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
92
debates
45.65%
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.)

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Since you said that at conception, the fetus has it's own unique DNA, you kindof were saying that the uniqueness of the DNA mattered.

"What makes it human is the fact that has human DNA"

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

"Keep in mind not all stem cells are the same."

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

Also, this is off topic, but what are your thoughts on birth control? I asked semperfortis the same question.

-->
@semperfortis

The woman does have the right to life, the clone wouldn't unless the clone has their cells specialized which occurs at 6 weeks of pregnancy. Any time before that, the zygote resembles cancer too much. Given that the left wants to legalize abortion unrestricted up until 20 weeks, 6 weeks is a good compromise.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

A person, in my version of English and morality, is a being that is beneficial to the society as a whole. Whether it keeps the people around it happy despite being unemployed or is legally employed despite being a dickhead, I support all such beings as qualifying as persons.

All drains on society and obstacles to societal harmony and progress are beings that start to sacrifice personhood and this is why we are allowed to put some of them in prison. This also is why I support euthanasia and legal abortions up until the 2-term mark. If a foetus is past 5 months, it clearly is too far in to be considered a non-person, it already is developing a personality and the mother has clearly gone too far into the pregnancy to pretend it's a fuck-up on her part that she just wants to get rid of.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Instead of going there with your analogy, consider which of the two of us will maim a chimpanzee. Now stretch that to farm animal.

I see a person when I see a chimpanzee. I do not see a mouse or cat and want to treat it like a stuffed toy. That is a being with consciousness far kinder and better to spend time with than a lot of humans I know. I would much rather have it by my side and not be dead than those humans but I understand that when it comes down to it I am in a society that is human-supremacist and I must sacrifice my beliefs and joy for the sake of their ego and agenda.

-->
@Alec
@semperfortis

**The clone does not have unique DNA. If uniqueness of DNA is the sole criteria for person hood, then this clone wouldn't be a human. If this clone isn't a human, then neither are real life non clones. **

I don't think you could make this claim. First, I don't think anyone said it's the "uniqueness" of the DNA that determines it's human. What makes it human is the fact that has human DNA, it just so happens to be unique.

**The definition of person in the dictionary specifies they need to be human. This blackballs me into not pivoting the concept of an animal being more beneficial to society than a human to display the arbitrary nature of personhood and then to conclude that it should begin where we seem is most sane and convenient for society, which is 2/3 into a pregnancy.**

Wow, so the common accepted definition of "person" doesn't fit your concept of an animal being more important than human-- so your MO or desire is to change the definition to suit your agenda?

Remind me not to piss you off-- I would hate to have you mad at me because, who knows-- you might just redefine "person" again to exclude me and then next thing you know, I sleep with da' fishes....

-->
@RationalMadman

It begs the question, what is your social construct, i mean, definition of "personhood?"

-->
@RationalMadman

** I fear for my legal safety if I admit my true views on the laws that irrationally favour our species. I'd prefer no official debate on it, just read between the lines.**

Seriously? You say you can provide "objective proof", but then when challenged on it you say no, for me to read between the lines? Sorry-- "objective proof" clearly lays out ideas, philosophies, and dare I say, facts to "prove something"-- it doesn't force the opposition to "read between the lines."

Come on, let's play.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Yes

-->
@Alec

That woman would already possess the unalienable right to life; therefore the clone would also have the right of life ipso facto. Or would you contend that this isn't the case?

I am a tremendous advocate for birth control; teenage and out of wed-lock pregnancies are a big contributor to poverty.

-->
@RationalMadman

**I'm implying both that and also that a human can be a non-person. It's a social construct.**

So can I recap. Please correct me if I"m wrong.; You believe the following:

a) A "person" can be non-human
b) A human can be "non-person"

Am I understanding you correctly? Is that what you meant?

-->
@semperfortis

"when a zygote has its own individual genetic blueprint, where hair colour, eye colour, race etc. are already determined?"

Lets say that a woman was pregnant with a clone of hers. The clone does not have unique DNA. If uniqueness of DNA is the sole criteria for person hood, then this clone wouldn't be a human. If this clone isn't a human, then neither are real life non clones. Therefore, it would seem as if cell specialization would be a better qualifier of a human being then DNA.

This is off topic, but what are your thoughts on birth control? It reduces abortions.

-->
@RationalMadman

The current defnition is not incongruent with your argument. You could argue that a human that is not developmentally 6 months old, does not bring more benefit to society (utilitarianism) than an animal (which we kill all the time). Unless I am misrepresenting your argument -- this is your intent, right?

-->
@Alec

You are correct. Stem cells are not human beings. I don't think any reputable scientist or knowledgeable opponent of stem cell research opponent has ever said they are humans. Keep in mind not all stem cells are the same. Typically what is opposed is the killing of an embryo in order to harvest (use) the stem cells from that embryo. An embryo (per my other comment) is a stage of Human Life. Some institutions oppose the killing of a human at any stage,

The Church supports research involving stems cells from adult tissues or umbilical cord blood, neither which results in the killing of an embryo.

So, in short, it's not Stem Research that is opposed, but rather the killing of an embryo (human life) for stem research.

An analogy (not strawman, but analogy) would be this-- I fully support brain research in order to help cure cancers like brain cancer, etc. What I vehemently oppose is the intentional killing of another human being in order to study their brain....

-->
@semperfortis

The definition of person in the dictionary specifies they need to be human. This blackballs me into not pivoting the concept of an animal being more beneficial to society than a human to display the arbitrary nature of personhood and then to conclude that it should begin where we seem is most sane and convenient for society, which is 2/3 into a pregnancy.

-->
@RationalMadman

I remain puzzled to why this causes you to reject the definition.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

I fear for my legal safety if I admit my true views on the laws that irrationally favour our species. I'd prefer no official debate on it, just read between the lines.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

I'm implying both that and also that a human can be a non-person. It's a social construct.

-->
@RationalMadman

Why is it an issue for you that the definition of "person" contains the word "human"? In order for it to be a "person", isn't it required to be "human?" To me it's redundant. "Person" implies human, unless you're advocating that a "person" can be something other than human?

I'm very curious to see your "objective" proof that it is irrtaiontlal to want something to live or consider it a person that should be illegal to dispose of just because the species of the being is human.

I'd be willing to engage in a debate with you on this, simply because I want to see your "proof". We can call the debate "It is irrational to want something to live or consider it a person that should be illegal to dispose of just because the species of the being is human."

You game?

-->
@Alec

I would then have to ask why specialized cells demacartes humanity, when a zygote has its own individual genetic blueprint, where hair colour, eye colour, race etc. are already determined?

-->
@semperfortis

Stem cells aren't human beings either. Killing a stem cell shouldn't be classified as murder.

-->
@Alec

Like for example stem cells are unspecialized.

-->
@Alec

Interesting. Although, then wouldn't all regular non-specialized cells that grow and divide normally be considered cancer as well?

-->
@semperfortis

Cancer isin't specialized cells. A fetus has specialized cells, and they have a heart and brainwaves within 6 weeks.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Yup, I am arguing PRO.

-->
@semperfortis

Are you arguing "PRO" - meaning you believe "personhood" should be attributed at conception?

-->
@Alec

Why wouldn't it be considered cancer even when cell specialization occurs?

-->
@semperfortis

6 weeks. A fetus's cells specialize by then. They are no longer cancer.

Good setup.

-->
@RationalMadman

If you take issue with the definition, I am sure we can agree on one. However, I am puzzled to why the specification that it is a 'human' is problematic for you. The intent of the debate does not encompass animal rights, or anything 'inhuman'.
'

-->
@semperfortis

the definition of person includes 'human' currently. That's an issue for me so I won't engage in this debate.

-->
@semperfortis

5-6 months into pregnancy.

I will prove objectively that it is irrational to want something to live or consider it a person that should be illegal to dispose of just because the species of the being is human. This doesn't mean I disagree with outlawing murder, it means I know why murder is outlawed; for the convenience and safety of the society that outlaws it.

If a dog is more useful to us than a human, brings more joy to the people around it etc. What does the society benefit from saving the human? At present, it saves itself a riot from human-supremacists (which is most people).