- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
As I have already explained, we know enough to conclude the state of an organism's Nervous System is inextricably bound to ones consciousness/sentience or lack thereof
Can you explain a little more? How do 'we' know this?
2) Subjectivity (or lack thereof) is the relevant factor
Debating is often about trying to convince others of why your subjective viewpoint is the right one. And on a potentially life and death issue like this one where you're arguing that it's okay to abort a fetus at 8 or 12 weeks but not at 20, backing up that subjectivity with some arguments is kinda necessary.
Note, there is no "hard line" for when possible conciousness of the fetus begins, which is why I am coming down on the side of cautIon (early on)
But why come down early on post conception? I don't see why this logic can't be extended earlier in the process. When a man mastrubates, those sperm aren't seeking an egg, and thus potential life ends. When a woman has her period, she's failed to get pregnant and thus a potential life has ended.
I've made it clear the distinction between the GOP and the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party supports all abortions, and the GOP does not. The Democrat Party has forced tax payers to pay for abortions through medicaid, etc.
Oh, there's no doubt that the Democratic party supports legal access to abortion and the Republican party does not.
And yet, you constantly specify 'late term' in all of your rhetoric, which is why I bring it up. If that's not what you're actually arguing or it's inconsistent with how you feel about what abortions are and when life begins, then, to use your favorite word, you're being deceptive.
. Note, the argument for early term abortions being acceptable is more along the lines that a new conscious life form has yet to enter the world rather then it feels no pain
Wait, says who? How do you know that a 'new conscious life form' enters the world at some point in the first 8-12 weeks? And why is consciousness what makes something alive? Why is a 12 week old fetus conscious and alive and a 4 week old baby or a sperm or egg aren't? This way of arguing for abortions really doesn't make a lot of sense for me.
It's a human life no matter which stage, but i am saying those who only support 1st trimester abortions are a tiny bit less inhumane than the No Restriction Democrat party. They care about the pain and viability.
You see, when you say here that it's just a 'tiny bit less inhumane,' that doesn't quite match up with you saying that you use this example to show the extremism of the democratic party.
It really seems like you're arguing that a late term abortion is notably worse and more extreme than an early term abortion. Which implies that a baby further along in development has a different level of importance and 'alive'ness.
People who support early term abortions have a little more humanity then the Democrat Party because they want to make sure the baby never feels pain, or could survive on it's own after 20 weeks.
Following that logic, that seems horribly inhumane to me. Is it okay to kill someone if you give them anesthetic first so they can't feel pain? Or if they're on life support?