with values and emotions.

Because that is that humans tend to value, rather than a cluster of cells by mere fact that it is a living thing containing human DNA...

Moreover persons are not human-specific, it would also extend to animals/aliens/AI/whatever if it meets the criteria of persons. The US constitution arbitrarily assigns universal value to one specific species - humans (if even that).

It"s quite the coincidence that the arguement for abortion is exactly the same as the arguement for slavery: "These people are human, but they don"t deserve rights since they don"t fit the criteria we set for someone eligible for rights!"

Show me where one slavery advocate actually stated that the enslaved race are not persons that have values, consciousness, or emotions, or anything to that effect.

Even if you could, that person would simply be factually incorrect, since they do. It's why dehumanisation is an effective tactic for enabling human atrocities.

is almost the same as, "These fetuses are human but they don"t deserve rights because they don"t fit the criteria we set for someone eligible for rights."
We shouldn"t be the ones setting the criteria, it"s either everyone has rights, or no one has rights; otherwise the government gets to decide who has rights and we turn into fascists.

a) The government does decide who gets rights, since they are the ones who enforce them. Sorry I don't share your illusion that there is this nebulous "rights" thing that people naturally have. It's not a thing, it is a social construct, one that is granted and enforced by society.

b) You lack any understanding of what fascism is, it's like accusing water of being a type of song, or the lion king movie being "delicious". It's nonsensical. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children.

They aren"t children, they are foetuses, with very different stages of cognitive development - which is the thing I care about when discussing ethics - be it humans or other species.

What about retarded people? They have low cognitive development, I"d be hard-pressed to find someone killing living retarded people.

Are retarded people persons, conscious with values and emotions? If no then I have no issue with killing them. Other humans might though, so probably wouldn't be something we should do in today's society. If a person has comparable cognitive, emotional and consciousness to an animal, then I see no inherent reason to treat them any differently to that animal.

Let me ask you - why does the US Constitution arbitrarily choose to bestow the human species with all of these rights? The simplest explanation is that it is just in the self-interest of the species to promote its own well-being and survival. There is nothing morally right or wrong about it.

This is a pretty large response so I"m just going to answer your fascism point in this post, I promise I will get to all of your points, it"s just the fascism point is the easiest to refute with the limited timeframe I currently have.
I concede that the fascism point was a wrong. I meant to refer to nazi Germany in relation to their treatments of the Jews, with dehumization of them. You said that unless the nazi argument is exactly the same as your argument that there is no correlation between the two. This is wrong, you added extra criteria for humans to obtain rights, I fundamentally disagree with this concept, the connection between your argument and the nazi argument can absolutely be made as there is heavy correlation between the ideologies of the two. I agree with the words of the constitution, that all of humankind is endowed with unalienable rights. Those words extend to the fetus, which is biologically a human. You conceded that it was a living human, you just don"t think it"s worthy of rights. I think it does deserve protection from murder. The murder of a human life outweighs any of the potential suffering that could be brought upon by having an unwanted child.

I"ll challenge you to a debate, parliamentary rules, so your opening statement can"t refute my original opening statement, hopefully your familiar with parliamentary rules if your not, give them a quick google.
Envisage
Posts: 3,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2018 7:36:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I concede that the fascism point was a wrong. I meant to refer to nazi Germany in relation to their treatments of the Jews, with dehumization of them. You said that unless the nazi argument is exactly the same as your argument that there is no correlation between the two.

I don't particularly care about the fascist argument because even if what you say is correct, it has no bearing on whether or not my argument is valid or sound. It is basically a version of argument ad hitlerum.

This is wrong, you added extra criteria for humans to obtain rights, I fundamentally disagree with this concept, the connection between your argument and the nazi argument can absolutely be made as there is heavy correlation between the ideologies of the two.

You have applied criteria that something needs to be a human species to obtain rights. What about the other billions of species that exist today? What about poor cyanobacteria? Surely that is just as fascist.

If you argue that adding extra criteria such as being "alive" and being "human" as rights is a fair and justified use of criteria, then you need an actual argument as to why the criteria i presented (being sentient, being a conscious being, having values) is unfair. Having poor criteria is a good way to cause atrocities, true, but so it poor use the chlorine gas, that doesn't mean that any and all use of chlorine gas (including those uses that make medicine) is bad.

I agree with the words of the constitution, that all of humankind is endowed with unalienable rights.

I don't. now what?

Those words extend to the fetus, which is biologically a human. You conceded that it was a living human, you just don"t think it"s worthy of rights.

Correct. I am using the biological definitions of "human" and "alive" after all.

I think it does deserve protection from murder.

I don't. Now what? Why should fetuses deserve protection from murder? Why shouldn't bacteria deserve protection from murder?

The murder of a human life outweighs any of the potential suffering that could be brought upon by having an unwanted child.

I say this is false. How do you intend to justify your assertion?


I"ll challenge you to a debate, parliamentary rules, so your opening statement can"t refute my original opening statement, hopefully your familiar with parliamentary rules if your not, give them a quick google.

I am not, I am going first though so I guess it doesn't matter.