Instigator / Pro
41
1684
rating
15
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#1240

When should personhood be attributed?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
18
3
Better sources
12
6
Better legibility
6
5
Better conduct
5
1

After 6 votes and with 26 points ahead, the winner is...

semperfortis
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
15
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Description

*Burden of proof*
-Shared
-PRO: Personhood *should* be attributed at conception
-CON: Personhood *should* be attributed at a time other than conception (e.g birth)

*Definitions*
Personhood - "Perceived by law to possess unalienable rights (specifically the right to life)"
Conception - "The exact moment of the union of the homo sapien spermatazoon and ova, such that a zygote is formed"

*Rules*
1. One must comment on this debate if they wish to accept to ensure that all definitions, BoP etc. are stipulated. Failure to adhere will result in immediate forfeiture.
2. Failure to adhere to the debate format is considered poor conduct.
3. Forfeiture of any round without notice is also considered poor conduct.
4. Don't be afraid to negotiate rules, definitions or formatting before accepting the debate (but do not accept until they are stipulated!)
5. No kritiks

*Format*
Round 1: Opening Arguments
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals/Defence
Round 4: Rebuttals/Defence with summary (no new arguments and or new defence)

(I am more than willing to negotiate the format, if one were to propose a format with only four rounds)

*To note*
-Con must affirm a specific stage of development warranting the attribution of personhood (be it 6 weeks, birth etc.)

-->
@PGA2.0

Indeed.

It is a shame. I was looking forward to hearing Contenders arguments.

There is a small typo in my opening case.

What is read: "Viz. “For all x, where x is a person and where x is conscious, means x is a person”"

Should be read as: Viz. “For all x, where x is a *biological human* and where x is conscious, means x is a person”

-->
@David
@semperfortis

Look forward to hearing the lines of reasoning from both of you!

-->
@GuitarSlinger

>>"magically happens"

It is not going to be that more so reasons that you don't think is better than attributing Personhood at conception.

-->
@Barney
@TheRealNihilist

Thank you!

Looking forward to this debate. In particular, I'm looking forward to learning what "magically happens" at birth or any other point in time other than conception that deems the life worthy of protection.

-->
@David
@semperfortis

With the two of you, even while being tired of this broad topic, I am now excited for this debate.

-->
@David

Don't think so. Don't think the instigator would need it either.

Your arguments would speak for themselves. If you are consistent in giving what you can then hope that your can is good enough. Guess hope can be luck but no amount of hope would make your argument more convincing.

Basically saying. Argument good. No need luck. Argument bad. You need miracle.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Thanks. I'll need it

-->
@David
@semperfortis

Good luck

**Note: Pro and I agreed to debate this in PM**

-->
@Christen

Are you going to take up the debate?

-->
@Christen

That is true.

Personhood is usually attributed during birth. Period.

-->
@Tejretics

And my standard would be at the biological beginning of human life, that happens to be at the moment of conception. Would you be willing to debate on these terms or would you still rather it the other way?

-->
@Tejretics

I understand your concern. To avoid this you could say that your standard is when sentience and pain sensation begins, rather than "exactly" 24 weeks.

-->
@semperfortis

I’d be more interested, though, in a debate that compares our two specific standards. So, rather than us debating two different topics -- you affirming that the standard should be at conception and me defending that it should be exactly 24 weeks -- it would be you saying that 24 weeks is worse than conception and me saying conception is worse than 24 weeks.

But I guess it wouldn’t be that different either way. My issue is it’s hard for me to defend 24 over, say, 25, because really my standard is just “when the fetus begins to feel pain and be sentient” and the research still doesn’t know the exact number. So approximately 24 would be my standard.

-->
@Tejretics

I should clarify that it would be an unsuitable rebuttal for me to say "what about 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes?" I understand that your approximation of 24 weeks cannot be an *objective*, objective standard, if you know what I mean. For example, someone could say personhood should be attributed when they develop their own heartbeat, are viable outwith the womb etc. it doesn't have to be a specific time per se.

-->
@Tejretics

The intent of this debate was to try and find which standard is the best. For example, if I were to assert that the voting age should be 18, it would be unsubstantial that I only affirm why it is a more suitable voting age than 16 (because, why not 21, 25 etc.?)

And we would both be incumbent on proving why our selected standard *is the best* and our rebuttals would be to show why our opponent's are not the best. Do you see where I am coming from or am I misrepresenting your point?

-->
@semperfortis

"Isn't it essentially the same BoP if you were to affirm why personhood should be granted at 24 weeks and justify why that time is more suitable than ¬24 weeks?"

I agree that this is my BoP -- to prove that my standard is better than yours. But I disagree that I need to prove my standard objectively. My burden isn’t to show that 24 weeks is the exact correct standard, simply that it’s a better standard than yours. And if I prove that your standard has harms that my standard doesn’t, my burden is met. So maybe change the line to “Con’s BoP is to show that their standard is better than the standard of conception.”

-->
@Tejretics

" I think my actual burden of proof would be to show that attributing personhood at conception is a bad thing and would do active harm."

I disagree. I would consider this more of a rebuttal (since I am affirming personhood at conception). The purpose of the debate is to answer: if not at conception, then when? Isn't it essentially the same BoP if you were to affirm why personhood should be granted at 24 weeks and justify why that time is more suitable than ¬24 weeks?

-->
@Tejretics

** I think my actual burden of proof would be to show that attributing personhood at conception is a bad thing and would do active harm.**

This oughtta be interesteing. Would love to debate that with you

And the debate might end up requiring me to justify personhood after conception, but clearly both of us agree that -- after conception -- we should attribute personhood, and the only question in the debate is whether, at the points between conception and approximately 24 weeks, we should attribute personhood -- my BOP would be to say that we should not.

I also disagree that my burden of proof is necessarily that “Personhood *should* be attributed at a time other than conception (e.g birth).” I think my actual burden of proof would be to show that attributing personhood at conception is a bad thing and would do active harm.

-->
@Tejretics

In fact let me change the format first.

-->
@Tejretics

Feel free to accept, Tej.

-->
@semperfortis

“I would accept that format. What stage of development would you like to affirm?”

Around 24 weeks.

-->
@Alec

I still wouldn't accept that a zygote is cancer; it is not a disease and it is not unnatural.

-->
@Tejretics

I would accept that format. What stage of development would you like to affirm?

Let the record show I've been blocked by RationalMadman.

A plea to RationalMadman:

Hey now. Didn't mean to offend. I really do want to know how you would define a person. SOrry about the sarcasm. i'll refrain.

I'm serious though, I don't care what Merriam Webster says about "person", or "personhood" or "conscious". I want to know what YOU think. It's actually very important and relevant to the discussion, because how a "person" is defined will determine what is a "person" and thus determine whether or not it's worthy to allow to live or not. Whether or not something should be allowed to live is a very serious decision, a weighty one and must not be taken lightly.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

I am done with your sarcasm.

-->
@RationalMadman

Great, thanks for the clarification. So your definition now becomes this:

"A person, in my version of English and morality, is a conscious being that is beneficial to the society as a whole."

Again, just so I'm clear-- what exactly do you mean by this new word you added ,"conscious?". I can google or consult my good friend Merriam-Webster on what "conscious" means, but we also know you may not agree to generally accepted definition of terms. So what does "conscious" mean to you?

-->
@Alec

** If you google abortion rates and look at the charts for it, as birth control use has been going up, abortion rates have been falling. It is because of birth control that I predict that abortions will no longer have to be used by 2030.**

Guess we’ll see how it goes, won’t we? Let’s hope Debateart is still around in 11 years, but just in case I’m screenshotting this thread ;-). Seriously though, birth control has been around for a long time…a VERY LONG TIME. Unfortunately, so has abortion. You’d think with birth control being so ubiquitous, it’d be non-existent by now—that it would be something archaic, a thing of the past, something we would just be telling our grandkids about around the fireplace….”I remember back in the day, we had the phonograph, we read the news on paper, and we also had to end life in the womb! You young whippersnappers have it too easy these days—with your Spotify…your streaming news….your birth control!” But no…not the case.

** It removes a sense of "responsibility" when it comes to sex. **
Does there have to be a sense of responsibility? One night of sex shouldn't correspond to 18 years of responsibility. Granted, killing the kid after 6 weeks ought to be banned. But preventing a kid from being conceived; seems alright. The women are cool with having sex generally provided they don't get pregnant. If the woman consents and she doesn't get pregnant or transmit any STDs, then I would let people have sex and it doesn't oppress women. Granted, I would require birth control to be used that is 100% effective to prevent pregnancies.

Like I said, it’s a subject for another debate ;-). There doesn’t have to be a sense of responsibility—the real question is, should there be? We can remove (or try to remove) consequences (responsibilities) all we want from actions. But then, when we do that—what are the consequences of doing that?

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Add the word 'conscious' before being. Living is a secondary necessity but is a flavour of the definition. Highly developed AI and ghosts would be people in my eyes but they're not alive.

-->
@Alec

**An uninterrupted sperm cell will form a zygote if in a woman. Does this mean that we should ban things that prevent sperm from reaching eggs? If you say yes, it would ban birth control, but it would also ban abstinence since that also prevents sperm from reaching an egg.**

Sorry—you can’t make that leap. You are making the mistake of equating a sperm cell with a an already formed member of the human species (zygote). A sperm cell, as it is, is not a member of the human species-- needs certain things to happen in order for it to become a member of the human species. A zygote on the other hand is already a member of the human species, it’s already on the “human species” life continuum.

** We have separation of church and state. I don't know too much about stem cell research to have an opinion on it.**

Yep I totally agree—we do have separation of Church and State. And at no point did I state I hold this position as a “religious belief”. I’m not saying “Stem Cell Research should be banned because the Church says so!”. I don’t believe we should intentionally kill innocent toddlers so we can study their brains. Why not? Because I believe the human toddler is a stage of human life on the human life continuum (the science is pretty solid on that) and thus it’s worthy of protection. Likewise, I don’t believe we should kill zygotes, embryos, fetuses so we can harvest their Stem Cells? Why not? Because I believe the zygote (embryo, fetus) is stage of human life on the human life continuum (the science is pretty solid on that) and thus it’s worthy of protection. It’s not a “religious belief” per se-- but the Church happens to agree with me on it ;-)

-->
@Dr.Franklin

You are correct sir.

45 comments and no accpetance

-->
@RationalMadman

** A person, in my version of English and morality, is a being that is beneficial to the society as a whole. **.

Great, now we are getting somewhere! Personally speaking, I think words and definitions are very important. And I am very truly interested in understanding your viewpoint. In order to do so though I have to ask questions to make sure I'm on the same page as you. I don't want to presume to know what you think or believe.

I'll submit to you that most Philosophers, Theologians etc would define "being" or "a being" as "anything that has existence." So given that, a car, a computer, a cell phone, bacterium, Lebron James, a glass of Merlot, the Stanley Cup, a Martin 12-String, oxygen, CO2, Bubonic Plague are all "beings" from a philosophical standpoint-- they all have existence.

Given your definition then of "person", any one of these things could potentially be called a person: They are all "beings" (they all have existence), therefore whether or not they are "persons" would hinge on whether or not it's beneficial to society as a whole. Again, this is your definition, not mine. So, Oxygen is a "being" (it has existence), and Oxygen benefits society as a whole (without it people and thus Society would cease to exist...the science is pretty solid on that one), so it follows from your definition "Oxygen" could be considered a "person". Do you agree? If not, then why not?

Would you care to modify, clarify, or expand upon your social construct, er, definition of "person?"

-->
@GuitarSlinger

** Nope. There is something uniquely different about a zygote (embryo)-- when uninterrupted a zygote will continue to develop along the human life continuum. **

An uninterrupted sperm cell will form a zygote if in a woman. Does this mean that we should ban things that prevent sperm from reaching eggs? If you say yes, it would ban birth control, but it would also ban abstinence since that also prevents sperm from reaching an egg.

** Again, what most institutions, at least the Catholic Church anyway, opposes is what is done to get certain stem cells -- the embryo (human life) is destroyed. If there was a way to use embryonic stem cells in such a way that it doesn't harm or destroy that embryo (human life), I and the Church would be all for it. **

We have separation of church and state. I don't know too much about stem cell research to have an opinion on it.

** I believe that Birth Control, rather then "reduce abortions or pregnancies", does the opposite. **

If you google abortion rates and look at the charts for it, as birth control use has been going up, abortion rates have been falling. It is because of birth control that I predict that abortions will no longer have to be used by 2030.

** It removes a sense of "responsibility" when it comes to sex. **

Does there have to be a sense of responsibility? One night of sex shouldn't correspond to 18 years of responsibility. Granted, killing the kid after 6 weeks ought to be banned. But preventing a kid from being conceived; seems alright. The women are cool with having sex generally provided they don't get pregnant. If the woman consents and she doesn't get pregnant or transmit any STDs, then I would let people have sex and it doesn't oppress women. Granted, I would require birth control to be used that is 100% effective to prevent pregnancies.

-->
@semperfortis

fundamentally, yes

I’d be down to debate this, but I dislike the format -- it’s so weird, there’d be blank spaces on the flow at random speeches.

I’d prefer R1–R4 standard format, with no new offense and no new defensive arguments in response to R1/R2 arguments in R4. So, for example:

Pro presents their contentions in R1 -> Con rebuts Pro’s case and presents Con’s contentions in R1 (though Con could integrate the two insofar as they had some offense, assuming a shared BoP) -> Pro rebuts Con’s R1 arguments, and so on (when I say “arguments,” I include rebuttal).

-->
@semperfortis

If cancer was somehow harmless to a woman, would killing the cancer if it never develops into a human being be classified as a felony?

-->
@RationalMadman

So you believe personhood relies on if someone can bring joy to another?

-->
@GuitarSlinger

A world where we fuck, love and have fun as much as possible while being responsible enough to stop overpopulation or undisciplined use of resources (including humans resources) is far more ideal than one where you marry, fuck after marriage solely for conception and feel like every single thing that makes you happy is a filthy sinful thing to fight.

-->
@Alec

I'm against birth control. I'm sure this will trigger all sorts of questions ("Ok, but birth control does this this and that"), debates, etc. But that is my belief (Granted I used to be vehemently pro-choice and pro-birth control etc. I've since changed my views).

I believe that Birth Control, rather then "reduce abortions or pregnancies", does the opposite. I believe it fosters a belief or culture of "anything goes" when it comes to sex. It devalues the sexual relationship and reduces the act to one that is simply for pleasure. It removes a sense of "responsibility" when it comes to sex. . It denigrates women and makes it easier for men to use women as sexual objects. It helps foster a culture of promiscuity.

-->
@Alec

** Cancer DNA is also human DNA. Are cancer cells human beings?**

Nope. THere is something uniquely different about a zygote (embryo)-- when uninterrupted a zygote will continue to develop along the human life continuum. Cancer cells aren't even on that continuum. So from that perspective, a cancer is really analogous to a hair from your cell, fingernail, or fecal matter-- while it may contain the human DNA, it is not a human being.

** What's the difference between stem cells and other cells that don't specialize? They both reproduce like crazy.**

It's not "how the cells are used" or "what the cells can do" that forms the basis for being "opposed to stem cell research." Again, what most institutions, at least the Catholic Church anyway, opposes is what is done to get certain stem cells -- the embryo (human life) is destroyed. If there was a way to use embryonic stem cells in such a way that it doesn't harm or destroy that embryo (human life), I and the Church would be all for it.

-->
@Alec

I think you could be transferring the negative connotations of cancer to a zygote. What makes cancer a 'bad' thing is that it is an unnatural disease; a zygote is not.

-->
@semperfortis

How early born?

The disabled can do things and bring joy to those around them.

The elderly eventually, especially if vegetative, reach a stage where they lose personhood yes. I support euthanasia and have personally seen the horror of a relative living through a euthanasia-worthy decline to the bitter end, it is disgusting to imagine experiencing shitting yourself not know what's going on and crying at times from sheer frustration and confusion. That is someone in hell, trapped in the role of being a 'person'.

-->
@RationalMadman

Early born babies and children, the elderly and the disabled would all be disqualified from your definition of personhood.