I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

Author: Our_Boat_is_Right

Posts

Total: 500
Topic's author
#211
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@dustryder
And why can a women kill that innocent baby just because it is convenient to them?  Viability is no argument for when a women can kill her baby.  That is a living human being, and why does that have not just less moral value, but so little if any moral value that a women can murder it?
#212
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
How do newborn infants gain personhood when they can not survive on their own?  If viability is the marker, an infant has never gained viability.
You're using a broad scope of the definition of viability that isn't really used for infants and elderly. When you're talking about fetuses, it's generally about fetal viability

When is the point where you can't abort a baby?
This has already been answered, both implicitly and explicitly. I think you're just circling the drain at this point.

And why can a women kill that innocent baby just because it is convenient to them? 
It's not convenience. This has been said many, many times but babies can  and do significantly impact a mother's life. You minimizing those impacts as mere convenience is incredibly dishonest and manipulative

Viability is no argument for when a women can kill hr baby. 
That's great. Because if you understood my previous responses, you'd know that viability is not the argument which I am using.

That is a living human being, and why does that have not just less moral value, but so little if any moral value that a women can murder it?
Because it's not a living human being. This has been repeated so many times. In fact, it is the cornerstone of my argument.
Topic's author
#213
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@dustryder
it's generally about fetal viability
Now you are cherry picking different aspects of viability when in reality they all have the same result.

This has already been answered
Um no, you have been logically inconsistent.  You said you are in favor of 3rd trimester abortions, but then said you were against abortions right before birth.

This has been said many, many times but babies can  and do significantly impact a mother's life.
If a women does not want her baby, she can set it up for adoption so it does not significantly impact her life.  This is no excuse to murder it.  This notion also devalues motherhood, which is pretty disingenuous.

you'd know that viability is not the argument which I am using.
That's because you have used like 5 different argument and you switch to other ones when a rebuttal does not fit your argument.  You literally said viability is the marker for personhood, so yes viability is the argument you are using.  You literally gave it as the definition of personhood.

 Because it's not a living human being.
This is anti-science.  You conceded it was living, and you said that it is a "homosapien."  Humans are literally the only homosapien that isn't extinct.  If it is not human, then what is it?  It is purely scientifical that the fetus is human.




#214
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Now you are cherry picking different aspects of viability when in reality they all have the same result.
No. The distinction is important for the concept of personhood. I have not contended that personhood disappears with viability or that fetuses never gain viability. The former should be obvious, the later I explicitly said the opposite. 

Um no, you have been logically inconsistent.  You said you are in favor of 3rd trimester abortions, but then said you were against abortions right before birth.
I said 3rd trimester abortions should not be banned but there are considerable moral considerations, not that I am in favour of 3rd trimester abortions. Do you understand this distinction?

If a women does not want her baby, she can set it up for adoption so it does not significantly impact her life.  This is no excuse to murder it.  This notion also devalues motherhood, which is pretty disingenuous.
Great, but you've sidestepped my contention that carrying a child through to birth still significantly impacts her life. You can still set up an infant for adoption, but this does not erase the significant impact on her life from carrying the child through til birth

That's because you have used like 5 different argument and you switch to other ones when a rebuttal does not fit your argument.  You literally said viability is the marker for personhood, so yes viability is the argument you are using.  You literally gave it as the definition of personhood.
I could not possibly be more clear. Personhood is the argument which I am using. Viability is the marker for personhood, but viability is not the argument I am using. I don't care that viability comes and goes with whatever weird definition of viability you are using. I only care about the initial fetal viability of the fetus to determine personhood, and then it becomes irrelevant.

This is anti-science.  You conceded it was living, and you said that it is a "homosapien."  Humans are literally the only homosapien that isn't extinct.  If it is not human, then what is it?  It is purely scientifical that the fetus is human.
All human beings are homo sapiens. Not all homo sapiens are human beings. This stems from personhood which is a philosophical concept, which is why it's so crucially important for you to understand and engage with a concept instead of glossing over it, returning, asking the same questions again and again and then act mortified when you think it's my fault you lack intellectual integrity.
#215
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Fact 1} you sticking your nose into a pregnant womans bodily businesss, without her consent is virtural rape ergo morally repulsive and sincere lack of moral integrity, STOP IT NOW!

Fact 2}  a non- breathing fetus/baby is not an independent human invidual ergo it is oragnism of the mother and her personal bodily business and you need to stop trying to stick your nose in there.  STOP Your Immoral Actions NOW!,

Fact 3} Ditto all of the above and take it to heart and find the courage, empathy and rational, logical common sense moral integrity to STOP sticking your nose into pregnant womens bodily business without their consent.  Cease and resist your immoral actions NOW and for the rest of you life on Earth or else where. PLEASE AND THANK YOU!
Topic's author
#216
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@dustryder
I only care about the initial fetal viability of the fetus to determine personhood
So is it fair to say you are against abortions after around 22 weeks, since that is when a fetus can be "viable (can survive outside the womb)" and therefore gains personhood?


Not all homo sapiens are human beings.
Then what is the fetus?  if it is not a human, what is it?  You keep dodging the question.


You say it is a philosophical concept, but the problem with this in the abortion argument is that anyone can subjectively determine when a person has moral value.  Anyone can subjectively assign moral value to the different stages of life and different conditions people may have, but this ultimately leads to chaos when there is no concrete concept to determine moral value.  Thus, the answer to this is use concrete evidence and science.  Scientifically, human life starts at conception.  You are either a human organism or not.  There is no in between.

You are using a philosophical, subjective definition of "human" and conflating it with a concrete definition.

the significant impact on her life from carrying the child through til birth
Which is what?

Topic's author
#217
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@ebuc
you sticking your nose into a pregnant womans bodily businesss, without her consent is virtural rape
Actually it is murder to kill an innocent unborn baby, which is worse than rape.  It is not the women's business, it is the babies.  The baby is a separate human.  I am arguing to stop the mass murder of innocent unborn humans.

is not an independent human invidual ergo it is oragnism of the mother
Fact 1) If you are going to debate, you should probably make an attempt to spell correctly.

Fact 2) What do you mean by "organism of the mother?"  The fetus is it's own organism with completely separate DNA and a completely separate body.

and take it to heart and find the courage, empathy and rational, logical common sense moral integrity to STOP sticking your nose into pregnant womens bodily business without their consent
Please find the courage to accept this is an innocent baby that was murdered, by ripping off the limbs one by one, and crushing the skull until the brains of the baby come out.  

Above all, you should actually find out what happened in an abortion and what is really inside the women before you lecture me about "morality."
<br><br>

STOP sticking your nose into pregnant womens bodily business without their consent.
Stop murdering innocent children without their consent.

#218
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
So is it fair to say you are against abortions after around 22 weeks, since that is when a fetus can be "viable (can survive outside the womb)" and therefore gains personhood?
So to be absolutely clear, I am not in favour of banning abortions at any stage of the pregnancy. But, from viability onwards, there are moral considerations.

Then what is the fetus?  if it is not a human, what is it?  You keep dodging the question.

You conceded it was living, and you said that it is a "homosapien."

You say it is a philosophical concept, but the problem with this in the abortion argument is that anyone can subjectively determine when a person has moral value.  Anyone can subjectively assign moral value to the different stages of life and different conditions people may have, but this ultimately leads to chaos when there is no concrete concept to determine moral value. 

You are using a philosophical, subjective definition of "human" and conflating it with a concrete definition.
No, the correct answer is to aggregate a consensus on personhood and apply it.
The incorrect answer is to give-up and use a point that is wrong simply because it's both the easiest and the most palatable point you can come up with. What a weak ass argument.

Thus, the answer to this is use concrete evidence and science. Scientifically, human life starts at conception.  You are either a human organism or not.  There is no in between.
Again, not scientific at all. Why does human life start at conception from a purely scientific perspective?

Which is what?

I dislike how you've characterized this. Pregnancy is hard on the mother. It hinders her ability to do things for the most part of a year. It changes her body chemistry. It can have severe complications up to and including death. The ramifications of pregnancy can last beyond the actual birth even if the baby is not kept. I don't think this is fully captured by "A women's convenience".

#219
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Actually it is murder to kill an innocent unborn baby,
fact 1} Termination { death } of a pregnant womans non-breathing fetus/baby is her choice as it is and organism of her body. Stop you virutal rape of pregnant women now!


  It is not the women's business, it is the babies.
Fact 2} your mistaken and immoral nut case who needs to keep their friggin nose out of a pregnant womans bodily business NOW!


Fact 2) What do you mean by "organism of the mother?" 
fact 3} Are you really that dumb?  Yes.  Human fetus/baby is not and independent human individual and is not only inside the womb it is also attached to the womans directly from which it is sucking the nutrition it needs to become and independent invidual from the woman.
The fetus is it's own organism with completely separate DNA and a completely separate body.

Please find the courage to accept this is an innocent baby that was murdered, by ripping off the limbs one by one, and crushing the skull until the brains of the baby come out.  
Fact 4} Non-breathing human fetus/baby inside the woman and attached to the woman who is the only person who has moral rights to terminate or not the fetus/baby, so keep your friggin nose out of their bodily business, unless they give you their consent, and stop your immoral virtual raping of pregnatn women NOW!

Above all, you should actually find out what happened in an abortion and what is really inside the women before you lecture me about "morality."
Fact 5} You need to observe the facts and have an empathetic heart and courage to stand for the rights of pregnant women to do as the choose with any organsims of their bodily business, as any other actions by others is virtual raping of those women and you need to STO you virtual raping of pregnant women NOW!

Stop murdering innocent children without their consent.
Fact 6} you need to find the intellectual integrity to make a clear distinction between a breathing "child" and a non-breathing fetus/baby as anything else is just immoral virtual rape by other humans and you need to STOP your immoral virutal raping of pregnant women NOW!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THE VIRTUAL RAPING OR PREGNANT WOMEN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read my lips/text:
Fact 1} you sticking your nose into a pregnant womans bodily businesss, without her consent is virtural rape ergo morally repulsive and sincere lack of moral integrity, STOP IT NOW!

Fact 2}  a non- breathing human etus/baby is not an independent human invidual ergo it is oragnism of the mother and her personal bodily business and you need to stop trying to stick your nose in there.  STOP Your Immoral Actions NOW!,

Fact 3} Ditto all of the above and take it to heart and find the courage, empathy and rational, logical common sense moral integrity to STOP sticking your nose into pregnant womens bodily business without their consent.  Cease and resist your immoral actions NOW and for the rest of you life on Earth or else where. PLEASE AND THANK YOU!


Topic's author
#220
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@ebuc
Your entire argument stems around the breathing capabilities of of a fetus and an infant.  Why does it matter if the fetus can't breathe through its mouth?  Oxygen is delivered through the umbilical cord, so yes fetus's do respire.  What about people on breathing machines?  Can we kill them too?

Oh, and don't think I missed the point you totally ignored because it doesn't fit your argument--

"The fetus is it's own organism with completely separate DNA and a completely separate body."

If you are going to keep yelling about your feelings, I only get the impression that you are troll who is not worth my time.  So if you want to have an actual discussion, I would recommend you put together your thoughts in a factual and coherent way.  If this continues, I will not respond.  I like to have discussions with people who are rational thinkers and like to engage in civil discussion with whom they disagree with.  Look at Dustryder and I's discussion, I like him, we have been civil for the most part, we don't agree, but we are having a civil discussion.
Topic's author
#221
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@dustryder
No, the correct answer is to aggregate a consensus on personhood and apply it.
This is just not plausible.  There are way too many varying opinions that it is not rational to try and agree on a philosophical concept of "personhood."  Disregarding that, when would you say personhood starts and how would you apply it morally, if you are not going to apply it to the abortion argument?

Why does human life start at conception from a purely scientific perspective?
It is a scientific consensus that a new human organism is made at conception through meiosis, with it's own unique DNA and pre-determined body features, etc.  We call this the start of "life."  Human is simply the species that is assigned to an organism.  This is not philosophical matter, just scientific facts.  When a human organism comes into existence, it is a part of the human family.  I have yet to see you prove that this is not a human.  Humans are the only ones left of the homosapiens species, we are the only ones that are not extinct.  So, to suggest that "not all homo-sapiens are humans" is just foolish, considering the fact that Humans are the only homosapien, and the life brought into existence by conception is a part of the human family and grows to become a fully formed human.

This is literally just biology dude, there is no agenda here, it is just scientific that life starts from conception.

 It hinders her ability to do things for the most part of a year. It changes her body chemistry.
Oh please.  Because she can't do certain things for 9 months, that gives her the right to kill a baby?  What do you even mean by "it changes her body chemistry?"  This seems like a bunch of BS excuses.

#222
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@bmdrocks21
There are positives and negatives for restricting abortion. Yes, I do find that an unborn child's life is more important than whatever financial impacts may occur. The woman, 99.5% of the time, chose to enter into risky behavior that created this life, and now I would prefer restricting her ability to kill it.
In that case we just fundamentally disagree. I don't agree with punishing women for following their biological urges and making mistakes, and I don't think these "lifes" are human enough to justify the punishments

I don't know how you can call a moral framework that abuses women as valid. Not all moral frameworks are equal. Not all ideas are equal. I feel like you are just saying it is perfectly fine in their 'context' to be consistent. However, based on the outcomes of a moral framework, you can get a pretty decent idea of what is wrong vs right. Western societies are much more peaceful, less corrupt, etc. They share a similar base framework. Now, contrast that with the Middle East. There is tons of rape, wars, etc. So, if you think that woman-abusing, rape, and wars are just as good as democracies with much less corruption, protections on private property, not throwing gays off of rooftops, then I'm not sure what else there is to say to you. You would have to think the Nazi's framework of killing and jailing any non-Aryan is just as valid as the one in New Zealand today, and I don't think you actually believe that.
When I say a particular moral framework is valid, I don't mean to say that I approve or disapprove of it or think it's good or bad. Just that it is an accurate distillation of the moral values of a given society. So if you were to compare validity of moral frameworks and both moral frameworks are accurate distillations of their respective societies, then of course they are equal.

Now, if you are asking me whether a particular moral framework is more "right", I don't think there is an objectively correct answer to this because morality is inherently subjective.

Finally, if you are asking me whether a particular moral framework is better, of course I will have my opinions to that based on what I value in society. For example, peacefulness and less corruption as you brought up. However this isn't the same for everyone because as again, morality is subjective.


Homosapien = human being. Where does your distinction come from? Why are you distinguishing the two?
Because on observation, there are characteristics that make human beings human beings that are set apart from the pure biology component of describing people as homo sapiens. To that end, it is necessary to distinguish what these differences are from the pure homo sapiens component and this is personhood.

Imagine a scenario like the matrix, where people are farmed for life energy. Except in my scenario the people are brain dead from conception. It is my contention that these people are obviously members of the homo sapiens species from a biological viewpoint. However, they cannot be considered to be human beings because they simply do not have any such characteristics that we would ascribe to human beings in the sense of you or I.
#223
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@dustryder
It isn't entirely out of the question to punish people for their biological urges. Anger is a biological urge. Anger can lead people to assault and batter someone. We punish that. And we aren't even punishing the urge in this scenario. We are punishing you for shirking responsibility via ending another's life.

There are certain acts and attitudes that are subjective and there are things that are objectively wrong. I don't care how anyone tries to twist it, murdering innocent people is always wrong. Raping people is always wrong. Enslaving people is always wrong. Now there are reasons that you believe what you believe. There are reasons they believe what they believe, but not agreeing doesn't make it subjective. Some reasons are better than others.

Your attitudes on homosexuality are subjective, whether you promote or discourage it. Throwing them off of rooftops for it would be objectively wrong.

Ok, before I say this, let's not waste time with the protecting sperm/egg argument. They are not human, but a zygote is, which is why I don't care about sperm and eggs. Now, if someone is brain dead, sure, they are human and you can "pull the plug". And while the fetus doesn't have brain waves, they are not brain dead, as in their brain isn't irreparably damaged. They are growing. Just because they aren't to a specified level of development doesn't make them worthless. You can't kill pre-pubescent children because they haven't developed their reproductive organs. The same applies to a fetus.
#224
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Your entire argument stems around the breathing capabilities of of a fetus and an infant. 
Fact 1} your above is false ergo you need to address each and every one of my points individually.
...fact 1a} primary concern is the pregnant woman and her rights to terminate or not the human, non-breathing fetus/baby,

Why does it matter if the fetus can't breathe through its mouth?
Fact 2} because it is a fact you wish to avoid because your egos's inability to make a very clear and very distinct differrrence between a viable, breathing infant/child outside of the pregnant womans bodym, and the human fetus/baby organsim attacthed to the woman and insider of the womans womb,

  Oxygen is delivered through the umbilical cord, so yes fetus's do respire.
Fact 4} your still trying to avoid the facts, that, we have non-breathing  ---non-breathing--- fetus/baby organism of the pregnant woman i..e inside and attached to the woman and sucking via umbilical chord all of its nutritional needs


 What about people on breathing machines?  Can we kill them too?
Fact 5} you still playing mind games, so read my lips/text again:

....5a{ the human non-breathing fetus/baby has never ever taken its first independent breath,

....5b} the human fetus/baby is inside the pregnant womans body and attached to her womb from which all nutrition is being sucked from,

Oh, and don't think I missed the point you totally ignored because it doesn't fit your argument--
Fact 6} irrespective of whether you have missed the point[s] ive rasied, your ego keeps you from acknowledging and accepting those points as the facts that they are i.e. you are not truly interested in all of the facts, only those you want to cherry pick,

"The fetus is it's own organism with completely separate DNA and a completely separate body."
Fact 7} It is not its own independent organism as long as it is inside the woman, non-breathing, and sucking all of its nutrition from the woman,

If you are going to keep yelling about your feelings,.....
Fact 8} as long as immoral humans keep practicing virtual rape of prenant women by immoralky sticking your nose in  their bodily business I will yell, scream or what clearly what you doing and tell you to STOP YOUR IMMORAL VIRTUAL RAPING OF PREGNANT WOMEN? YOUR SICK IN THE HEAD AND NEED MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL ASSISTANCE!


I would recommend you put together your thoughts in a factual and coherent way. 


FACT 8}  i have done that repeatedly and you choose to ignore some fact and cherry pick only the ones you wan to here, so again keep your friggin nose out of pregnant womens bodily business unless they give you there consent to stick your nose where it has no business being.

Fact 9} go stick you nose in a street fight where you have no business sticking and see what happens to your nose there.  Yeah, you will think twice before you do that because you know the risks you run, whereas you know you much less risk sticking your nose into a pregnant womans bodily business.



Topic's author
#225
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@ebuc
You have yet to explain why breathing through the mouth determines moral significance.

Just because the baby is getting its nutrients from the women does not mean it isn't a separate organism.  If you refuse to accept the scientific fact that the baby is it's own life and own, unique organism, then I see no point in debating someone who is either ignorant or just intellectually dishonest.
#226
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
This is just not plausible.  There are way too many varying opinions that it is not rational to try and agree on a philosophical concept of "personhood." 
Not really. Have qualified people submit their ideas for personhood and applicability. Submit the top n ideas for a vote. Apply the most voted for option

Disregarding that, when would you say personhood starts and how would you apply it morally, if you are not going to apply it to the abortion argument?
I've already answered when I think personhood starts

As for the second bit, can you elaborate what you mean?

It is a scientific consensus that a new human organism is made at conception through meiosis, with it's own unique DNA and pre-determined body features, etc.  We call this the start of "life."  Human is simply the species that is assigned to an organism. 
Homo sapiens is the species, not human. Why is the creation of a new homo sapiens individual the same as a new human individual?


Oh please.  Because she can't do certain things for 9 months, that gives her the right to kill a baby?  What do you even mean by "it changes her body chemistry?"  This seems like a bunch of BS excuses.
Why do you feel like you should engage in a discussion you are profoundly ignorant in? Are you that masochistic that you enjoy being called an idiot? Here, do some reading

Topic's author
#227
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@dustryder
I've already answered when I think personhood starts
I'll assume you said around 22 weeks, since that is when a baby becomes "viable."

can you elaborate what you mean?
You said you don't think abortions should be restricted at any time period in the pregnancy, even though in the 3rd trimester a baby gains "personhood."  So if you aren't going to apply the personhood argument to restricting 3rd trimester abortions, then in what sense are you applying the "personhood" argument?

Excuse me, homosapien is the species, human is the family.  Upon conception, that organism becomes a part of the human family, hence the name "human life."

So because it may change a women, that gives her the right to kill an innocent life?  Do you not believe in the founding of our country that everyone has the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"

#228
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@bmdrocks21
It isn't entirely out of the question to punish people for their biological urges. Anger is a biological urge. Anger can lead people to assault and batter someone. We punish that. And we aren't even punishing the urge in this scenario. We are punishing you for shirking responsibility via ending another's life.
Sure. We punish people when their biological urges harms another human being. However these "lifes" aren't human beings and while they aren't entirely devoid of moral value, that value is nothing compared to a developed human being

There are certain acts and attitudes that are subjective and there are things that are objectively wrong. I don't care how anyone tries to twist it, murdering innocent people is always wrong. Raping people is always wrong. Enslaving people is always wrong. Now there are reasons that you believe what you believe. There are reasons they believe what they believe, but not agreeing doesn't make it subjective. Some reasons are better than others.

Your attitudes on homosexuality are subjective, whether you promote or discourage it. Throwing them off of rooftops for it would be objectively wrong.
No, these are subjective wrongs and rights. Of which is defined via your inheritance of your society's moral framework which was developed through a long history of mistakes. You're perfectly happy to say slavery is objectively wrong now, but there's a good chance you would've been happy to say that slavery was objectively right 400 years ago. The correct answer is that slavery is neither objectively wrong or right, but is subjective with respect to your society. Same with every other example. Throwing homosexuals off of rooftops is subjectively right if I believe they spread their homosexuality around and give HIV by merest touch.

Ok, before I say this, let's not waste time with the protecting sperm/egg argument. They are not human, but a zygote is, which is why I don't care about sperm and eggs. Now, if someone is brain dead, sure, they are human and you can "pull the plug". And while the fetus doesn't have brain waves, they are not brain dead, as in their brain isn't irreparably damaged. They are growing. Just because they aren't to a specified level of development doesn't make them worthless. You can't kill pre-pubescent children because they haven't developed their reproductive organs. The same applies to a fetus.
That's rather the point. A zygote is not a human being. I view them in the same light as the matrix example people as before. The only thing that separates the two is that zygotes can become human beings. I don't believe that we should ascribe future value to the present. If I want an apple, I expect an apple and not an apple seed. And hence they have less moral value.

#229
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You said you don't think abortions should be restricted at any time period in the pregnancy, even though in the 3rd trimester a baby gains "personhood."  So if you aren't going to apply the personhood argument to restricting 3rd trimester abortions, then in what sense are you applying the "personhood" argument?
It's in the sense that attaining personhood is when you should apply moral considerations first, then proceed if your reasoning is sufficient. Before then, I don't give a shit. Abort away.

Excuse me, homosapien is the species, human is the family.  Upon conception, that organism becomes a part of the human family, hence the name "human life."
Hominidae is the family. Human is short for human being. Of which homo sapiens is membership of only once attaining personhood

So because it may change a women, that gives her the right to kill an innocent life? 
Well it was the collection of reasons that I gave. And yes, I believe that gives her sufficient reason to get rid of a non-human

Do you not believe in the founding of our country that everyone has the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"
I personally don't give a shit about your country but given that zygotes are not a "one", I do not believe they fall under that particular umbrella
Topic's author
#230
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@dustryder
It's in the sense that attaining personhood is when you should apply moral considerations first, then proceed if your reasoning is sufficient
Great.  So it's all subjective.  I can essentially kill my 2 year old because I applied "moral considerations" but after all it can't survive on its own, so that is my reasoning.

That is the problem.  Who decided if the reasoning is sufficient?  That is all subjective territory and it's nonsense.  That's why we have to use concrete facts about life- Something is either alive, or it is not.

We fundamentally disagree about the morality of when a women can kill her baby or not, so I don't think this is going anywhere.


#231
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Great.  So it's all subjective.  I can essentially kill my 2 year old because I applied "moral considerations" but after all it can't survive on its own, so that is my reasoning.
Certainly, with your own twisted reasoning, but certainly not with any of mine.

That is the problem.  Who decided if the reasoning is sufficient?  That is all subjective territory and it's nonsense.  That's why we have to use concrete facts about life- Something is either alive, or it is not.
The mother. Because it's her body, her womb and she is the ultimate decider.

We fundamentally disagree about the morality of when a women can kill her baby or not, so I don't think this is going anywhere.
That's not the reason that this isn't going anywhere. It's not going anywhere because you're not engaging with personhood as a concept and are instead handwaving it away. Since personhood is my entire defense, it means that there's very little of substance to engage you with. That and we keep circling back to the same topics because either you don't understand my positions or you don't care enough about my positions to not look stupid when you it becomes obvious you don't know them.
#232
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@dustryder
Well, from my point of view, they are hurting another human being. Could you elaborate on how they aren't devoid of moral value? What moral value does a fetus have?

I think they kill gays just because they are gay. I don't think they necessarily have to have engaged in any lude activity, but that could vary by country. Through mistakes, we can learn about what is good and bad. Certainly that is one way. The entire civilized world has outlawed slavery because it has learned from its mistakes. Just because some of the third-world country hasn't figured that out yet doesn't make them correct in what they do.

It would be more like having a very very tiny apple. They are human, they don't become a human. Just because they aren't a fully developed(or ripened) apple, doesn't mean that they aren't an apple. A braindead person would be a rotten apple in this case. It has become corrupted in some fashion that prevents it from ever being an edible apple again. You are advocating destroying an apple instead of letting it reach its full, juicy, and delicious potential. Fun analogy :P
Topic's author
#233
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@dustryder
The mother. Because it's her body, her womb and she is the ultimate decider.
She can also decide if she wants to kill her 2 year old, according to your reasoning.

Certainly, with your own twisted reasoning, but certainly not with any of mine.
That's based on what you said.  I logically followed your reasoning.  Want to defend that, or do you concede?

because either you don't understand my positions
Yeah, making 7 tiered logically inconsistent philosophical arguments can do that.

#234
liahamil
liahamil's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7
0
0
2
liahamil's avatar
liahamil
0
0
2
-->
@bmdrocks21
My stance is that if you can take the fetus out and it wouldn't survive on it's own, without medical help, then abortion is okay. Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one's own body without external influence or coercion. This is the reason why you can't be forced to give blood, organs or other parts of your body, even if it would save someone else's life. We even give this right to corpses (as you have to be an organ doner). By being against abortion you are taking away this fundamental right for women, and for what? So that the population can grow out of control? 
#235
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@liahamil
So, if your argument is bodily autonomy, then let me ask you something: does a woman, pregnant with a baby boy, have a penis? Does she have 20 fingers and toes? Does she have 92 chromosomes(assuming there is no disorder in the child)? Of course not. It isn't her body, and therefore it isn't her choice.

I am against terminating human life. You are apparently in favor of that. 

And what is this drivel about population rising? President of the World Bank said: “Over the last 25 years, more than a billion people have lifted themselves out of extreme poverty, and the global poverty rate is now lower than it has ever been in recorded history. This is one of the greatest human achievements of our time,”. Guess what has been happening as this poverty rate has lowered......the population GREW. So, why you bring up population control is beyond me. 

#236
liahamil
liahamil's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7
0
0
2
liahamil's avatar
liahamil
0
0
2
-->
@bmdrocks21
If you are arguing that she has a responsibility to the "other person" in the situation, she does not, as evidenced by bodily autonomy. It is her body, that fetus is using her body to survive, without her it would die, much like someone with a failing kidney if I do not give them one of mine. 

#237
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@liahamil
You have a responsibility to take care of your children, do you not? I don't see how this disproves my point. You can't kill your three month old toddler because it drains your financial resources. It relies on you to survive. So, had this been some random stranger, you would be right. But it isn't.......
#238
liahamil
liahamil's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7
0
0
2
liahamil's avatar
liahamil
0
0
2
-->
@bmdrocks21
Also, as the population rises, we will not be able to support feeding that many people with the way we currently produce food. FYI, Correlation does NOT equal causation, just because the population was rising in that time does not mean it caused it. 
#239
liahamil
liahamil's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7
0
0
2
liahamil's avatar
liahamil
0
0
2
-->
@bmdrocks21
Even if my 3 month old toddler was dying and needed my blood or kidney or other part of my body to live, I still would not legally have to give it to them because of bodily autonomy. It's not just financial resources. You cannot FORCE someone to give up part of their body or have it be used for something.
#240
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@liahamil
As the population decreases, you will have less people to produce food. One farmer can produce more than one person's worth of food because of increasing productivity. So, that would be a net negative.

You don't give up any organs to a fetus, in case you weren't aware. Also, there is a clear distinction that you are missing. You are saying that you shouldn't have to give up organs. Ok....But with a fetus, you are actually having it killed. A doctor goes in and crushes its skull and sucks the body parts out. I'm sure you see the difference between that and refusing to give up an organ, yes?