#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
This is a Child in the First Days of their Life
Yep. It is what it is!
Side Score: 173
|
 |
Denial is my drug of Choice!
Side Score: 152
|
|
9
points
When the egg meets the sperm, a child is conceived. That is the first stage of its life cycle. During the first days (stage) of its life (cycle), a child looks like a clump of cells. But it is alive (just as single cell animals are alive) and it is a child (it is just in a different stage than us). A butterfly is the adult stage of that particular insect. A butterfly has 4 distinct stages in its life cycle. Egg, larva (caterpillar), pupa (chrysalis), and butterfly (adult). Is any one stage any more deserving of life than any other stage? Why would it be OK for a butterfly to destroy its eggs but not OK to destroy the larva or the pupa? Why is it OK for humans to destroy the fetus but not OK to destroy a new born, or a toddler or even a pesky teenager? ;)
Supporting Evidence:
http://www.teachengineering.org/
Side: Yep. It is what it is!
2
points
When the egg meets the sperm, a child is conceived. That is the first stage of its life cycle. During the first days (stage) of its life (cycle), a child looks like a clump of cells. But it is alive (just as single cell animals are alive) and it is a child (it is just in a different stage than us). The argument is not about whether it is alive or not. We all know that a fertilized egg is alive. My skin cells are alive, and they have human dna, but that does not make them people. Being alive, and having human dna, does not make something a person. So no, it is not a human child. Why is it OK for humans to destroy the fetus but not OK to destroy a new born, or a toddler or even a pesky teenager? ;) Because a newborn, toddler, and pesky teenager are all people. The fetus has not reached the criteria for being a person, until sometime later during the pregnancy. All you've done is restated what the debate title originally said. Why not propose an argument instead? Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
6
points
The argument is that what some people call a clump of cells is in reality a stage in the human life cycle. In other words, that clump of cells is human. It is a person. It is just in a different stage in the human life cycle. Humans begin as a clump of cells. ;) Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
person n 1 : natural person 2 : the body of a human being ;also : the body and clothing of a human being [had drugs on his ] 3 : one (as a human being or corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties see also juridical person, legal person, personality Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
That's good to know.... but it's not about your preferences. It's not about my preferences either. For you to prevail, you're going to have to get the science community to revise their definitions. For me to prevail, I just have to change how those definitions were applied by the Roe v Wade decision. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
That's good to know.... but it's not about your preferences. It's not just my preferences. It is what the science reflects. I am not my eyeball. I am not my hand. All of that could be taken away, and my brain could be placed in a jar connected to a computer on life support, and I'd still be me. If you remove the brain from the body, or a brain is not sufficiently developed (>20 weeks in pregnancy), then the body is just an empty shell. There is no person inside it. You would rather operate on legal precedents that seem to support your position, rather than go down to the evidence of the matter. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
When the debate is about when a person's rights begin... I think it's more important to acknowledge the when and how a life begins than it is to require that new person to overcome an arbitrarily decided point.... where we can't justify the denials of the fact that they are a human being / person anymore. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
When the debate is about when a person's rights begin... I think it's more important to acknowledge the when and how a life begins than it is to require that new person to overcome an arbitrarily decide point A person should have rights when they become a person. What about the development of the brain is "arbitrarily decided" ? where we can't justify the denials of the fact that they are a human bein / preson anymore. It is not a fact that they just are human beings/persons by the mere act of fertilization. If a newly fertilized egg is a person entitled to all their rights, then if a girl takes the morning after pill which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, therefore killing the person, they should be tried for murder, shouldn't they? They killed a single celled organism. Throw them in jail, right? Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1. Brain activity is not a requirement for personhood. If you can show me proof that it is, I will take it into consideration. However, since I have searched for that proof myself now for many years... I know that it does not exist. Still, if you can produce it... please do. 2. It would be a tough case to prove... But a murder is a murder and it's not based on the value of the person killed - to society. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
Brain activity is not a requirement for personhood. A brain is a prerequisite for being a person. A sufficiently developed one that is connected in just the right places to give rise to some form of consciousness that we could call a person, is also necessary. I don't have undeniable proof that this is the case, I am able to be wrong, but the evidence doesn't look that way. This sounds like hypocrisy anyways, you claim that personhood begins at conception, what proof do you have to prove that the newly fertilized cell is a person? 2. It would be a tough case to prove... But a murder is a murder and it's not based on the value of the person killed - to society. Regardless of whether it would be tough to prove or not, let's say it was proven. The mother who murdered the single celled person, she should be sent to prison for a long time at least, correct? Just like other murderers? And premeditated at that too. Oh and don't forget miscarriages, how do we know they didn't secretly murder those children either? Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1. My proof is very easy to follow. a. Personhood is a human/ legal construct. (a person is what we say it is). b. Our laws define natural persons as human beings (period) c. A human being in the first days of their life meets that legal criteria. d. We already have laws (like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act) which add to this fact. 2. First things first. I'll help you explore what the penaltys should be - only when (and if) you will acknowledge that an abortion kills a child / human/ person. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
a. Personhood is a human/ legal construct. (a person is what we say it is). I don't think so. If you go back far enough (~20th week of pregnancy) we reach a point where it is thought to be physically impossible to have any form of recognizable personhood, like you or I, or even that of a newborn infant. b. Our laws define natural persons as human beings (period) How many times will you say "period" ? The law is not the final word on the matter. The law should include a brain as a requirement. Otherwise we're left with a flawed and incomplete definition of a person, which includes brainless humans. 2. First things first. I'll help you explore what the penaltys should be - only when (and if) you will acknowledge that an abortion kills a child / human/ person. I have a feeling that this point is what ruins your whole argument. Why not entertain this consequence? If all newly fertilized eggs are people, then all abortions are premeditated murder. All miscarriages will result in the mother being brought into custody to find out the situation, to ensure that no murder has occurred. There are somewhere between 500 thousand and 1 million miscarriages per year in the United States. All of these women must be brought into custody for the potential murder of the "person". Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
My last post for the night... I have something else to do. a. Brain activity is not a requirment for personhood. Not by our laws and not by our sciences. (personhood is not a scientific matter anyway) b. I agree that the laws are neither infallible nor final. They are FACTUAL and relevant however, unless and until they are changed to say something else. c. The consequences for killing a person in one stage of their life verses any other stage of their life is a debate that has nothing to do with their rights as a human person to not be killed unjustly. They are two separate issues. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
a. Brain activity is not a requirment for personhood. Not by our laws and not by our sciences. (personhood is not a scientific matter anyway) Do you at least agree with this statement: A brain is a prerequisite for being a person. It is literally impossible to be a human without a brain. How do you solve the brainless human problem? b. I agree that the laws are neither infallible nor final. They are FACTUAL and relevant however, unless and until they are changed to say something else. I've already said that if they are what you say they are, then they should be changed to reflect the requirement of a brain. c. The consequences for killing a person in one stage of their life verses any other stage of their life is a debate that has nothing to do with their rights as a human person to not be killed unjustly. They are two separate issues. Okay. Regardless, do we apprehend all the mothers who have miscarriages or not? This sounds like it would cultivate a culture where people keep their pregnancy secret for as long as possible, in case they have an accidental miscarriage and are brought into custody for possible murder. "Nicaragua hands out prison sentences for girls and women who seek an abortion and for doctors and nurses who provide services linked with abortion." "Amnesty reports that doctors and nurses are frightened to treat a pregnant woman or girl for illnesses such as cancer, malaria, HIV/AIDS or cardiac emergencies where treatment could cause injury or death to the fetus." "One health worker told Amnesty researchers that one woman who was admitted to hospital following a miscarriage was so terrified of being prosecuted for abortion that she asked doctors not to treat her in case any treatment was seen as an intentional termination of pregnancy. "She told the health worker that she was concerned that her neighbor, who knew she was pregnant, might report her for having an abortion," the report said." This doesn't sound like a very pleasant society to be a child bearing woman. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
1
point
And if a brainless human were born, is it entitled basic human rights? Even though this brainless human is literally an empty shell of organs, skin, etc? This is why this definition of person is completely flawed. Brains are optional. The courts have repeatedly answered yes to that question. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
The courts have repeatedly answered yes to that question. In the context of this discussion, what the courts have said is irrelevant. I am speaking on the philosophical issue here. Is a newly fertilized egg truly a person? What does the science show? The science is saying that the definition of "person" that you provided is incorrect. As I have demonstrated before, we are not our organs or any other body part, except the brain. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
You were the one who originally claimed that a person begins existence at conception, and didn't provide any proof for your claims either. Why did you not need it originally, and all of a sudden I need it now? A brain is a prerequisite for a person. You literally cannot be a person without a brain. Do you disagree with this statement? Is it possible to be a person, without a brain? Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I can't find a single instance in history in which a woman gave birth to a single solitary brain. However, I can find a single instance in which a baby was born without their brain. Regardless, even if it did happen, it would still be a person. Unfortunately we do not have the technology to save it today. Your definition of person is just anything from fertilized egg, onwards. This lacks the obvious inclusion of the brain, therefore making your definition flawed and incomplete. As much as you want it to be, it's not hyperbole. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
OK, I'll grant you this..., I'll revise my definition. A human being is any stage of the human life cycle starting with the fertilization of a human egg by human sperm that is able to sustain life with normal intervention. Once it dies, it is no longer a human being. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
This definition appears flawed as well then, because it disqualifies fetal surgery, which is not normally necessary during a pregnancy. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
I don't think you are understanding me. But maybe I'm not being clear enough. If a surgical procedure fixes the problem and the fetus can go on to live an otherwise normal life, then I would call that a normal procedure. If it takes a herculean effort to keep it alive and there's little hope it will ever live an otherwise normal life, then I would not call that a normal procedure. In that case, the procedure can be withheld and the human being allowed to die of natural causes. Maybe if I use the negative form of the definition: A human being is any stage of the human life cycle starting with the fertilization of a human egg by human sperm that is able to sustain life if it is not killed. ;) Killing a human being is NOT normal intervention. Withholding food and/or water so the human being dies, is NOT normal intervention. Abortion, is NOT normal intervention. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
If it takes a herculean effort to keep it alive and there's little hope it will ever live an otherwise normal life, then I would not call that a normal procedure. In that case, the procedure can be withheld and the human being allowed to die of natural causes. And in the case of Baby K? Why not just cut straight to an abortion when it's still a very small fetus, rather than letting it die of "natural causes" at the size of a newborn? Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
Hmmm...., I think you are missing a part of the puzzle. I am NOT against abortion. Women can go and do whatever they want. I won't stop them. It's not my business. But I will consider them selfish bitches if it was a viable fetus that they decided to abort because it would be an inconvenience that arose from a choice to have unprotected sex. Having said that... Maybe baby K did not have a fulfilling life. But baby K did provide some sense of fulfillment to her mother. If this was not the case, the mother would have aborted her or let her die soon after birth and she certainly would NOT have spent so much time (2 years) and money on trying to keep her alive. Maybe the definition of what constitutes a human has nothing to do with brains, consciousness, and fertilization. Maybe what makes someone a human being is determined by the fulfillment it brings to others already here. Maybe if NO ONE wants the little bastard because he doesn't bring any fulfillment to ANYONE, then it should not be considered a person and it should be aborted. But if that's the case, then maybe the mother should not be the one making the final decision as to whether or not to abort. Maybe, as long as that fetus brings fulfillment to someone it can be considered a person and thus cannot be aborted ;) Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
1
point
And...that's false. Chuz-Life linked this to me earlier. From the site: Baby K was born on October 13, 1992, at Fairfax Hospital in Virginia. Her mother knew from the 16th week of her pregnancy that her baby's brain had not developed. But she was adamant that Baby K be kept alive, motivated by a strong religious conviction that "all life is precious" and that God, rather than herself or the doctors or the law, should decide how long the baby would live. Baby K left the hospital when she was seven weeks old. From there, she went to a nursing home (no neonatal intensive care unit?NICU?would accept her). Every time Baby K stopped breathing, her mother would rush her back to Fairfax Hospital to be resuscitated and put on a respirator. Baby K's medical bills ran up to $500,000. She lived longer than most anencephalic babies, but she died of a heart attack when she was 2.5 years old. So no, this is not hyperbole. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
2
points
1
point
1
point
Only the brain stem. Everything else was gone. In case you're wondering how much of the brain that is, here is a picture: Brainstem. Just that yellow part. Everything else was missing. Here is a fish brain compared to a human brain: Human Brain - Fish Brain Baby K only had a brainstem. A fish brain has a few more sections than that. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
2
points
It seems to me that, in order for your definition to be a useful definition of a human, you need to specify the minimum requirements. Whatever parts you pick need to be viable. In other words, it needs to be able to survive on it's own; without any intervention that is not normally given to a "normal" human at that given stage of life. ;) Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
Whatever parts you pick need to be viable. In other words, it needs to be able to survive on it's own; without any intervention that is not normally given to a "normal" human at that given stage of life. ;) That's not what i said. I guess now that I decimated the argument you had, your only option is to divert away from your argument now? Side: Yep. It is what it is!
2
points
1
point
You have provided no rebuttal, and from my perspective I can think of no way for you to continue debating your position and still make sense at the same time. Perhaps, you shouldn't use this argument anymore, I've already demonstrated how flawed and incomplete it is. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
1
point
Maybe you should try refuting the statement I originally made? I'll copy and paste it for you. Only the brain stem. Everything else was gone. In case you're wondering how much of the brain that is, here is a picture: Brainstem. Just that yellow part. Everything else was missing. Here is a fish brain compared to a human brain: Human Brain - Fish Brain Baby K only had a brainstem. A fish brain has a few more sections than that. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
2
points
And baby K was unable to sustain normal life functions and it died on it's own. What is it you want me to refute? Are you saying that baby K was NOT human? Do you want me to say that baby K was human? Who cares? It died. On it its own. Do you want me to say that if it doesn't have a brain it's not human? How much brain does it need to have in order to be human? How much needs to be missing before we say that it is no longer human? You want me to refute something you have NOT defined. :) Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
And baby K was unable to sustain normal life functions and it died on it's own. What was the point though? A fish lived a more fulfilling life than Baby K, as bad as that sounds. Baby K is a person by your definition, which is rather ridiculous. Your definition of person comes down to having human dna, and being a fertilized egg, until death. How much brain does it need to have in order to be human? How much needs to be missing before we say that it is no longer human? You want me to refute something you have NOT defined. :) Well we could start by saying that a brain is required to be a person. *"From the twenty-second week to the twenty-fourth week, connections start to be established between the cortex and the thalamus, the part of the brain that translates thoughts into nervous-system commands. Fetal consciousness seems physically “impossible” before these connections form.' (Easterbrook G., Abortion and Brain Waves)" This would be a good place for personhood I believe. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
2
points
No one has been able to articulate the meaning of life in a way that it satisfies most people. Does that mean that your life is not fulfilling? Does that mean that we can kill you simply because you are an inconvenience? Baby K was a person until the moment she died. It may sound ridiculous to you that she be considered a person but..., even if we say that she was not a person, so what? She lived for a short while. She died of natural causes. She was not killed. If you don't want to use my definition and instead you want to use your definition, then by all means use your definition and stop trying to convince me that my definition is "ridiculous." I didn't ask your opinion. You, however, asked about MY definition and I gave it to you. Why is a brain required? Is it because you think that a brain is required for human thought? Do you think that a brain is required for consciousness? You think that consciousness defines a person? At one point scientists thought the Earth was flat. Scientists today claim that they do NOT fully understand consciousness. Is it possible for the internet to become conscious? How is it that a chemical reaction and a little electricity translates into human thought/consciousness? If I put those chemicals in a test tube and add electricity, will the test tube become self aware? Would I have created thought? What if thought doesn't originate in the brain? What if there's such a thing as a soul? Does that mean that a fetus is not human until the soul enters the body? Maybe the thing that make the body human is its ability to host a soul? I don't claim to have the answers to any of those questions. You seem to be stating that you know more about the answers to those questions than the rest of us ;) If you do not know more about the answers to those questions than the rest of us, then your views are not any more valid than anyone else's views on this topic. And if your views are not any more convincing than anyone else's, then why try to convince me that they are ;) Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
If you don't want to use my definition and instead you want to use your definition, then by all means use your definition and stop trying to convince me that my definition is "ridiculous." I didn't ask your opinion. You, however, asked about MY definition and I gave it to you. My goal isn't to convert you to my ideas. This is a debate site, where we discuss opposing views. "I didn't ask your opinion" "stop trying to convince me" "respect my beliefs" This is a debate site. You of all people, with 26 thousand points, should realize this. Instead, you spend most of your time posting comedy debates, which as we can see hasn't helped your debating skills much at all. I think your definition of a person is ridiculous. It leaves us with absurdities, like Baby K being an actual person despite the lack of any entity that we can call a person. I don't respect your belief here. Why is a brain required? Is it because you think that a brain is required for human thought? Do you think that a brain is required for consciousness? You think that consciousness defines a person? A brain is required for human thought? Yes, it is. A brain is required for consciousness? Yes, it is. Consciousness defines a person? What do you mean by defines? At one point scientists thought the Earth was flat. This is no grounds on which to invalidate all scientific research of the brain. Scientists today claim that they do NOT fully understand consciousness. Is it possible for the internet to become conscious? How is it that a chemical reaction and a little electricity translates into human thought/consciousness? If I put those chemicals in a test tube and add electricity, will the test tube become self aware? Would I have created thought? What if thought doesn't originate in the brain? What if there's such a thing as a soul? Does that mean that a fetus is not human until the soul enters the body? Maybe the thing that make the body human is its ability to host a soul? 1. I already know this. 2. I don't know. I can only guess. 3. I don't know. 4. No. 5. No. 6. It does come from the brain. 7. There is currently no evidence for a soul. No need to answer the last two. I don't claim to have the answers to any of those questions. You seem to be stating that you know more about the answers to those questions than the rest of us ;) Uh, where did I say that I know more about those answers than everyone else? If you do not know more about the answers to those questions than the rest of us, then your views are not any more valid than anyone else's views on this topic. This isn't about my views being "more valid" than other people's views. Mine aren't superior, simply for belonging to me. What makes them superior or inferior is the strength of the argument. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
2
points
The strength of your argument? Really? Your views aren't superior but your argument is? You state that your views are not "more valid" but my views are "ridiculous?" I take it that when you call my views "ridiculous" that you are not guilty of an Ad hominem attack ;) I bet this isn't an Ad hominem attack either: "you spend most of your time posting comedy debates, which as we can see hasn't helped your debating skills much at all." ;) OK..., so let me say this..., My goal isn't to convert you to my ideas. Believe whatever you want. I think your definition of a person is ridiculous. Especially since you are so adamant that consciousness originates in the brain even though people with more education than you (experts in their fields) have stated that they do not fully understand consciousness. How arrogant is that? If that isn't absurd, I do not know the definition of the word. I don't respect your belief here. So..., why don't you just go to bed ;) Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
The strength of your argument? Really? Your views aren't superior but your argument is? I didn't say the strength of my argument. I said the argument, speaking generically here. Nor did I say my argument was superior. Please reread what I wrote You state that your views are not "more valid" but my views are "ridiculous?" Validity would depend on the strength of the argument (did they use a logical fallacy? etc), as well as the evidence supporting it. As for whether I think your views are ridiculous, the answer is yes. I take it that when you call my views "ridiculous" that you are not guilty of an Ad hominem attack ;) You are correct, I am not guilty of an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is literally "attack on the person". I didn't make an attack on your character, I stated my views on an opinion of yours. It is not my fault if your views become an inseparable part of you. I bet this isn't an Ad hominem attack either: "you spend most of your time posting comedy debates, which as we can see hasn't helped your debating skills much at all." ;) I just don't see it. What argument have you proposed that I am attacking with that statement? If I posted a simple "fuck you" at the end of that, that still wouldn't be an ad hominem. Especially since you are so adamant that consciousness originates in the brain even though people with more education than you (experts in their fields) have stated that they do not fully understand consciousness. How arrogant is that? If that isn't absurd, I do not know the definition of the word. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that consciousness originates in the brain. Not fully understanding consciousness does not equal "anything goes". Consciousness does not originate in your ear, 3 feet above your head, or in your foot. In the brain, sir. It's not arrogant. The experts in the field have stated that consciousness originates in the brain. We don't know everything about consciousness, there is always more to be learned, but this fact is already well established. The brain is the source of consciousness. I don't respect your belief here. So..., why don't you just go to bed ;) It's not an insult. We should call out the ideas of others that we believe to be flawed or incorrect. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
1
point
No we don't ;) Yes we do. Consciousness Signature discovered spanning the brain Proof that the Brain Creates the Conscious Mind (Scientific American requires a subscription, see following link for full article) Proof that the Brain Creates the Conscious Mind Full Article I linked Scientific American to demonstrate that it is a reputable source. Relevant quotes: "The hypothesis that the brain creates consciousness, however, has vastly more evidence for it than the hypothesis that consciousness creates the brain. Damage to the fusiform gyrus of the temporal lobe, for example, causes face blindness, and stimulation of this same area causes people to see faces spontaneously. Stroke-caused damage to the visual cortex region called V1 leads to loss of conscious visual perception. Changes in conscious experience can be directly measured by functional MRI, electroencephalography and single-neuron recordings. Neuroscientists can predict human choices from brain-scanning activity before the subject is even consciously aware of the decisions made. Using brain scans alone, neuroscientists have even been able to reconstruct, on a computer screen, what someone is seeing." ------------------- "Because we know for a fact that measurable consciousness dies when the brain dies, until proved otherwise, the default hypothesis must be that brains cause consciousness. " It's quite convenient for you that you ignored most of what I wrote. Could it be because you had no intelligent response to what I wrote? Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
1
point
Reputable until some scientist somewhere comes up with a new theory ;) That's not even a relevant response to the quoted text. Scientific American will remain reputable even if tomorrow there is another paper published proving that the brain is not the source of consciousness. By this same logic you've displayed here, creationism could become true tomorrow, despite the abundance of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. So far, there is an abundance of evidence supporting the notion that the brain is the source of consciousness. All you're doing is displaying how unwilling you are to accept you were wrong in this instance. When/if the day comes that we find out that the brain is not the source of consciousness, I'll gladly relinquish my position and believe what the evidence supports. You however, don't seem to have that integrity. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
The argument is not about whether it is alive or not. We all know that a fertilized egg is alive. My skin cells are alive, and they have human dna, but that does not make them people. Being alive, and having human dna, does not make something a person. So no, it is not a human child. Is a child who is in the fetal stage of their life, the child or young of the parents who created them? Yes or no? (the answer is YES.... and you can't honestly say the same for any of the other cells you listed) Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
(the answer is YES.... and you can't honestly say the same for any of the other cells you listed) The basis of my argument was not based upon a skin cell being equivalent to a fertilized egg. It was to show that the argument "It's alive, and it has human dna, therefore its a person", is completely flawed, because I can apply that same logic to virtually any cell in my body. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
while ignoring all the other evidence which differentiates a child in the first days of their life from a skin cell. This argument: A fertilized egg is a human being/person because it is 1) alive; and 2) possesses human DNA is completely flawed. Plenty of other things on our bodies are both alive and have human dna. What I'm saying is, you would need some more criteria than just those two in order for this to become a more formidable position. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
This argument: A fertilized egg is a human being/person because it is 1) alive; and 2) possesses human DNA is completely flawed. Plenty of other things on our bodies are both alive and have human dna. You (again) ignore the fact that a child in the first days of their life is the young of the parents who created it. You can't say the same about skin cells. You could say it but it wouldn't be true. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
You (again) ignore the fact that a child in the first days of their life is the young of the parents who created it. You can't say the same about skin cells. You could say it but it wouldn't be true. I said you would need more than just the criteria of being alive, and having human dna. I didn't ignore anything. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
I used the dispute button because you falsely claimed I ignored something, when I had already clarified what I meant in the previous response. I used the dispute button now because you said I used the dispute button to clarify my remarks. I didn't, I explained this above. I'm glad that you agree that there is a significant difference between a skin cell and a child in the zygote stage of their life. I wasn't arguing that a skin cell is equivalent to a fertilized egg. I was only showing that if someone were to use only the qualifications of being alive, and having human dna, that this is a flawed position. More than just those two things are needed to qualify as a person. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
6
points
1
point
1
point
Placental mammals (including humans) carry their young inside the mother's body until it is well developed and able to survive outside the mother. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
0
points
2
points
1
point
Hmm, based on what you've written, this view seems inconsistent. You seem to imply that you believe it is in fact a human being, but that you may support the mother being able to choose abortion if she so desires (so long as its not too late of course). Is this true? The reason it seems inconsistent is because if you do believe it is a person, and you at the same time support the mothers choice to abort this human child, then by this logic alone you believe that the mother has the right to murder her own child. If you do not hold this position, let me know. Not trying to put words in your mouth here. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
I made it extremely clear. Yes or no to the following: You seem to imply that you believe it is in fact a human being, but that you may support the mother being able to choose abortion if she so desires (so long as its not too late of course). Is this true? If yes, then read the following paragraph and address the inconsistency I have shown you in your view . If this is not your view, then just let me know that it's not your position, and that'll be the end of it. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
2
points
Okay you are being rude ? How and where? I am not being inconsistant All you've essentially done is said "nuh uh" to me. How can you believe that every fertilized cell is a human being/person and still be pro choice? If you took the morning after pill, you're still killing an unborn child, according to your beliefs. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
There are other types of morning after pills. Specifically, ones that "prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus." Second bullet point on the page. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
I don't think you're even reading anything I'm writing, you're just skimming. I'm not talking about progestin. I'm saying that there are other types of morning after pills that kill the fertilized egg. I linked it in the above paragraph. You are parroting antichoice propaganda. This is irrelevant. This is a debate site. I'm playing devils advocate because your position is fundamentally flawed. The only way for your views to be consistent is for you to believe the murder is okay. I don't believe that you hold that position, which is why I'm bringing up the inconsistency in your views. Get over the whole "you're clearly anti choice!" thing you've got going here. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
And again, you're probably not even reading what I'm typing, just skimming. Right after the link it says "Second bullet point on the page". I'll copy and paste what it says on the page: Plan B A drug could lower the risk of pregnancy in one of three ways: It could kill all of the sperm after ejaculation. It could prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Please do check the page as well. Certain types of Plan B prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, therefore killing it. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
Plan B is a progestin only medication. It does not cause abortions. It tricks the body into thinking that ovulation already happened, so that the ovary does not release an egg. You are disputing fact, disputing science, and parroting antichoice propaganda. No thinking prochoicer would say what you are saying, and thus, I am done with you. Go troll someone else. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
I want to address this first: No thinking prochoicer would say what you are saying, and thus, I am done with you. Go troll someone else. Do you even read anything I type? Or are you just trying to shove me into the mold of "anti choice person" ? I've already clearly stated my position. And I already told you that I am playing devils advocate here. Do you know what devils advocate even means? I'm not trolling. Continue the discussion or choose not to, either way your position is completely inconsistent. Plan B is a progestin only medication. I didn't realize that progestin actually IS Plan B. My apologies. You are disputing fact, disputing science, and parroting antichoice propaganda No, this is completely false. Discovery Health supports my position. Shall I get WebMD as well? From the link: It may prevent or delay ovulation. It may interfere with fertilization of an egg. It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining. Fertilized egg, PREVENTED from implanting. What happens to fertilized eggs that don't implant? They don't live forever, and they don't become children.... Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
1
point
I am sorry that you feel that way. I have learned to think outside the box. I do not get off on dead babies. Shit, I prefer contraception, but I know that we do not live in an ideal world. Now Mr. Smarty Pants, is my explanation satifactory, or should I give it to you in Spanish? ;) Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
Eh, unfortunately it is not satisfactory. I explained it as simply as possible here in a syllogism: P1: A fertilized cell is a human being/person. P2: Women can abort fetus's up until the 20th week of pregnancy. Conclusion: Aborting a fetus at any time is the murder of a human being/person. To clarify, I do not hold these beliefs. You have told me that you believe both Premise 1 and Premise 2. With these two premises, the conclusion is what undeniably follows. Do you see how your views are inconsistent now? If you believe P1 and P2, you HAVE to believe that aborting a fetus at any time is the same thing as murdering a human being. So, do you believe P1 and P2 that I wrote above? Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
2
points
Break free of the cognitive dissonance. It's not that I'm unhappy, it is that your views are inconsistent, and you choose to ignore their inconsistency. How can you believe this: P1: A fertilized cell is a human being/person. P2: Women can abort fetus's up until the 20th week of pregnancy. And not believe this: C: Aborting a fetus at any time is the murder of a human being/person. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
Point 1: A fertilized egg is a human being. It certainly is not feline or canine. Point 2: A woman can abortion up to 20 weeks after conception because some situations are worse than death for the baby. Point 3: I repeat that some situations are worse than death for the baby. Tay Sachs, being in the custody of a rapist, etc. Point 4: Some abortions can be looked at as a form of euthaniasia which I support. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
The Premises are statements that you have told me that you believed. I'm not disputing them, even though I disagree with Premise 1. So in situations in which are supposedly worse than death, that is when abortion is justified? Fair enough. It is still technically murder, but from your perspective I can see how it is a form of euthanasia, or for the "greater good" so to speak. What about in situations where it is not a "worse than death" scenario? Which is the vast majority of abortions? Are all of these murder? Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
I'm not exactly looking for either, specifically. You wrote this: "Some abortions can be looked at as a form of euthaniasia which I support." What about the ones that cannot be looked at as a form of euthanasia? What if they're just for convenience sake? Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
2
points
1
point
It's a debate site. This isn't 'picking a fight', it is showing you an inconsistency in your own views. They completely conflict with each other. You're saying it is okay to kill a human being/person, because the mother's rights come first. This is not my position, it is yours. If the fertilized cell is a human being/person, and I am a human being/person, why is it okay to kill the fertilized cell and not okay to kill me? We're both people. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
Okay calm down honey, and I am not mocking you. I call everyone cute names. Anywhoo, abortion for anyreason up to 20 weeks after conception because some situations are worse than death. If I was pregnant by rape and I thought that my rapist would get custody, I would abort. I think it is about 31 states that allows rapists to have right to their children. As a survivor of childhjood sexual abuse, I know the Hell that they go through. No way in Hell would I ever bring a child into that world. Also, pregnancy can be very traumatic for people with mental illnesses. I have three. How you ever been through such God aweful agony that you were ready to kill yourself? No? I have. Why should I have to add to my misery? Sweetheart, you are not a woman, so you do not know what women go through. Ima break it down to you: my body, my right, my choice unless the kid can live on its own. Are you sure that you are prochoice? Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
Okay calm down honey, and I am not mocking you. I call everyone cute names. Anywhoo, abortion for anyreason up to 20 weeks after conception because some situations are worse than death. I was never angry or 'flustered'. The abortion up to 20 weeks still doesn't address your inconsistency. If a fertilized cell marks the beginning of being a human/person, then any point after that would be literally murder. Unless you are okay with murder, then your views conflict. How you ever been through such God aweful agony that you were ready to kill yourself? No? I have. You presume to know quite a bit. Sweetheart, you are not a woman, so you do not know what women go through. Ima break it down to you: my body, my right, my choice unless the kid can live on its own. Are you sure that you are prochoice? And this makes me quite certain that you only skimmed what I wrote, instead of actually reading it. I made it clear, that these were not my views, but that they were yours. I support the women's right to choose, and at the same time I do not believe a fertilized cell is a human being/person, therefore it is not murder to abort the fetus. You and I differ because you do believe the fertilized cell is a person, which therefore means an abortion is murder, under your views. Here is your position in a syllogism: P1: A fertilized cell is a human being/person. P2: Women can abort fetus's up until the 20th week of pregnancy. Conclusion: Aborting a fetus at any time is the murder of a human being/person. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
1
point
Do any of these arguments sound familiar? The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who ... form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives.... The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement [people of Aftican ancestry] compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
Do any of these arguments sound familiar? These arguments bear no resemblance to the one's I'm proposing. In the argument, they simply state "we think they are not", but why? Is it just some arbitrary feeling they had? My position is not some arbitrary feeling, but rather based on the science of the brain, consciousness, sense of awareness, etc. So no, these arguments do not sound familiar to me. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
It's not simply because "They ain't like the rest of us". A fetus is not a person because it fails to display the necessary criteria to qualify as a person. What if a human were born, everything like normal, except it had no brain? Is it a person? Is it entitled rights? The answer is no, it is not entitled rights. There is nobody "in" there. There is no brain, therefore no person. Similarly, the fetus has no brain at the moment of conception, and it isn't until perhaps at the 20th week of pregnancy at the absolute earliest that key parts of the brain become connected in order to give rise to some form of brain activity that would qualify it as being a person. My views are based on the science of the matter, not simply "they're different than us". Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
It's not simply because "They ain't like the rest of us". A fetus is not a person because it fails to display the necessary criteria to qualify as a person. The current legal definition simply says that a person is a human being. How is a human being in the fetal stage of their life not a human being? person n 1 : natural person 2 : the body of a human being Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
I've already refuted this point in another response, which you conveniently ignored. The law does not decide what reality is, nor is it the final word for the definition of a word. The scientific method gives us the best method for which to discern the way reality truly is. The brain is what makes us who we are. The brain in a fetus is not even remotely developed enough until at the absolute earliest the 20th week of pregnancy, to qualify as a person. How is a human being in the fetal stage of their life not a human being? You're twisting the terms here. A newly fertilized egg is not a person, because its brain is not sufficiently developed to give rise to some sort of brain activity that would qualify it as a person, until perhaps the 20th week of pregnancy at the earliest. Imagine an ant, the amount of awareness and consciousness it possesses is so minuscule compared to that of you or I. Now think of a cluster of a few thousand cells, shortly after the egg has been fertilized, it has way less "consciousness" or "awareness", even brain activity, than the ant. Yet, if I step on an ant, I will be causing the ant more pain than if a girl takes the morning after pill and therefore preventing the fertilized cell from implanting in the uterus and killing it. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
The law does not decide what reality is, nor is it the final word for the definition of a word. On that point, we can agree. However, laws are the result of a consensus of sorts and scientific and other references are debated heavily (especially these days) in order to get enough votes for legislation to pass. Agree? The scientific method gives us the best method for which to discern the way reality truly is. True, however personhood is not a construct of nature. It is a construct of man. Personhood is what we say it is. That makes it a legal, social and political issue which is based upon the 8science of when a human life begins and comes into being. As our laws are currently written, brains are not required for personhood and even science uses language like has or can develop* to be inclusive in it's definitions for things like organisms. As far as twisting things? I'm not twisting anything. I am asking you a direct question... "If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a human being.... what kind of being are they?" Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
On that point, we can agree. However, laws are the result of a consensus of sorts and scientific and other references are debated heavily (especially these days) in order to get enough votes for legislation to pass. Agree? For the most part. I just don't think you should be hiding behind legal definitions that happen to support your views. As our laws are currently written, brains are not required for personhood and even science uses language like has or can develop to be inclusive in it's definitions for things like organisms. Please stop hiding behind the law's definition for a person. They are not the final word on the matter, so it doesn't matter whatever is currently written, in the context of this debate. As far as twisting things? I'm not twisting anything. I am asking you a direct question... "If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a human being.... what kind of being are they?"* It's a fetus, that lacks the qualities of a person up until a certain point. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
For the most part. I just don't think you should be hiding behind legal definitions that happen to support your views. I'm not hiding. When we ever get to argue before the United States Supreme Court again (as necessary to challenge Roe) ... we will have to present legal and Constitutional arguments to the court. The science has already been pretty much established and settled. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
When we ever get to argue before the United States Supreme Court again (as necessary to challenge Roe) ... we will have to present legal and Constitutional arguments to the court. As evidenced by this statement: As our laws are currently written, brains are not required for personhood and even science uses language like has or can develop to be inclusive in it's definitions for things like organisms.* - Having a definition of personhood where brains are optional is completely absurd. Just like in the case of the baby born without a brain an the courts said it still had rights, etc. It's just an empty shell without a brain. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
With or with those severe maladys and handicaps, the child is the young of the parents who created them and as such, they are legal persons. If that is what the law says, then the law should be changed so that we have a more meaningful definition of a person. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
Good luck in your endeavors? The recent legal definitions that form the basis for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and the resulting Fetal Homicide Laws in 38 States (maybe more by now) were arrived at by a consensus by lawmakers in both houses. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
What if a human were born, everything like normal, except it had no brain? Is it a person? Is it entitled rights? The answer is no, it is not entitled rights. There is nobody "in" there. There is no brain, therefore no person. I'll take that bet. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
They don't support your claims at all. Those cases went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Court ruled that the children (even though they don't have brains to speak of and will never have that capacity) were entitled to the same protections of our laws that any other person is entitled to. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
Those cases went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Court ruled that the children (even though they don't have brains to speak of and will never have that capacity) were entitled to the same protections of our laws that any other person is entitled to. Ahh, I missed that part. It is extremely clear now that we are our brains. If we have no brain, there is no person. The law simply isn't reflecting the science on the matter. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
Ahh, I missed that part. It is extremely clear now that we are our brains. If we have no brain, there is no person. The law simply isn't reflecting the science on the matter. I disagree. personhood is not an aspect of science. It is a political construct. Man (lawmakers) have declared that a person is a human being. Science can be and in my opinion should be used to determine what a human being is. That's fine with me - because the science supports my conclusions that a human being in the womb would meet that criteria. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
personhood is not an aspect of science. It is a political construct. I think it's both. The science aspect we don't understand completely, but we know enough to be quite certain that any aspect of consciousness, ability to feel, etc, is virtually impossible before the 20th week of pregnancy. If the science changes on the matter, then so will my opinion. I'm swayed by evidence, not so much the emotional rant of girls on facebook, which I see all too often. (Not directed at you, just people on my facebook -_-) Science can be and in my opinion should be used to determine what a human being is. That's fine with me - because the science supports my conclusions that a human being in the womb would meet that criteria. It does support your conclusion, somewhere between the 20th and 30th week of pregnancy, forward. Not before. Me and you are arguing ~20 weeks here. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
1. I aint a girl. Looks like you ignored where I said this: I'm swayed by evidence, not so much the emotional rant of girls on facebook, which I see all too often. (Not directed at you, just people on my facebook -_-) 2. Science says that a human being (organism) "has or can develop" those attributes. When you say human being, what do you mean? Do you mean an organism that is a human, brain optional? Or do you mean a person like you or I, as a newly fertilized cell on its first day of existence? Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
1. Your saying "Not directed at you" doesn't tell me that you already knew that I'm not a female. Your gender isn't relevant to the discussion. I wasn't concerned about it. 2. According to science, a "human being" is a "human organism." Period. Okay. Shall I bring up the brainless human problem again? The definition of a person should include a sufficiently developed brain. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
1. So, you introduced it because?? Some girl on my facebook posted some image that was clearly misleading about abortion, I clarified the misleading image for her. She proceeded to argue with emotion, and make rude comments to me. 2. You can intoduce it all you want to... but as far as I'm concerned, the legal definitions already have it right. Again, I don't know how you consider it normal that brainless humans are people. There's no "person" in the body! If this is where we're left, there's no point in continuing the back and forth of "brains are optional!" vs "brains are necessary!". Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
An adult is no more human than a teen, child, toddler or infant. Why should we exclude a fetus? It is simply in another stage of growth. But for some reason exiting out of the womb makes the baby a baby and ones that don't are non-human and don't have rights. Abortion is different from contraception! A sperm is sperm, an egg is an egg, its only when combined are they human. At this point this it is a human being, but simply at a different stage of growth than you are. You can rationalize it all you want, I'm still gonna call it what it is, murder. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
|
2
points
All your debates are the same, you are physically unable to support your bigot point of view by argumets so you are trying your luck by naming disagreeing with you by "Denial is my drug of Choice!" ... AN YOU STILL LOSE !!!! :D You are so pathetic :D Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
I think this is it. since that's a picture of a seed. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
What is it that makes a single fertilized cell a human child? It is neither conscious, nor does it have the ability to be aware of anything. It does not know of its own existence. It feels nothing. You would be causing a fly more harm by swatting it with a fly swatter, than a girl taking the morning after pill and killing this cell. The 'child' as you like to call it, is completely indifferent to its own existence, because it does not exist yet. It is not person yet. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
The Constitution guarantees (secures) the rights of all persons. As a human being and as the young of the human parents who created them, the case is easier made that a human child in the first days of their life is a person than is the case for a tree. Do you agree? Side: Yep. It is what it is!
2
points
The legal definition for a natural person is a "human being." A child in the womb not only meets that criteria, we already have legal definitions that remove any and all doubt about it. `(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
A human being regarded as an individual. It looks like denial is your drug of choice, because that above is the definition of a person. A person has to be a separate individual human being. A fetus attached to it's mother is not a separate human being. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (quoted earlier) along with fetal homicide laws in more than 38 States already recognize a child in the womb as a separate human individual. The crime of murder for killing one illegally should tell you something about their personhood. The definition of murder is the unjust or illegal killing of one person by another. Correct? Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (quoted earlier) along with fetal homicide laws in more than 38 States already recognize a child in the womb as a separate human individual. Seperate, really? I was under the impression separate meant apart, or by itself. A characteristic a fetus does not have. The definition of murder is the unjust or illegal killing of one person by another. Correct? Absolutely correct. Yet as I explained a fetus is not a person, and terminating that life is not illegal. The crime of murder for killing one illegally should tell you something about their personhood. Since when is kicking a woman in the stomach legal? Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1. They are seen as and treated as legally separate human beings. (clue: A person can be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman) 2. It's a fact. We already have laws which make many killings of children in the womb- a crime of murder. 3. The question you should think about is : "What is it that makes kicking a woman in the stomach a crime of murder?" (hint; It's the killing of the child) Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
They are seen as and treated as legally separate human beings. (clue: A person can be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman) Just as carrying a knuckle duster with a knife attached can get you charged for two weapons. Note both weapons are attached, yet the charge is for multiple. This is as you pointed out an inconsistency in the law, it's something enforcers do to up the charges to keep people they biasedly deem 'evil' away. Anyway to be charged with killing two people the fetus must be older than the abortion age. It's a fact. We already have laws which make many killings of children in the womb- a crime of murder. How so, I was under the impression abortion was legal. The question you should think about is : "What is it that makes kicking a woman in the stomach a crime of murder?" I have the answer in fact. Murder is an unlawful killing of a human being. The fetus is unlawfully killed when the woman is unlawfully kicked in the stomach, the killer is charged with an extra offense to up his sentence. This kind of thing happens all the times in the court system. break and entering can be two separate offense. Attacking someone with a weapon can be assault and battery, even though it was one main action. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
The law is not an 'end game' of a definition for a word. The law cannot decide what reality is. The scientific method gives us the best method for truly discerning the way reality truly is. And so far the science does not seem to support the position that a single fertilized cell is the equivalent of you or I. It does transition to being an actual human being/person, somewhere between the 20th and 30th week of pregnancy if I remember correctly. This being the time in which key parts of the brain connect to each other, which are believed to be key parts in the emergence of some form of consciousness, enough to be considered a person at least. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
Human personhood is just an arbitrary criteria. Why consciousness? Where does science say that consciousness is what defines a human being? Consciousness is a contingent property dependent on what kind of a being I am - for me to ever gain that trait, I must first be a being that can possess such a trait - whether I have consciousness or not has absolutely no bearing on what species I belong to. That species is Homo Sapiens - one of many animals that has the inherent characteristic of consciousness. The species is essentially a prerequisite. Biologists define life as a continous process - the key is to determine, when that process begins and when it ends. When it comes to humans and mammalian life in general, that process begins at conception. This is standard empirical data that has been known in the field of biology and embryology for decades. There is no debate. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
Human personhood is just an arbitrary criteria. Why consciousness? Where does science say that consciousness is what defines a human being? It doesn't, well at least "human being" in the sense it is equal your typical human being. It may have human D.N.A. and obviously is a being, making it a human being, but it is not a person, in my opinion. The thing here is calling it a "human being", "person", etc is merely about their rights, and that is pretty subjective to determine whether or not anything deserves the same rights. The thing here though is beings whom have never been conscious never have, and do not, and won't necessarily care whether they exist or not. The capabilities to function as a conscious being does not yet exist, so a conscious capable being does not yet exist. Once a being has begun capable of consciousness they are a conscious being, if in a coma, or their consciousness is temporarily turned off they are still a conscious capable being because they still have the brain to be able to function as such, their consciousness is merely turned off for the moment. Consciousness is a contingent property dependent on what kind of a being I am - for me to ever gain that trait, I must first be a being that can possess such a trait - whether I have consciousness or not has absolutely no bearing on what species I belong to. That species is Homo Sapiens - one of many animals that has the inherent characteristic of consciousness. The species is essentially a prerequisite. Why does it matter what species they are? We are naturally inclined to hold our own species as more of a necessity but that is nature, as survival of the fittest is for the improvement of such species. Outside of our natural loyalty to our own species, every species is still conscious life, that can think and feel. Honestly dogs only matter less to me in a given situation of only having the choice to save a human being or a dog, and at that point I can not make them equal, I have to choose. I am highly more likely to choose the human, because all species are naturally inclined to care more about their own species, we are naturally adapted like all species to be more compassionate towards our own species (though honestly it could change depending on the dog and the human). So a life belonging to our species doesn't in and of itself mean anything. If that life is as alive as a tree at most, it is completely indifferent towards it's future because it does not exist as a conscious life yet. If it is indifferent why should we care? Of course a person in a coma is indifferent to being killed at that moment, that "person" isn't indifferent the consciousness of that person is what makes that person more than just a sack of meat. That "person" is still there, just temporarily turned off, because once that person comes out of that coma, that exact same consciousness, those same memories, same traits, same personality, etc comes back with it. Everyone's consciousness is arguably unique to each other, before that consciousness has ever taken effect, that "person" has not come into existence yet. Biologists define life as a continous process - the key is to determine, when that process begins and when it ends. When it comes to humans and mammalian life in general, that process begins at conception. This is standard empirical data that has been known in the field of biology and embryology for decades. There is no debate. Don't get too cocky, there is still a debate, I do agree that there is most likely life in that fetus, but is it conscious capable life? If the "person" that comes with that consciousness does not exist why should we care for that life? It has no memories, no personality, no feelings, nothing like that. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
Unless you can show me a legal or Constitutional reference that says that conciousness is required for personhood. Can you show me a constitutional reference that says what is required for personhood? If you truly can than I honestly think that the constitution may be flawed. As for legal, what is the point of politics if their is no intent to change what is legal and what isn't? That is the point of politics isn't it? To decide on what laws should be? I'm going to have to say that it's a red herring to the debate. It is not a red herring because It contributes to the debate being "This is a Child in the First Days of their life." I wouldn't consider a non-person a child. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
Our Constitution just says that all persons are equally entitled to the equal protections of our laws. Our legal references say that a natural person is a human being and a human being (child) even in the first days of their life - meets that definition. Yours is a red herring because conciousness is not a legal requirment for personhood. (People in comas are legal persons) Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
Our Constitution just says that all persons are equally entitled to the equal protections of our laws. Our legal references say that a natural person is a human being and a human being (child) even in the first days of their life - meets that definition. The point of politics is to change what is legal and what isn't, so my political opinion is that personhood should not be dependent on just the fact of being human, but that of the consciousness capabilities developed. Yours is a red herring because conciousness is not a legal requirment for personhood. (People in comas are legal persons) Well if you thoroughly read my argument correctly I addressed the counter-argument of people in a coma, and I don't think personhood should be dependent on consciousness, but rather consciousness capabilities. People in a coma are capable of consciousness, they have a brain that allows it, it is merely turned off temporarily. Where as a fetus before the 30th week I hear isn't at all capable of consciousness. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1. We are entitled to our opinions and I'll not challenge you in yours. I am satisfied with our current legal definitions. 2. See number one. You think personhood should depend on the brain and brain capacity. It doesn't. So, that puts you at odds with existing laws too. We have children who have been protected by our laws (anencephalic children) who were born with little or no brains at all. They have only a brain stem and no ability to think, feel or become self aware. They were still treated as persons by our laws. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
1. We are entitled to our opinions and I'll not challenge you in yours. I am satisfied with our current legal definitions. When did I say you weren't entitled in your opinion, how am I at all implying that. You are challenging my opinion just as much as I am challenging yours. You may be satisfied with our current legal definitions, however I am not. . See number one. You think personhood should depend on the brain and brain capacity. It doesn't. So, they puts you at odds with existing laws too. How many times do I have to freaking tell you this... I don't care... I don't just agree with things just because the laws already agree with them. If I lived in the time of slavery, I would hope that I would still hold the opinion that we shouldn't have slaves, back then all the laws supported slavery. I literally had to tell you this like ten times now I feel like... It REALLY gets irritating when I have to respond to the same point, over and over, and over, and over, and over... We don't get anywhere and it shows you are not willing to listen to the other side. I've listened to your points multiple times, and have come up with a refutation for them all, yet you haven't seem to come up with a counter refutation. I am sorry if I seem rude but when you make the same argument over, and over, and over, and over, and I explain why I don't agree with it, and you don't acknowledge that it gets a little annoying... We have children who have been protected by our laws (anencephalic children) who were born with little or no brains at all. They have only a brain stem and no ability to think, feel or become self aware. You know what... I'm not playing this game with you. There is no point in arguing a brick wall... You showed me a link to one of these disorders or whatever, and I had a refutation for it. Until you acknowledge the points I have already made I will not acknowledge yours... it is proving to be a waste of our time. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1. I don't challenge your opinions. You have a right to be wrong and I won't worry about the fact that you are. I will show you the facts that I base my opinions on and I've done so in the past. If you choose to remain in denial of those facts? That's your perrogative. 2. If you don't care? You are debating these issues because... 3. You haven't refuted the fact that our laws have in the past and will in the future - treat children born with no brains at all (anencephalic babies) as the human beings (persons) that they are. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
1. I don't challenge your opinions. You have a right to be wrong and I won't worry about the fact that you are. I will show you the facts that I base my opinions on and I've done so in the past. If you choose to remain in denial of those facts? That's your perrogative. I don't want you to force you to think what I think either. You have the right to think what you think either... I'm debating with you because we are on a debate site... DUH!! I'm not trying to censor you, I'm not trying to take your opinion away I'm doing the exact same thing you are doing (and started yourself with me) and that is debating you. (S/) Oh my god someone is debating with me on a debate site, I am sooooo oppressed (S/) come on really? What am I doing differently than you on here? As far as facts go, I have accepted every one of your facts as fact, I don't deny any of them, they just haven't changed my opinion. 2. If you don't care? You are debating these issues because... I don't care to really debate with you if you are just going to bring up the same arguments over, and over, and over, and over, and every time I make a counter argument it gets ignored, or you counter it with another argument I already acknowledged... First time I argued with you we just went in fucking circles... That is not how you fucking debate... I am sorry to be rude but it isn't... 3. You haven't refuted the fact that our laws have in the past and will in the future - treat children born with no brains at all (anencephalic babies) as the human beings (persons) that they are. I didn't deny that fucking fact, I just don't fucking agree that it is a fucking argument... Do you fucking understand? I completely and absolutely fucking accept that the fucking laws, fucking support your fucking stance... I am not fucking arguing against that... I just don't agree that they should because... that is the fucking point of politics... OOH SHOCKER!!! who would have thought that the point of politics is to argue the validity of laws, not only what the laws are... COME ON! As far as the future goes, you haven't proven that the future will continue to support your stance, and even if you do, you haven't proven your stance is correct. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
I'll give it a try, but I'm not holding my breath. My irritation is not with you disagreeing with me, I disagree with Warrior on a lot of things, we are two completely different people and I think he is a decent debater. it is with your arrogance, stubbornness, and close-mindedness getting in the way of your capabilities to debate. sorry if that seems rude, maybe it is just an opinion but it still makes debating with you irritating for me. Let's try it though and see if I am satisfied with debating you. two intertwined key questions I feel I made want to further to get more elaborate explanation from you is: Why do you value the life of an unconscious fetus? Why do you value the life of a typical human being? What is the key difference between a tree and an unconscious fetus? What do you think Pro-choicer's are in denial of? Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1. I can honestly say that my reasons for debating against abortion and for the rights of children in the womb have (has) nothing to do with a fondness of or value of children in the womb. Indeed, I have very little value - even for my own life - let alone for any other human beings. 2. I need clarification. Are you asking about any fetus or the fifference between a tree and a human fetus? A fetus (of any species) is an animal organism and a tree is a plant organism. All fetuses are the young or children of the parents who created them. 3. Pro-choicers are almost monolythic in their denial of basic human rights and legal protections for children in the womb. There are other denials as well as many still deny that the child in the womb is a child, that they are the young of their parents, that they are human beings or persons as well. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
1. I can honestly say that my reasons for debating against abortion and for the rights of children in the womb have (has) nothing to do with a fondness of or value of children in the womb. Indeed, I have very little value - even for my own life - let alone for any other human beings. hmm interesting. Ok, why do you care for the rights for the unborn in the womb? 2. I need clarification. Are you asking about any fetus or the fifference between a tree and a human fetus? A fetus (of any species) is an animal organism and a tree is a plant organism. All fetuses are the young or children of the parents who created them. what make's an unborn's life (before the 30th week) more valuable than that of a tree? The fact that it is human? 3. Pro-choicers are almost monolythic in their denial of basic human rights and legal protections for children in the womb. There are other denials as well as many still deny that the child in the womb is a child, that they are the young of their parents, that they are human beings or persons as well. Do you think that perhaps some Pro-choicers find you to be in denial from their point of view? Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
1
point
1
point
This is the criteria of person hood that I am going off of, for I have found it to make quite a bit of sense: 1. Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain; 2. Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of genetic or direct external control); 4. The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics; 5. The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both. Note: Only one of these characteristics needs to be present in order for a fetus to qualify as a person. Where does science say that consciousness is what defines a human being? To my knowledge, science does not say this. Consciousness is a contingent property dependent on what kind of a being I am - for me to ever gain that trait, I must first be a being that can possess such a trait - whether I have consciousness or not has absolutely no bearing on what species I belong to. That species is Homo Sapiens - one of many animals that has the inherent characteristic of consciousness. The species is essentially a prerequisite. Okay...I don't think I disagree with you here. I'm not saying that a fetus is a different species, it is most certainly has human dna. Merely possessing human dna does not make it a person. Biologists define life as a continous process - the key is to determine, when that process begins and when it ends. When it comes to humans and mammalian life in general, that process begins at conception. This is standard empirical data that has been known in the field of biology and embryology for decades. There is no debate. Fertilization is the beginning of a new organism. Fertilization does not make it a person though. There is nobody "in" that cell. A human like you or I, with thoughts, desires, emotions, etc, does not exist yet. Not until later in the pregnancy. Merely stating "there is no debate", doesn't refute my position. Try again. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
Nope you misunderstand me. Some areas of the law will define a person differently to other areas of law. Its not a inconsistency in the law itself but merely a inconsistency in the wording. Its not important. The law is clearly that fetuses (or persons still in the womb) do NOT have the same right as those in the womb. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
Yes you're right that there are different lengths of imprisonment for different murders but that does not solely depend on the age of the victim. It is still the same crime but the severity of it is different. Killing children (not including fetuses!!) is generally seen as a worse crime that adults due to the complete innocence of the victim. You can be charged with murder, which is intentional, (I believe you call it 1st degree murder) of any person in any state. As I understand it.. its a different charge for killing a fetus isn't it? The law differentiates between the crime doesn't it? In the UK murder doesn't include fetuse. In the USA maybe sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Its a matter of the context of the legislation. Much like the word 'molest' which you seem so fascinated with. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
You can get a life sentence for looking at child pornography in the USA too. It doesn't make it the same crime as first degree murder. Right. So- can we agree that any disparity that we might have in our sentencing laws is not a factual indication of whether or not a child in the womb (in any stage of life) is a person or not? Side: Yep. It is what it is!
I had forgot that jury's can decide the punishment in criminal cases (a disgusting misjustice). It still stands though that the law presents to distinct crimes. One for killing a person in the womb and one for killing a person out of the womb. The law clearly does not treat them the same. Its different legislation. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
I have shared it with you before. "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act" ) And the Fetal HOMICIDE ) laws in most of our States. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
It seems that the unborn victims of violence act only applies when there is violence against the mother. The mother cannot commit murder against the fetus for instance, even when its not part of a unlawful abortion. Fetal homicide is different from other forms of homicide. Thats why it has a different name. If it was exactly the same then there would need to be another name. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
You asked me for laws that include children in the fetal stages of their life as possible victims of murder. I shared those laws with you and instead of agreeing that they make it a crime of murder to kill one unjustly, you instead start splitting hairs about the language of the laws. Can I please get you to acknowledge the fact that our laws do recognize children in the fetal stages of their life as victims of murder? Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
I have great sympathy for people who I serving life sentencing the US. Very few would be sentenced to life in any other 1st world country. That doesn't mean the law treats all those crimes the same though. The length of sentence is based on the whim of the jury. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
Because a mother cannot murder the fetus. I'm not convinced the average sentence would be exactly the same either. On 14 March last year Shuai was arrested and taken into custody in the high-security Marion County prison, where she was held for the next 435 days, charged with murdering her foetus and attempted feticide. If convicted of the murder count she faces a sentence of 45 years to life. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
"The feticide law, introduced in Indiana in 1979, was designed with violent third parties in mind: abusive boyfriends or husbands who attacked their pregnant partners, causing them to lose their unborn babies. It was enhanced to carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in 2007 after a bank robbery in which a pregnant woman was shot in the stomach, killing her fetus but leaving her alive." This article also says this. It is clear that some prosecutors are misusing the law beyond what is in intended. Ultimately Bei Bei Shuai had the charge of murder withdrawn and was solely charged with feticide. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
0
points
1
point
2
points
2
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
2
points
2
points
2
points
1
point
2
points
2
points
1
point
It is or it was a tree in the first stages of it's growth, life and development. A fetus is a fetus a child is a child. Don't confuse the two it makes you look idiotic. It's the young of it's parent tree. Young may be synonymous with child, but it's not immediately replaceable with it. You remember this discussion with the word 'birth' right? It is then also a tree itself even if it never reaches adulthood. Adulthood and sprouting are two different things. An adult tree can produce seeds of it's own, a sprout has not even broken free of the ground yet, an immature tree has broken free of the ground but is not able to produce it's own seeds. On another topic not related to quoting you, the picture is that of a seed not planted in the ground. That is semen not planted in an ova. That seed will not be a tree, ever until it is planted. The semen will never be a child until it is planted. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1. A human child in the fetal stage of their life may be called a fetus but they are never the less a human child. 2. The fact that you were the young of your parents even when you were only a zygote is how and why your biological father is your biological father. 3.A tree going in mid air would sill be a tree and the zygote in the picture has already began cell divisions. Look closer. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
A human child in the fetal stage of their life may be called a fetus but they are never the less a human child. A child is defined as someone between certain ages. The reason the word fetus exists is to not confuse the two. The fact that you were the young of your parents even when you were only a zygote is how and why your biological father is your biological father. So I was my mother's son while I was still a sperm swimming around, because at that point I was still a young, and synonymously as you would probably agree, I was a child. A tree going in mid air would sill be a tree and the zygote in the picture has already began cell divisions. Look closer. But it's not growing. I know what you see, that little bit of green is a sprout. it's a common enough thing, yet if the nutrients don't keep coming, not just the water and sunlight, it will not become a tree. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1. ... the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'. 2. Biology fail. A sperm and or an egg cell -prior to conception - have only a potential to create the actual living organism that a child in the early stages of their life already is. 3. It's already a tree. The green is a sign of life (photosynthesis) and it (the sprout) got ther by cell division and growth. It's a tree in the first stages of its growth and life. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
1. ... the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'. Haven't we been over this before? Semantics are not a great grounds for an argument. If a legal document calls a cat a dog at one point that does not mean cats are now dogs. Biology fail. A sperm and or an egg cell -prior to conception - have only a potential to create the actual living organism that a child in the early stages of their life already is. Image analogy fail. That sprout is not in any source of nutrient it will not become a tree. It's already a tree. The green is a sign of life (photosynthesis) and it (the sprout) got ther by cell division and growth. You really like debating? You really believe your cause? Prove to me you can grow a tree without dirt, and I'll believe you. It's a tree in the first stages of its growth and life. So is semen. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1. It would - Legally mean that they are. 2. It already is a tree. A member of the species which created it and the young of the parent tree that produced it. 3. The oak tree in my picture is already growing without soil. It will need soil someday... but in the first days of its life it does not need it. 4. Semen is not a "stage" of growth. Semen is a haploid reproductive cell that has only a small potential of meeting up with an egg and beginning a child's life. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
2
points
1. It would - Legally mean that they are. This is reference to the cat/dog question right? All I can say is wow. 2. It already is a tree. A member of the species which created it and the young of the parent tree that produced it. So semen alone, and ova alone, are already children I got it. 3. The oak tree in my picture is already growing without soil. It will need soil someday... but in the first days of its life it does not need it. If it can't live alone how is even truly alive? Living things grow, if that tree will not grow anymore without soil it's not a living thing. 4. Semen is not a "stage" of growth. Semen is a haploid reproductive cell that has only a small potential of meeting up with an egg and beginning a child's life. That seed is also showing a small potential to become a tree. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1. Don't forget that a law as ridiculous as saying a cat is a dog would never get passed or stay on the books for long without being challenged. The case is much easier made for the Constitutional rights of a human child in the womb. (as evidenced by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act) 2. Haploid reproductive cells - semen alone and eggs alone are only potential children. Their purpose is to create a child. Their role in creating a child is over at conception. 3. We are all dependent on our environments for survival... that's proof that we are in fact alive as things that are not alive have no need to survive. 4. The seed in my picture has germinated and sprouted. (Think post conception) So, it's no longer just a seed. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
What's with all the semi-colons. You only really need dashes..... Anyway, if I picked up that seed I wouldn't then go home and teach my children " This is not a seed, this is a tree." You saying it has the potential to be a child is like saying " Oh well here I have a bottle of olive oil, some mustard, some eggs, some salt, some vinegar and some garlic all separated. But it has the potential to make mayonnaise, so it must be mayonnaise!" Wrong, they are all little things that could one day, with a lot of work, be mayonnaise, but so far are not. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
I should probably add I'm 15 I don't have children, I was speaking prospectively..... And "the living thing that is already the living thing that it is" is a pretty awesome sentence :) Only thing stopping me from supporting you is that your ideas on what is a living thing, in terms of whether it is a child or not, is completely wrong. It may be a living thing, made of a few cells, but it certainly isn't a child! The exact same thing can be said of the seed. It is not a tree. Not a tree! Will become a tree if you give it time, food, water, e.t.c. But it is not a tree, you look it up in any dictionary, ask any botanist, read it in any other scientific book, it will not say " 'Tree', also known as 'Seed'." Or, "'seed', also known as 'tree'." Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
Yes, of course it is! But the embryo you just showed me is not a human being. Of course a child is! It wouldn't be a child either. But again, the picture you showed me, is not that of a child. Well, I would have thought so, otherwise I wouldn't have got my have failed my 25% Biology GCSE A*.. Shall I tell you the difference, you don't seem to see one.... Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1. If a human being in the embryonic stage of their life is not a himan being prey tell what sort of being are they? 2. A human being in the embryonic stage of their life is just as much the young of the parents who created them as is a newborn baby. 3. Germanation is the difference and it's much like conception is what makes the difference between gametes cells and the zygote (organism) that they form to create. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
Personally I'm pro-life, but at least try to understand the other persons agruement, seriously. Until you bring in the issue of the human soul (why I'm pro-life) their is no difference between ending the existence of a few cells and a fly. And I think the fly has just a few more cells but you're not mad about that. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
Souls are aspects of beliefs and as such probably don't even exist. Our Constitution secures the rights of all human beings (persons) equally.... souls are not required by our Constitution - for those protections to apply. Like I said before, we already have laws which make the killing of some children in the womb - a crime of murder. Those children may or may not have souls but it's of no relevance to the law either way. Souls are (for that reason) nothing more than a red herring to the debate. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
2
points
The Constitution guarantees (secures) the rights of all persons. As a human being and the young of the human parents who created them, the case is easier made that a human child in the first days of their life is a person than is a tree. If you want to argue that trees are persons too? That's up to you. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
I have pro-life views for religious reasons. As be it you discredit these views, I have no problem continuing. The Supreme Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection. The Supreme Court summarily announced that the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action includes a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy and that this right of privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
It is a fact that our Constitution affords all persons the equal protections of our laws. It is also a fact (just like what took place when slavery was legal) that some human beings are being legally* denied their personhood and subsequently their protections. It's still a fact that the Constitution provides them (those protections) in writing. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
1
point
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. the 14th amendment All persons BORN Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
1
point
Slavery was abolished because it was cruel, demeaning, and just plain wrong. But that being said it was because of the emotional and physical abuse the slave felt along with being physically owned by someone. In the first few days of life the cells haven't even developed nerves yet to feel. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
Clearly the constitution doesn't include feotuses as persons in the context of equal rights. I think quoting a lesser document that says that merely described a feotus as a person is not useful when in practise this isn't how its applied universially in the USA. If something needs to change it is the act that says that fetuses are persons, not the way the supreme court applies the constitution. This as because clearly there are some rights that fetuses should not be afforded. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
"Clearly the constitution doesn't include feotuses as persons in the context of equal rights." That's at the center of the debate. Isn't it? The supreme court said (when Roe was decided) that a State COULD establish personhood for the unborn and Sara Weddington agreed that a State could do so and that it would make a case for abortion - nearly impossible to make. It is an inconsistent application of our laws and definitions which create this controversy. You claim that the Constitution does not include children in the fetal stage of their lives as persons and we are arguing that it should. It's much like the 'gay marriage' debate in that regard. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
http://hotmath.com/images/gt/lessons/ This is an exponential graph. And I eat acorn mash, but I would totally feel bad about killing a tree. There is a difference. And also, your debates are poorly formed. I try to make the title and the options neutral and none offensive, maybe you should too. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
I'm not dear anything, I'm a hostile blunt knife wielding maniac (who uses the proper safety guidelines and never gets the height wrong). The debate is a debate. Your conclusions are irrelevant, they are one of many. I may be heavily against something like horse meat, but in a debate I will have 'yes' 'no' 'I agree' 'I disagree'. I try make the debate unbiased and neutral, although I don't know if all my debates are like this as I'm not going to look through all 141 of them, but it's a principle. I try to stick to. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
You really cannot debate, can you? Every time a proCHOICEr disagrees with you, you yell "proabort", "proabortion", and "denial is the drug of choice". I have a saying for you: "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". You need to learn to back up your argument with facts, habibi, instead of yelling random phrases and expecting people to agree with you. How about you get a life, stop obsessing over what people do with their bodies, and grow up. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
I'm thinking I might start a new debate to see which side can produce the most facts to support their position. Side: Yep. It is what it is!
This is exactly correct and should be the crux of all debate on the issue. Until there are synapses firing in the neocortex it is not a human being. Our brain is what defines life at the end of our lives and it's what should be the defining characteristic at the beginning. Before there is high level brain function we are merely a grouping of cells with the potential for human life, but not human. Side: Denial is my drug of Choice!
|
