CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
How can one value one life, and say the other is without value? Overpopulation, crowded jails, just a few reasons one should consider life has no value.
How can make a pregnant woman take care of her unborn child? You cannot. She will continue to smoke, drink, do drugs and whatever else she desires, if she does not desire to have a child. Isn't it better that this child never be born?
Capital punishment, what better way to rid the world of the Manson's that we house for life. Do you really believe it benefits society to keep them forever confined to prison? Room and board until their death at taxpayer's expense, where is the logic in this?
This would be an excellent argument were our judicial system infallible. However, as it stands, 138 people have been exonerated while awaiting the death penalty since 1973, and there's no telling how many more were not so lucky.
Firstly abortion has to do with an unborn life, innocent of all crimes, mistakes or guilt. The fetus as we all know is referred to as a growing human being which can also be referred to as a human organism. The term organism refers to life so the terms combined would mean human life. The Supreme Court ruled that life begins at conception.
The death penalty refers to the punishment decreed by the constitution equivalent to the crime committed and is part of the law. What puzzles me is many who oppose the death penalty supports abortion when they claim that they are so concerned about human life. If they are so concerned about human life then why would they support the taking of the life of the unborn? This in my opinion is hypocrisy. Practice what you speak not the opposite.
Why fight for the life of a criminal who has and may continue to kill and never regret it when at the same time you are supporting for innocent young lives to be killed in horrific methods of abortion when you claim the death penalty is horrific itself.
Capital punishment as it exists today is a laughably ineffective system. Were it possible to reliably convict and kill off criminals in a monetarily reasonable manner, I would be all for capital punishment. Unfortunately, as it stands CP is a horribly flawed system and wastes millions of dollars in taxpayer money - even more than the equally bloated prison system. So while I might support CP in theory, in practice it simply isn't feasible within today's court system.
Abortion, on the other hand, suffers from none of these drawbacks unless you consider it a moral dilemma.
Firstly the reason why the process of the death penalty can be lengthy is mainly because of the appeals that follows which are made by the defendant after being convicted. The burden of proof and the emphasis of the trial is based on whether or not the defendant is innocent or not. All trials are fast as guaranteed by the constitutional right which states that the defendant is entitled to a fair or speedy trial. Again it is the appeal process and not the conviction process that lengthens the time which is made by the request of the defendant and not the state.
I do think the prison system will cause less money because almost all of the country's prison systems are overcrowded and this will cause an increase in new buildings for prisons, increase in annual maintenance fee, increase in finance to take care of the elderly and the sickly in prison, and also an increase in the expenses to provide meals and as we are aware many people commit crimes to go back to prison. One of the other main factor also with the overcrowded prison is that once the prison becomes overcrowded many prisoners are released back in society without even serving their time fully which can contribute to an increase in crime and social disorder. And according to a report released by The U.S Dept. of Justice, these have caused the country billions of dollars per year to maintain and control prisons which so far have had little effect.
Regardless of whether or not abortion suffers from none of these drawbacks to me does not matters. What matters is the taking of the life of the fetus which i believe is and should be equivalent to the offense of murder or homicide. These young lives have committed no crime and we can make it seem as if they are not really lives but the fact is they are as proved in several scientific researches and the ruling made by the Supreme Court that life begins at conception. We are desperate to execute or imprison a person who commits murder regardless of whether or not it is a lengthy process but when it comes to abortion we talk about freedom of choice and a woman's right to control her own body along with it is a fast process?
Your second one, however, is just plain wrong. The very existence of capital punishment costs far more than simply containing the prisoners would. This isn't really up for debate. Yes, the prisons are overcrowded and inefficient.
As for abortion, there's no sense arguing with you here. Not because you're necessarily right, but because judging from the strength of your convictions, you don't seem like you're going to change your mind any time soon. (Yeah, I hate it when people tell me that, but I just don't feel like wasting even more time on this site. Go look at someone else's response.)
Well firstly you are mistaking the executing of the person and the appeals process that follows because it is not the death penalty itself that is expensive but the appeal processes that follows. Overcrowding leads to more prisons, more medical bills, more crimes in society which cause government to spend more money to fight and control crime. For now the death penalty might be expensive but studies have shown that the costs for prison functions will increase since it is already increasing yearly and added to that will be the additional costs for fighting crimes. This is what i found when i was doing my research.
Well you are right because nothing can change my opinion on something once i decide. And you are right we law students do not change but challenge.
"mistaking the executing of the person and the appeals process that follows because it is not the death penalty itself that is expensive but the appeal processes that follows."
I consider appeals part of the capital punishment process. Either way, you're just arguing semantics.
"For now the death penalty might be expensive but studies have shown that the costs for prison functions will increase since it is already increasing yearly and added to that will be the additional costs for fighting crimes."
Okay, capital punishment might make sense one day. That doesn't particularly matter to me. The point of this debate was whether or not one can logically oppose it while supporting abortion, and I believe you can. I also think you can use logic to flip that around, or perhaps oppose or support both at once. There are decent arguments for both sides (well, abortion anyway. As it stands, CP is dead in the water) and it's a pretty tough issue to debate without a lot of free time. The sort of time investment that you would only bother with if you actually cared what the person on the other end thinks.
It's not black and white is what I'm saying. Not many things are.
Firstly the Death Penalty is requested by the State and the appeal that follows is requested by the defendant. Appeals are part of any trials and is the most expensive part in any trials so what are you trying to prove? Appeals are not only part of the Death Penalty trial but any trials in this country thereby increasing the costs of any case not just cases dealing with the death penalty.
It might not matter to you but it matters to me. Why? Because i have people and friends who are victims of murder and homicides. It does not matter to you but it matters to thousands of families out there who lost their loved ones at the hands of heartless killers who might kill in or out of prison again.
To me one who is supporting the death penalty but opposing abortion is just making the true meaning of the term justice and fairness disappearing. I have debated this topic ten times already not on here but face to face in which i spent weeks collecting government reports and information.
And for your information recent records released by the Bureau of Criminal Justice in the U.S have shown that the death penalty have saved thousands of lives by decreasing the amount of homicides and murders that occurs per year. These reports uncovered that the higher the rate of executions regardless of time have caused a decrease in crimes committed.
"Appeals are part of any trials and is the most expensive part in any trials so what are you trying to prove? "
That there are more of them in a capital case, making them more expensive? I thought we went over this. At first I actually thought I was just getting another notification for a response I'd already read.
>
second paragraph is a pretty blatant appeal to sentimentality so i'll just ignore that for now.
>
third paragraph is stating an opinion and then vaguely referencing research of some sort. nothing to debate here.
>
"And for your information recent records released by the Bureau of Criminal Justice in the U.S have shown that the death penalty have saved thousands of lives by decreasing the amount of homicides and murders that occurs per year."
Please post these. I've been arguing under the impression that the death penalty was having a negligible affect on crime rates, but a report showing the opposite would definitely make a difference in my stance.
Firstly appeals have to be reviewed before the actual trial can take place and the actual trial will take place if the defendant is believed to be innocent or was unfair in the jugdement passed dowm by the court. Why are we even arguing about expenses when we are not even spending money on it? The results of the death penalty has supercede the results of imprisonment.
OK. According to a study done by Robert Dann in 1935, he created the thoery that the death penalty had no effect on the murder rate but in fact increased the murder rate. But in a later and more advanced study done by Daniel Dezbaksh, etal, ,the death penalty actually deterred murder in states that have higher executions than the norm. According to this study, when the executions of the state was higher, the murder rate was lower and when the execution rate was lower, the murder rate was higher. Frequent executions according to this study, acted as a constant reminder to the punishment of murder. To prove that this study is accurate and that the first study is inaccurate as found in the second study, i present you with the results in the form of a graph released by The Bureau Of Criminal Justice
The above link contains strong information supporting the deterrent effect of the death penalty including a look at the graph released by the Criminal Justice Bureau.
Since you think abortion is so right then maybe you should also know that abortion was leagized due to a lie in which Jane Roe, the mother and champion of legalized abortion, was being prosecuted by the D. A for the abortion of the child and the District Court ruled in favor of the state. Jane Roe appealed against the lower court's decision by challenging the D.A in The U.S Supreme Court and claimed that she was raped and due to that she wanted an abortion. The Supreme Court ruled that the state has no right to infringe on the privacy of a woman. After this ruling, Jane Roe later came out and said that she was not raped but had consensual sex in which she used rape as an excuse to get rid of the child. Today Jane Roe is still alive, against abortion and still gave birth to the child she was supposed to abort. This case later known as the root and origin of legalized abortion later became the case known as Roe v. Wade.
This is a more intense detailed facts of the study conducted.
Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders.[17] Using state-level panel data from 1960 to 2000, Professors Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd were able to compare the relationship between executions and murder incidents before, during, and after the U.S. Supreme Court's death penalty moratorium.[18] They found that executions had a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents. Additionally, the implementation of state moratoria is associated with the increased incidence of murders.
Separately, Professor Shepherd's analysis of monthly data from 1977 to 1999 found three important findings.[19]
First, each execution, on average, is associated with three fewer murders. The deterred murders included both crimes of passion and murders by intimates.
Second, executions deter the murder of whites and African-Americans. Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1.5 African-Americans, and 0.5 persons of other races.
Third, shorter waits on death row are associated with increased deterrence. For each additional 2.75-year reduction in the death row wait until execution, one murder is deterred.
Professors H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings of the University of Colorado at Denver have published two studies confirming the deterrent effect of capital punishment. The first study used state-level data from 1977 to 1997 to analyze the influence of executions, commutations, and removals from death row on the incidence of murder.[20] For each additional execution, on average, about five murders were deterred. Alternatively, for each additional commutation, on average, five additional murders resulted. A removal from death row by either state courts or the U.S. Supreme Court is associated with an increase of one additional murder. Addressing criticism of their work,[21] Professors Mocan and Gittings conducted additional analyses and found that their original findings provided robust support for the deterrent effect of capital punishment.[22]
Two studies by Paul R. Zimmerman, a Federal Communications Commission economist, also support the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Using state-level data from 1978 to 1997, Zimmerman found that each additional execution, on average, results in 14 fewer murders.[23] Zimmerman's second study, using similar data, found that executions conducted by electrocution are the most effective at providing deterrence.[24]
Using a small state-level data set from 1995 to 1999, Professor Robert B. Ekelund of Auburn University and his colleagues analyzed the effect that executions have on single incidents of murder and multiple incidents of murder.[25] They found that executions reduced single murder rates, while there was no effect on multiple murder rates.
In summary, the recent studies using panel data techniques have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives. Each additional execution appears to deter between three and 18 murders. While opponents of capital punishment allege that it is unfairly used against African-Americans, each additional execution deters the murder of 1.5 African-Americans. Further moratoria, commuted sentences, and death row removals appear to increase the incidence of murder.
The strength of these findings has caused some legal scholars, originally opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, to rethink their case. In particular, Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago has commented:
If the recent evidence of deterrence is shown to be correct, then opponents of capital punishment will face an uphill struggle on moral grounds. If each execution is saving lives, the harms of capital punishment would have to be very great to justify its abolition, far greater than most critics have heretofore alleged.[26]
Read these details and let me know what you think. I gave these facts in a public presentation on Criminal Ethics dealing with abortion, capital punishment and many other criminal issues in which these facts were proved true by attorneys who attested that they are accurate data.
Firstly abortion has to do with an unborn life, innocent of all crimes, mistakes or guilt. The fetus as we all know is referred to as a growing human being which can also be referred to as a human organism. The term organism refers to life so the terms combined would mean human life. The Supreme Court ruled that life begins at conception.
Most abortions occur before the embryo becomes a foetus, about 50%. Around 35% occur before it's a well-developed foetus.
This means you're killing unconscious, unintelligent tissues. It isn't a human life at this point.
A well-developed foetus isn't a human life either, because its body depends on another host being, its body is not complete in other words.
What puzzles me is many who oppose the death penalty supports abortion when they claim that they are so concerned about human life. If they are so concerned about human life then why would they support the taking of the life of the unborn? This in my opinion is hypocrisy. Practice what you speak not the opposite.
This is simple actually. Killing a prisoner is removing a living, breathing, thinking human from existence. Killing a foetus is removing something that only resembles a human, but is not for lack of ability to think, from existence.
Why fight for the life of a criminal who has and may continue to kill and never regret it when at the same time you are supporting for innocent young lives to be killed in horrific methods of abortion when you claim the death penalty is horrific itself.
Because they are not innocent young lives. They are in the process of becoming lives.
Whether or not abortions occur before the embryo becomes a fetus you fail to understand that these tissues are the tissues of a growing human being.
Contrary to what many non-scientists believe, human beings are not constructed in the womb - they develop. In fact, all the major organ systems are initiated within the first few weeks after conception. The process of embryonic development is a continuous process, with no obvious point at which the fetus magically becomes a "person." In fact, the development process continues well after birth, including many characteristics that determine our personality or personhood. What are the stages in human embryonic development? Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception. There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception. This is only 7-10 days after a women would expect to begin her menses. Since most women have cycles that can vary by this amount, they do not discover they are pregnant until after this point. Therefore, all abortions stop a beating heart, even "early" abortions. However, most abortions do not occur until 4-6 weeks after the fetus begins to form. The human brain begins to form on day 23 is formed enough to produce brain waves by 6 weeks, which means that most abortions destroy a functioning human brain.
The U.S Supreme Court has ruled in favor of this argu
Whether or not abortions occur before the embryo becomes a fetus you fail to understand that these tissues are the tissues of a growing human being.
Contrary to what many non-scientists believe, human beings are not constructed in the womb - they develop. In fact, all the major organ systems are initiated within the first few weeks after conception. The process of embryonic development is a continuous process, with no obvious point at which the fetus magically becomes a "person." In fact, the development process continues well after birth, including many characteristics that determine our personality or personhood. What are the stages in human embryonic development? Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception. There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception. This is only 7-10 days after a women would expect to begin her menses. Since most women have cycles that can vary by this amount, they do not discover they are pregnant until after this point. Therefore, all abortions stop a beating heart, even "early" abortions. However, most abortions do not occur until 4-6 weeks after the fetus begins to form. The human brain begins to form on day 23 is formed enough to produce brain waves by 6 weeks, which means that most abortions destroy a functioning human brain.
The U.S Supreme Court has ruled in favor of this argument by ruling that life begins at conception.
What part of my argument do you not get? If it isn't a human life then how come it is developing into a human being? I am getting fed up of hearing merely opinions from you. Show me authoritative proof to back up your claim. Doctors have attested that it is a human organism which is a growing human being and also the term organism means life. It takes time for every living being to grow even after being born so what are you trying to imply? Don't infants depend on the body of their mother for breastmilk after they are borned too?
WHAT TEXTBOOKS SAY ON THE EMBRYO
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology "Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
ATTESTATION OF WHAT THIS CLUMP OF TISSUES LOOK LIKE ACCORDING TO THIS PERSON
"I opened the sock up and I put it on the towel and there were parts in there of a person. I'd taken anatomy; I was a medical student. I knew what I was looking at. There was a little scapula [shoulder blade] and there was an arm, and I saw some ribs and a chest, and I saw a little tiny head, and I saw a piece of a leg, and I saw a tiny hand. ... I checked it out and there were two arms and two legs and one head, etc., and I turned and said, I guess you got it all ... It was pretty awful that first time... it was like somebody put a hot poker into me."
Again so if you are removing a fetus because only of lack of ability to think then should you remove a person who is fully paralzyed or on stroke because he or she lacks the abililty to think? It resembles a human being because it is from the human race and it is a human life. If i recalled you called that thing in one of our earlier argument human organism which means human life. So what are you disputing now?
Well if you say they are not innocent then prove to me why they are not innocent? Did they commit any crimes or any unforgivable actions because according to you they lack the ability to think. Right? Then prove to me that they are in the process of becoming lives when their process of life has already begin from the moment of conception as is evident in the ruling of the Supreme Court along with the proof of scientific research from doctors.
Whether or not abortions occur before the embryo becomes a fetus you fail to understand that these tissues are the tissues of a growing human being.
So are skin cells. Seriously, follow another line of reasoning.
Contrary to what many non-scientists believe, human beings are not constructed in the womb - they develop. In fact, all the major organ systems are initiated within the first few weeks after conception.
Humans aren't "complete" until they are adult. However as a matter of simplicity we set the starting point for when human rights are granted at birth. It would cause social problems if infants were treated as nonpersons since they are external to the mother and demonstrably feel and respond to pain.
A foetus has minimal development when it is aborted, and even in late stage, its brain isn't comparable to a human brain. Just because it looks human doesn't mean it is. Do you realise how complicated our brain is? How much growth it takes to get a brain like that? You can't call what a foetus has a human brain except in the most minimal sense of the phrase.
What are the stages in human embryonic development? Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception. There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception.
There's a difference between the tissue systems initiating and having a proper heart. Most of these systems only start to show appreciable development after at least twelve weeks.
This is what is aborted most of the time. It's not a proper human, it cannot think or feel, it is in a stage where it is basically just tissues.
What part of my argument do you not get? If it isn't a human life then how come it is developing into a human being? I am getting fed up of hearing merely opinions from you.
A human life refers to a thinking, feeling, sentient human who operates independently of another body.
It refers to a person who is able to grow.
Human can refer to this, and any tissues that are not thinking or feeling.
A human embryo develops into a human life but is presently not one. It's simple biology.
"I opened the sock up and I put it on the towel and there were parts in there of a person. I'd taken anatomy; I was a medical student. I knew what I was looking at. There was a little scapula [shoulder blade] and there was an arm, and I saw some ribs and a chest, and I saw a little tiny head, and I saw a piece of a leg, and I saw a tiny hand. ... I checked it out and there were two arms and two legs and one head, etc., and I turned and said, I guess you got it all ... It was pretty awful that first time... it was like somebody put a hot poker into me."
I don't care what a person THINKS is a person. An embryo is NOT one because it hasn't developed personhood. A foetus hasn't developed personhood.
Again so if you are removing a fetus because only of lack of ability to think then should you remove a person who is fully paralzyed or on stroke because he or she lacks the abililty to think? It resembles a human being because it is from the human race and it is a human life. If i recalled you called that thing in one of our earlier argument human organism which means human life. So what are you disputing now?
I am removing a foetus's rights because it cannot think, feel, or exist independently of another body.
A person with a stroke can still think and feel. Even if he could not, he has become a person before the stroke.
A person who is paralysed can think and in some cases feel. He has grown up into personhood before the condition.
Being made up of human tissues and looking human do not make you a human person or a human life automatically. You must grow and acquire personhood.
Well if you say they are not innocent then prove to me why they are not innocent? Did they commit any crimes or any unforgivable actions because according to you they lack the ability to think. Right?
Reread:
Because they are not innocent young lives. They are in the process of becoming lives.
Then prove to me that they are in the process of becoming lives when their process of life has already begin from the moment of conception as is evident in the ruling of the Supreme Court along with the proof of scientific research from doctors.
A life, noun, refers to a sentient, thinking, autonomous individual.
Live, or alive, adjective, refer to the property of being animate and capable of metabolism.
A live thing can still not be a life. Learn the subtle difference.
Are skin cells capable of developing into a human being? Were you developed from skin cells? The lump of tissues you are referring to refers to the growing body parts of a human being which is why it possesses a different human DNA and blood type.
Let me ask you a question in a hospital or in executing in someone when does a doctor pronounce life and death? Isn't it upon resuming or hearing the heart beats and upon terminating the heart beats. Therefore the presence of heartbeats indicates life. Doesn't a fetus has a heartbeat? Why then if there is no life in it that there is a presence of heartbeat? Why then that if you go to a doctor they are simply able to detect whether the fetus is dead or alive in you by detecting it's heartbeat if it has no life? So then if it is not human, then what is it? Is it an animal or a plant or is it a member of the family of homosapiens?
Whether or not our brain is fully developed does not matters. What matters is that we have the brain of a human being and A BRAIN IN GENERAL BECAUSE EACH OF US GOES THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER. WHICH IS WHY SOME OF OUR BRAIN ARE SMALLER THAN OTHER PEOPLE. RIGHT?
I checked that picture you showed me and i recalled seeing a human body with eyes. If it is not a proper human then how come it is a human being at all? To say that it is not a proper human because it is not fully developed is foolish. You yourself called it HUMAN WHEN YOU JUST SAID IT IS NOT HUMAN BUT RESEMBLES HUMAN. ARE YOU CONFUSED ON THIS TOPIC? And next time if you want to debate me then do not use information from Wikipedia because information from there are most times incorrect since it can be written by anyone.
So when a person is unconscious does that mean that they are dead? Don't someone have to do CPR to perform on them? A fetus has human life regardless of what. A HUMAN LIFE which refers to the presence of heart beat like any other fully developed human being does. Isn't the fetus able to grow. Did you not grow from a fetus? Biology itself refers to life so the fact that the fetus has life is perfectly suited to biology. In order to study me and you, who are fully developed, don't scientists have to use the concept of biology?
The person you are referring to is someone who is a medical professional firstly. Because it does not have person hood does not mean that it does not possess human life when it has everything like a human being. In the same way should we kill someone who has lost their person hood when they become unconscious. Because according to the scientific research and theory, a person loses personhood when they faint or become unconscious. To understand this you have to understand that a person loses self awareness, the ability to communicate, touch or feel, consciousness or self motivation at the time of losing consciousness which is similar to a fetus in the womb. Regardless of whether or not that person with stroke is still a person but also if he loses the above elements of personhood then he is not referred to as a person. So should we eliminate his existence because of that?
Again you yourself called them human and in an earlier argument human organism meaning human life which is the scientific definition of the term organism.
There is a deeper context to the term life. Which person in their right mind would give a literal definition of the term than giving a deeper scientific meaning? Why don't you try to understand the terms life and live because both are used to describe the fetus which breathes, has a heartbeat and human DNA and HUMAN BLOOD TYPE AND ORGANS.
Are skin cells capable of developing into a human being? Were you developed from skin cells? The lump of tissues you are referring to refers to the growing body parts of a human being which is why it possesses a different human DNA and blood type.
Human skin cells, like an embryo and foetus, cannot feel or think. They are alive but not an individual.
Let me ask you a question in a hospital or in executing in someone when does a doctor pronounce life and death? Isn't it upon resuming or hearing the heart beats and upon terminating the heart beats. Therefore the presence of heartbeats indicates life.
If you lose your heart beat, you are basically in the process of dying.
However gaining a heartbeat doesn't make you an individual.
Why then if there is no life in it that there is a presence of heartbeat?
I said that a foetus is alive but not a life. For example, if 1000 foetuses died, you wouldn't say that 1000 lives were lost. A foetus is in the process of becoming a life worthy of human rights.
So then if it is not human, then what is it? Is it an animal or a plant or is it a member of the family of homosapiens?
It is human but not a human person.
Whether or not our brain is fully developed does not matters. What matters is that we have the brain of a human being and A BRAIN IN GENERAL BECAUSE EACH OF US GOES THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER. WHICH IS WHY SOME OF OUR BRAIN ARE SMALLER THAN OTHER PEOPLE. RIGHT?
A brain that isn't developed isn't self aware, isn't an individual. Individuality requires a brain developed past a certain point.
I checked that picture you showed me and i recalled seeing a human body with eyes. If it is not a proper human then how come it is a human being at all? To say that it is not a proper human because it is not fully developed is foolish. You yourself called it HUMAN WHEN YOU JUST SAID IT IS NOT HUMAN BUT RESEMBLES HUMAN. ARE YOU CONFUSED ON THIS TOPIC?
No, you yourself are confused. A living thing can be human, but not a human being. That embryo and foetus are living human tissues but they are not human beings yet.
The person you are referring to is someone who is a medical professional firstly. Because it does not have person hood does not mean that it does not possess human life when it has everything like a human being.
It doesn't matter whether or not it is human. If it isn't a person then it doesn't have rights.
In the same way should we kill someone who has lost their person hood when they become unconscious. Because according to the scientific research and theory, a person loses personhood when they faint or become unconscious. To understand this you have to understand that a person loses self awareness, the ability to communicate, touch or feel, consciousness or self motivation at the time of losing consciousness which is similar to a fetus in the womb.
This is nothing at all like a foetus in the womb. A person who becomes unaware still has a brain that stores their individuality, they have still grown and lived a life that grants them individual rights. A foetus has none of this.
There is a deeper context to the term life. Which person in their right mind would give a literal definition of the term than giving a deeper scientific meaning? Why don't you try to understand the terms life and live because both are used to describe the fetus which breathes, has a heartbeat and human DNA and HUMAN BLOOD TYPE AND ORGANS.
I'll put this to you very simply since you keep missing it.
I could take human organs and sew them together and bind them to a steel skeleton. It is not a person, however. Just because it has human blood and organs, its own DNA, can breathe and has a heartbeat, doesn't make it a person. It has no individuality because it hasn't got a brain capable of that.
Answer my question. Don't try to avoid it. Are skin cells capable of developing into a human being? Are skin cells made up of a different human DNA and blood type? Skin cells are from the body of the person while the cells of the embryo are the growing human body of another human being.
But gaining a heartbeat makes you an alive human? right? And thank you, the fetus has a beating heart which makes it a human organism that is alive. What are you even talking about. Firstly life has to do with the chemical properties of a living being and the cellular reactions that takes place within that organism. Are you getting the term life we used to describe our daily routine or are you describing the scientific term of life? Live refers to whether the fetus is alive or dead. Both of these terms are proved by the fetus because it has a beating heart which means that is it alive and it has chemical and molecular processes ongoing with cellular reaction which makes it an organism with life. Another explanation of the term life also refers to the presence of living organisms which is why when scientists or astronauts go to other planets they say there is no life? Why? Because there are no signs of living organisms.
So then if it is a living human then does that not makes it like a person who is unconscious and has lose their personhood?
Again a person whose brain is developed but loses consciousness has lose their personhood. Rather than helping them, should we eliminate their existence then?
Why is it that you do not know the difference between actual tissues and the growing body of the unborn. That picture you showed me possessed the growing body of an unborn along with a pair of eyes, feet and hands. Why do you not double check it? But the point is they are from the human race? right? Why then when the dead body of a person is stolen, criminal charges have to instituted against the accused? Because the body is a human too and it is not alive. Why is this? Because they are from the human race which gives them rights like any other living human.
If it is does not matter then you are disrespecting life of a human in general. The life of the unborn which makes it alive and in which both me and you have so what makes it different? Because it is not self aware and independent? Come on, open your eyes because anybody regardless if you are already born can lose your self awareness or independence but they still have a human life? Right?
So why then do they describe a person in that stage as being in the baby stage. The only difference there is that one has not been born as yet but one has already been. But they are both humans? Right? They both posses human life and both does not have personhood. Right?
You seem to be failing to understand the concepts of science. A skeleton will have no life in it. Why? Because the DNA is not alive and neither is there any cells or blood alive and this is a different case with the unborn. And a steel skeleton is not the product of human reproduction either. And lastly you would sew those parts together but the formation of the unborn is formed from a natural, living and completely technical scientific process in which all the elements of science and biology are brought together to create a living being from the human race. And finally, your blood type and DNA will not go with the skeleton neither will the blood cells survive outside a living human body so what are you trying to prove?
Answer my question. Don't try to avoid it. Are skin cells capable of developing into a human being?
Yes.
Are skin cells made up of a different human DNA and blood type? Skin cells are from the body of the person while the cells of the embryo are the growing human body of another human being.
Doesn't matter. Ever heard of asexual reproduction?
But gaining a heartbeat makes you an alive human? right? And thank you, the fetus has a beating heart which makes it a human organism that is alive.
No, a heartbeat is irrelevant to being alive. Flatworms have no heart, for example.
Further, kidneys are alive when being transported to donor programs.
The issue is personhood. A foetus is not a person.
So then if it is a living human then does that not makes it like a person who is unconscious and has lose their personhood?
Not at all. An unconscious person was awarded personhood by being born. A foetus is unborn and has not gained this privilege.
Why is it that you do not know the difference between actual tissues and the growing body of the unborn.
There is no meaningful difference. A foetus is like a braindead person.
Why do you not double check it? But the point is they are from the human race? right? Why then when the dead body of a person is stolen, criminal charges have to instituted against the accused? Because the body is a human too and it is not alive. Why is this? Because they are from the human race which gives them rights like any other living human.
Having eyes, ears, etc. doesn't make you a person. Being born does.
A dead person was born and for practical reasons retains this so as to prevent looting and graverobbing.
If it is does not matter then you are disrespecting life of a human in general. The life of the unborn which makes it alive and in which both me and you have so what makes it different?
It isn't a person so I don't care if it is disrespected. When it is born it is a person, then I care. Why do you care? A foetus may as well be meat, it has no sense of feeling or self.
Because it is not self aware and independent? Come on, open your eyes because anybody regardless if you are already born can lose your self awareness or independence but they still have a human life? Right?
If they are born, yes.
So why then do they describe a person in that stage as being in the baby stage. The only difference there is that one has not been born as yet but one has already been. But they are both humans? Right? They both posses human life and both does not have personhood. Right?
Birth is a distinction that is important. It lets us grant personhood to the people who need it, and allows us to give women the option to exercise responsible childbirth.
And lastly you would sew those parts together but the formation of the unborn is formed from a natural, living and completely technical scientific process in which all the elements of science and biology are brought together to create a living being from the human race.
Not important here. Both my Frankenstein monster and a foetus have the same quality of mental ability - none. They are but meat, basically.
And finally, your blood type and DNA will not go with the skeleton neither will the blood cells survive outside a living human body so what are you trying to prove?
I'm making the point that your attachment to foetuses' rights is sentimental and not based on anything of substance.
Then if skin cells are capable of developing into a human being then maybe we should take your skin cells and develop them into a human being through a natural reproductive process.
Asexual Reproduction is different from sexual reproduction and the DNA and blood type we are talking about here has to do with sexual reproduction and NOT asexual reproduction.
Are flatworms humans? Do they have a human body? So why then a person is pronounced dead or alive or even to a fetus depending on the availability of the heartbeats?
So then we should kill anyone who has lost their personhood, right? Because according to you the fetus shhould be killed because it is not a person? Maybe we should do that to people in coma or unconcious too.
You are failing to realize that regardless of whether or not a person has personhood or not is determined by the issue at the present and not to the fact that they are already born, as demonstrated in a previous court trial. Personhood and rights given to the person is determined at the time of their condition and not based on whether or not they are already borned.
Again scientists have proved that a person who becomes fully unconscious has lost their personhood by losing all the elements of personhood. So are you a scientist or a doctor to dispute this fact?
So then if the fetus is like a brain dead person, then how come the brain still maintains the growth and blood circluation in the unborn? And a brain dead person is an individual who has recieved damaged to their brain resulting in a major ineffiency of the brain to control body and chemical movements which is completely the oppostie in the fetus.
Again they were born but now they are dead, right? A man can be born innocent but because he commits a crime, doesn't mean that he will be innocent, will he?
So then what is the difference between the unborn and a person who has lost their personhood? Oh wait, according to you, one is already born and the other unborn. The only difference is the fetus is in a womb and you keep saying that they have no life but you have no scientific fact disputing my claim.
If a fetus is made up of meat, then so is me and you because we also is made up of everything a fetus is made up of including tissues, cells, organs, blood, muscles, flesh etc.
A fetus deserves the right because it is a human organism, it has life as determined by doctors and it is a growing human being.
Oh and by the way, the only difference between a baby borned on the first day and the baby about to be born is one is out of the womb and one is in, which is the only difference but a baby born already also does not have personhood.
Then if skin cells are capable of developing into a human being then maybe we should take your skin cells and develop them into a human being through a natural reproductive process.
Natural reproduction doesn't matter here. Otherwise you're arguing that artificially inseminated women do not give birth to human beings.
You can clone a human from skin cells. This is asexual reproduction.
Are flatworms humans? Do they have a human body? So why then a person is pronounced dead or alive or even to a fetus depending on the availability of the heartbeats?
A fully developed person is pronounced dead when losing a heartbeat because it is a critical process for maintaining life. A foetus is in that grey zone of not being fully developed and thus not needing a proper beating heart yet.
So then we should kill anyone who has lost their personhood, right? Because according to you the fetus shhould be killed because it is not a person? Maybe we should do that to people in coma or unconcious too.
A person has not lost their personhood until their brain has degenerated past a point that they lose their individuality, and are basically nothing more than a brain stem.
At that point, I don't care if they live or die.
Use them for livestock feed for all I care.
Again scientists have proved that a person who becomes fully unconscious has lost their personhood by losing all the elements of personhood. So are you a scientist or a doctor to dispute this fact?
If they have an intact brain, then they have not lost their personhood. What you probably misunderstood is that higher brain functions cease in unconscious people, but they are not gone.
So then if the fetus is like a brain dead person, then how come the brain still maintains the growth and blood circluation in the unborn? And a brain dead person is an individual who has recieved damaged to their brain resulting in a major ineffiency of the brain to control body and chemical movements which is completely the oppostie in the fetus.
Brain stems can control elementary body functions. A foetus doesn't have a well-developed brain.
Again they were born but now they are dead, right? A man can be born innocent but because he commits a crime, doesn't mean that he will be innocent, will he?
Your question isn't formed in a way that I can answer, I need you to retype it.
So then what is the difference between the unborn and a person who has lost their personhood? Oh wait, according to you, one is already born and the other unborn. The only difference is the fetus is in a womb and you keep saying that they have no life but you have no scientific fact disputing my claim.
I keep saying that they have no personhood. Not every life has personhood. A braindead man has no personhood. A foetus has no personhood.
A fetus deserves the right because it is a human organism, it has life as determined by doctors and it is a growing human being.
The skin cells you scrape off when you brush against a sharp wire are human organisms. They don't deserve rights.
A foetus is like those skin cells, but with a primitive brain.
What about tumours then? Shouldn't they have rights under your blanket definition of what deserves personhood? They are human organisms.
Oh and by the way, the only difference between a baby borned on the first day and the baby about to be born is one is out of the womb and one is in, which is the only difference but a baby born already also does not have personhood.
Right, however for convenience we grant a born infant rights while we grant a foetus no rights. If you want rights, be born.
I have a question for you: how is one supposed to be able to experiment on human systems if foetuses are granted human rights? Foetuses are presently unpeople, our only way to experiment on something that is human but not a person. What should we use then if foetuses become illegal for this? What if I wish to test the development of a human brain? A foetus has a developing brain but it isn't self aware. So now I can't use it?
You are really damning a lot of interesting scientific opportunities.
But fetuses are created from natural processes not artificial processes so your reference to cloning is invaluable to me. Cloning is an artificial process whereas sexual reproduction is a natural process involving the fusion of the sperm and egg to form a zygote. When you artificially inseminate women you are also creating the fusion of an egg and a sperm which is a natual reproductive process.
According to you, heartbeat is a critical process for maintaining life so which means that the presence of heartbeat in a fetus should maintain the presence of life? If a fetus does not have a proper heartbeat, then how come circulation of blood takes place at a normal rate? If there wasn't a proper heartbeat, then there would have been an abnormal blood circulation and oxygen from the mother causing the fetus to appear blue.
Even if they are not gone, they are still not self aware or do not have any level of self concepts, right? And this is similar to a fetus which has an intact brain with the presence of life but is not self aware or do not have any level of self concepts.
And even to people who has lost their personhood still have rights in terms of property rights and also in many cases the brain can be tempoarily damaged leading to a severe coma as in my case when i was stricken with asthma. But then at that point they have lost their person hood because they cannot touch or feel, are not self aware or do not have self concepts and does not have any level of understanding. Also because they are in a coma and has lost their personhood does not mean that we should kill them because many people can end up recovering.
A brain dead person is similar to a fetus in that even though the brain is not capable of functioning fully, it can also perform other chemical and body processes or reactions.
What i am trying to portray to you is that because a person cannot move or think or feel does not mean that you or anybody has the right to kill them.
But a brain dead man who has no sign of personhood can also recover from a coma? right?
If the human body is referred to as a human organism then anything coming from that body is also part of that organism, right? Why? Because there is the same genetic type and DNA and those skin cells are the very cells that identifies the human organism or human body?
However, in dealing with a fetus we should understand that those cells are the developing body of a human organism with a completely different and whole or complete DNA and blood type. Do skin cells have a different DNA? Dont DNA identifies a separate human identity?
Tumors are not human organisms but rather caused by major viruses or exposure to certain chemicals or particles which may destroy or affect the normal fuctioning of the human body.
So my question to you is, why then do we use living people to undergo medical research or even for scientific research? Dont these people undergo experimentation on their human systems? And don't they have rights of personhood?
But fetuses are created from natural processes not artificial processes so your reference to cloning is invaluable to me. Cloning is an artificial process whereas sexual reproduction is a natural process involving the fusion of the sperm and egg to form a zygote. When you artificially inseminate women you are also creating the fusion of an egg and a sperm which is a natual reproductive process.
The distinction between natural and artificial is unimportant here.
According to you, heartbeat is a critical process for maintaining life so which means that the presence of heartbeat in a fetus should maintain the presence of life? If a fetus does not have a proper heartbeat, then how come circulation of blood takes place at a normal rate? If there wasn't a proper heartbeat, then there would have been an abnormal blood circulation and oxygen from the mother causing the fetus to appear blue.
A heartbeat in humans maintains bloodflow which is critical for life.
Even if they are not gone, they are still not self aware or do not have any level of self concepts, right? And this is similar to a fetus which has an intact brain with the presence of life but is not self aware or do not have any level of self concepts.
Please use asterisks to quote. You have lost me on the context.
And even to people who has lost their personhood still have rights in terms of property rights and also in many cases the brain can be tempoarily damaged leading to a severe coma as in my case when i was stricken with asthma. But then at that point they have lost their person hood because they cannot touch or feel, are not self aware or do not have self concepts and does not have any level of understanding. Also because they are in a coma and has lost their personhood does not mean that we should kill them because many people can end up recovering.
An unconscious person has a functioning brain. This is their identity.
A braindead person has lost their identity.
But a brain dead man who has no sign of personhood can also recover from a coma? right?
No, a braindead person cannot.
However, in dealing with a fetus we should understand that those cells are the developing body of a human organism with a completely different and whole or complete DNA and blood type. Do skin cells have a different DNA? Dont DNA identifies a separate human identity?
It doesn't matter if the DNA is different, the functioning of a foetus is at the same level as human tissue. Further, you would be arguing against cloned humans deserving protection.
Tumors are not human organisms but rather caused by major viruses or exposure to certain chemicals or particles which may destroy or affect the normal fuctioning of the human body.
They are tissue growths, of the same conscious level as a foetus.
So my question to you is, why then do we use living people to undergo medical research or even for scientific research? Dont these people undergo experimentation on their human systems? And don't they have rights of personhood?
Clinical trials use people, yes, but the procedure is limited.
When we are talking about life fromed from a natural human reproductive, then why is the distinction between natural and artificial is unimportant when abortion has to do with natural and not artificial.
So you said it yourself again, so the fetus (human) has a heartbeat which maintains blood flow which is critical for life of the fetus?
You said people who have coma has lost the functions of their brain but the brain is not fully gone. So, again this is my question to you;
Even if they are not gone, they are still not self aware or do not have any level of self concepts, right? And this is similar to a fetus which has an intact brain with the presence of life but is not self aware or do not have any level of self concepts.
An unconscious person at the time of losing their consciousness has lost their personhood according to scientific studies and legal examinations because at the time of losing consciousness their brain has temporarily shut down causing them to lose all the abilities or elements of personhood.
If a brain dead person cannot recover then how come in many cases brain dead people have recovered as in a case recently with a man becoming braindead but recovered after being in a major accident. You are causing a blot on the name of science.
Are you saying that if the DNA identifies you as a different but living human that you should also disregard this? You are failing to realize that the lump of tissue you are referring to is the growing human body and you keep making reference to other tissues as if they can grow into a human being as well.
Cloning again has nothing to do with sexual reproduction. Cloning is basically a copy of the DNA to produce humans with similar identity. Cloning is done by an artificial method whilst sexual reproduction is done within the human body and formed from a combination of reproductive cells.
Tumors are tissue growth i agree but you are making it seem as if the cells of tumors are formed from sexual reproduction. The growth of tumor tissues are caused by exposure to harzardous elements and chemicals or nuclear matters. Maybe we should start seeing if tumor cells can develop into a human being and if it also has developing organs, because you are comparing them to a fetus.
If the procedure is limited the whole fact is that they are still using them for clinical trials and this can have a major impact on the human systems and besides we all are aware that in a clinical trial, patients are exposing themselves to the risk of abnormalities, risks or body damage. So where are the rights of personhood or living rights?
When we are talking about life fromed from a natural human reproductive, then why is the distinction between natural and artificial is unimportant when abortion has to do with natural and not artificial.
It doesn't matter whether the abortifacent is natural or artificial.
So you said it yourself again, so the fetus (human) has a heartbeat which maintains blood flow which is critical for life of the fetus?
The foetus gets its fluids from the mother until it has a functioning heart.
You said people who have coma has lost the functions of their brain but the brain is not fully gone. So, again this is my question to you;
Even if they are not gone, they are still not self aware or do not have any level of self concepts, right? And this is similar to a fetus which has an intact brain with the presence of life but is not self aware or do not have any level of self concepts.
A person in a coma has a brain which retains their identity as experiences. They have legal personhood too. A foetus has a brain that isn't fully formed and has no identity yet.
An unconscious person at the time of losing their consciousness has lost their personhood according to scientific studies and legal examinations because at the time of losing consciousness their brain has temporarily shut down causing them to lose all the abilities or elements of personhood.
You misunderstand. Higher level functions shut down, however the brain still operates.
If a brain dead person cannot recover then how come in many cases brain dead people have recovered as in a case recently with a man becoming braindead but recovered after being in a major accident. You are causing a blot on the name of science.
A braindead person cannot recover. That's what being braindead means. What could happen is that a person is misdiagnosed as braindead.
Sort of like a century ago when a person might be misidentified as dead when in reality they were comatose. They would wake up sometimes. It isn't that dead people can recover.
Are you saying that if the DNA identifies you as a different but living human that you should also disregard this? You are failing to realize that the lump of tissue you are referring to is the growing human body and you keep making reference to other tissues as if they can grow into a human being as well.
All that matters here is that they are tissues without identity. A human being isn't born with an identity and functioning brain. There are stages, a foetus is the stage when it's not really a person.
Cloning again has nothing to do with sexual reproduction. Cloning is basically a copy of the DNA to produce humans with similar identity. Cloning is done by an artificial method whilst sexual reproduction is done within the human body and formed from a combination of reproductive cells.
It doesn't matter if cloning is artificial. It still can produce people.
Tumors are tissue growth i agree but you are making it seem as if the cells of tumors are formed from sexual reproduction. The growth of tumor tissues are caused by exposure to harzardous elements and chemicals or nuclear matters. Maybe we should start seeing if tumor cells can develop into a human being and if it also has developing organs, because you are comparing them to a fetus.
A tumor, like a foetus, is unconscious tissue. It doesn't matter if foetal DNA is different, all that matters is that both are in a state of no consciousness, no identity.
If the procedure is limited the whole fact is that they are still using them for clinical trials and this can have a major impact on the human systems and besides we all are aware that in a clinical trial, patients are exposing themselves to the risk of abnormalities, risks or body damage. So where are the rights of personhood or living rights?
Those people are given consent forms.
A foetus has no ability to give consent because it isn't a person.
The reference made to an atificial process is invaluable in this debate. The fact that the fetus is formed from sperm and then merges together with the ovum is in no way artificial.
The fluid that is feeded to the fetus from the mother causes the fetus to depend on survival for this fluid, right? So therefore if it has no life then how come it depends on survival? Don't living things depend on survival?
They have a brain which retains their identity but they do not have a brain that is conscious and has full functions. And to be within the confines of personhood one has to have a brain that is fuctioning as that of a normal brain. A fetus brain is not fully formed but when compared to a person in coma, both are at the same level because there is the absence of the elements of personhood. This point i made is in reference to a Supreme Court trial which later became an ammendment to the law.
For the person to lose the elements of personhood, he has to lose the higher functions of his brain which is to be self aware, conscious, have a level of understanding and to be able to touch, feel, think or move. Also the other element of survival as determined by scientists, doctors and even to a Supreme Court trial, is losing the ability to depend on themselves for survival.
Thank you for making that point. A brain dead person CANNOT RECOVER BECAUSE THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF BLOOD FLOW TO THE BRAIN AND A IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THE TISSUES AND STEMS OF THE BRAIN. IN A FETUS, THE BRAIN IS DEVELOPING AND NOT DAMAGED AND ALSO THERE IS A NORMAL FLOW OF BLOOD TO THE BRAIN. IN THE FETUS THE BRAIN IS DEVELOPING AND IN GOOD HEALTH BUT IN THE PERSON THERE IS NOT ANY HOPE OF FURTHER GROWTH AND ALSO RECOVERY. A FETUS IS BORNED AND NURTURED BUT A PERSON IN COMA CAN'T.
If DNA does not matters then maybe they should stop using DNA to identify criminals because DNA identifies a different human identity which is used in the case if a father or mother wishes to identify their child, born or unborn. DNA gives it identity, not a brain. A brain performs and or control basic body functions. Even to doctors will attest to this.
As far as i remember cloning has to do with copying DNA (HUMAN IDENTITY) and using it to create another. In the case of human sexual reproduction, the sperm is ejaculated out of the father into the canal of the mother where the process of fertilization takes place. This process takes place within the human body and not out of the human body. So i am of the opinion that the reference you are making is insignificant because the the fetus is formed from a natural process and not from an artificial process.
Firstly a fetus has DNA which a cancerous tissue does not have and also a fetus has organs which cancerous cells do not have. A fetus is developing into a human person. Can cancerous cells develop into a human person? Cancerous cells kills by feeding off of the body whilst fetus develops into a person.
The fetus cannot give consent i agree but what about the millions who are murdered without getting their consent?
The reference made to an atificial process is invaluable in this debate. The fact that the fetus is formed from sperm and then merges together with the ovum is in no way artificial.
Natural and artificial are irrelevant here. Humans can reproduce asexually given certain conditions, that is the point, reproduction.
The fluid that is feeded to the fetus from the mother causes the fetus to depend on survival for this fluid, right? So therefore if it has no life then how come it depends on survival? Don't living things depend on survival?
I did not say it had no life. I said it had no personhood.
They have a brain which retains their identity but they do not have a brain that is conscious and has full functions. And to be within the confines of personhood one has to have a brain that is fuctioning as that of a normal brain. A fetus brain is not fully formed but when compared to a person in coma, both are at the same level because there is the absence of the elements of personhood. This point i made is in reference to a Supreme Court trial which later became an ammendment to the law.
Consciousness is irrelevant here. What matters is that the brain stores the identity. A foetus has no identity yet.
Thank you for making that point. A brain dead person CANNOT RECOVER BECAUSE THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF BLOOD FLOW TO THE BRAIN AND A IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THE TISSUES AND STEMS OF THE BRAIN. IN A FETUS, THE BRAIN IS DEVELOPING AND NOT DAMAGED AND ALSO THERE IS A NORMAL FLOW OF BLOOD TO THE BRAIN. IN THE FETUS THE BRAIN IS DEVELOPING AND IN GOOD HEALTH BUT IN THE PERSON THERE IS NOT ANY HOPE OF FURTHER GROWTH AND ALSO RECOVERY. A FETUS IS BORNED AND NURTURED BUT A PERSON IN COMA CAN'T.
We don't care what a foetus MAY become, what matters is that at the moment of abortion it is on equal level with a braindead person. Actually less because a braindead person has a developed brain.
If DNA does not matters then maybe they should stop using DNA to identify criminals because DNA identifies a different human identity which is used in the case if a father or mother wishes to identify their child, born or unborn. DNA gives it identity, not a brain. A brain performs and or control basic body functions. Even to doctors will attest to this.
Uniqueness of DNA doesn't matter. Pay more attention.
As far as i remember cloning has to do with copying DNA (HUMAN IDENTITY) and using it to create another. In the case of human sexual reproduction, the sperm is ejaculated out of the father into the canal of the mother where the process of fertilization takes place. This process takes place within the human body and not out of the human body. So i am of the opinion that the reference you are making is insignificant because the the fetus is formed from a natural process and not from an artificial process.
DNA stores only genetic identity, the brain stores personal identity. This is why clones are different people.
Again, artificial versus natural doesn't matter.
Firstly a fetus has DNA which a cancerous tissue does not have and also a fetus has organs which cancerous cells do not have. A fetus is developing into a human person. Can cancerous cells develop into a human person? Cancerous cells kills by feeding off of the body whilst fetus develops into a person.
Cancerous tissue has DNA.
It doesn't matter what a foetus COULD be, it matters what it presently is.
The fetus cannot give consent i agree but what about the millions who are murdered without getting their consent?
A foetus is not a person. It doesn't matter that it may one day be a person, it only matters that presently it has as much personhood as a tumor.
Sure you can. Look, I'm doing it right now: "I support abortion rights while opposing capital punishment".
Oh, logically. You sneaky bastard.
You want logic? Capital punishment costs a shitload of money and is pathetically ineffective as a crime deterrent.
Abortion, on the other hand, is relatively cheap and tends to do a dandy job because it can skip through all the court systems and red tape because babies don't have any rights!
Well, I'm glad we've settled this. You can go ahead and close the debate now.
From a liberal perspective: The fetus isn't truly "alive" or fully human yet, but the criminal is a human being.
From a conservative perspective: The fetus is alive and innocent, but the criminal deserves death because he is guilty (depending on crime, usually murder).
"The fetus is, by all scientific standards, a living human being."
Not everybody believes this. There are even a few people out there that don't consider a baby "alive" until birth! I think life starts at conception (human life), but the liberal argument is that there comes a point where the "clump of cells" becomes a human. I think the most common time frame for this might be 8 weeks because it's the first heartbeat and brain activity.
"Our justice system is wrought with error."
It's not perfect, but conservatives have enough trust in it to put to death a man for slaughtering his entire family. Of course, not too many people want to use the death penalty for minor offenses. Some of the only cases that warrant capital punishment are those that involve cruel and viscous first degree murder.
It doesn't matter what "everybody believes" or not. It's science: it doesn't ask your opinion, it simply is. And scientifically speaking, as far as we can currently tell, the life of a homo sapien begins at conception.
A stereotypical conservative's perhaps misplaced trust in our judicial system does not justify the death of even a single innocent man. And on the "cruel and viscous" note, at what point does one murderer become crueler and more vicious than another, and how might one go about drawing that distinction in a non-arbitrary, non-reactionary way?
You say that science considers babies alive, so tell me this: How is it that something that cannot support itself continually, and naturally, can be considered alive? I believe that if the baby has reached an age where it would be able to support itself it should not be aborted, but ultimately the choice should be the mother's. You, me, nor anyone, has the right to force someone to do anything that interferes with their own beliefs and personal interest. Why should the fetus cling, as a parasite (defined as "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment"), to the mother, if she wished it not to be so, and it can change.
To sum it up, a quote by Ayn Rand: "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
How is it that something that cannot support itself continually, and naturally, can be considered alive?
Because it is an independent organism that meets all of the criteria of "alive," and because if, at the moment of conception, the unborn were not alive, they would be unable from that moment to grow and develop. Life cannot come from non-life.
I believe that if the baby has reached an age where it would be able to support itself
The young of most animals are unable to support themselves independently from birth. At what point does self-sufficiency become sufficient? Birth seems a rather arbitrary placemarker in the grand scheme of things.
You, me, nor anyone, has the right to force someone to do anything that interferes with their own beliefs and personal interest.
Except when it comes to the wholesale violation of another's right to life. We've started whole wars over that one.
Why should the fetus cling, as a parasite [...] to the mother, if she wished it not to be so, and it can change.
Well, because about all but 1% of the time, the mother invited it in. Even if you're viewing the mother's uterus as her property from which she has the right to evict tenants, the Castle Doctrine doesn't extend to those guests who, while unwanted, were invited. I suppose I may just be a stickler about personal responsibility, but I think that I would be supported in most other contexts: you can't just kill another human because its existence would inconvenience you. Your liberty does not extend so far as to encroach on others'.
To summarize, a quote by Ayn Rand:
"I am a stupid twat whose philosophy was more inconsistent than a twelve-year-old's menstrual cycle. Do not quote me in an argument if you wish to be taken seriously." c. 1967
BABIES CAN'T HELP WHAT HAPPENS , PEOPLE WHO KILL BABIES CAN , AS FOR CAPITOL PUNISHMENT WE SHOULD OFF A FEW CHILD MOLESTERS WHILE WE ARE ON THE SUBJECT . I DON'T WANT TO FEED THE BASTARDS ANYMORE THAN ANYONE ELSE WITH ANY COMMON SENSE .
Capital punishment is tantamount to murder in my book. It is forcibly taking away a person's life, someone who has experienced living and has has subjective experiences. I hate to say it, but a child that has not been born has no quality of life, has not experienced living in the world and has not had a chance to live. Abortion and Capital punishment are two completely different things.
Abortion refers to what do we think happens after we make sex.
Capital punishment, refers to what do we think about human actions.
About the first, I understand what Aristotle says about potency and action, so I think that into the woman's womb is something 'destined' to be something A, and not B.
About the first, I think Plato is right when he says that 'no one does bad things, but when they're persuaded', so if there is capital punishment, maybe first should be taken into consideration what has lead the action of that person.
But as you can see, I picked two different reasons to agree with both. There's no need to agree or disagree with both them at the same time because of the same reason.
[ For me, I think it is right because I found some similarity between those two ideas (Aristotle's and Plato's) and myself, so, being something personal, it's probably impossible to establish a convention ]
Being against abortion and 100% for capital punishment is not hypocritical nor illogical. What those people are saying is that they prefer innocent lives, with the potential to do good in our society (i.e., like Steven Hawkins), over degenerate, low life, scum sucking criminals ;)
No, but the millions wasted in courts every year jumping through the extra legal loopholes that a capital trial entails are more than enough to oppose capital punishment.
I got that one figured out too. We make it so that if you are found guilty, you get one and only one appeal. After that, you go directly to the chair. You do not pass Go, you do not collect $200 ;)
