Personhood begins at fertilization, according to most contemporary Science
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
My opponent can argue for Baked Beanz. All i ask is that errors when pointed out, that remain unacknowledged, become regarded as "lies".
Also i will likely use wikipedia as a foundation with which to launch a debate.
I may provide other sources in the instance my opponent objects to any information given.
Personhood begins at fertilization, according to most contemporary Science
The view that life begins at fertilization reached acceptance from mainstream sources at one point. In 1967, New York City school officials launched a large sex education program. The fifth grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite.
Some members of the medical community accept fertilization as the point at which life begins. Dr. Bradley M. Patten from the University of Michigan wrote in Human Embryology that the union of the sperm and the ovum "initiates the life of a new individual" beginning "a new individual life history." In the standard college text book Psychology and Life, Dr. Floyd L. Ruch wrote "At the time of conception, two living germ cells—the sperm from the father and the egg, or ovum, from the mother—unite to produce a new individual." Dr. Herbert Ratner wrote that "It is now of unquestionable certainty that a human being comes into existence precisely at the moment when the sperm combines with the egg." This certain knowledge, Ratner says, comes from the study of genetics. At fertilization, all of the genetic characteristics, such as the color of the eyes, "are laid down determinatively." James C. G. Conniff noted the prevalence of the above views in a study published by The New York Times Magazine in which he wrote, "At that moment conception takes place and, scientists generally agree, a new life begins—silent, secret, unknown."
I will argue first, based on the Con claim of sourcing by Wikipedia, that beginning and ending a source search with wiki is harboring lack of reliability, according to that source, itself. I question any sourcing that begins and ends there.
II Definitions
What definitions?
III Rebuttal, Pro round 1
a. Pro defined “personhood” from wiki [see my argument I] as from the point a human is a person. Circular reference. That’s the kind of lack of accuracy I noted re: wiki.
b. So, school officials from one city, NYC, no less, held a sex-ed program and produced a book defining personhood. That was sourced from wiki, too. And this is declared by Pro to be: “mainstream science.” See the III.a. rebuttal.
c. Pro quoted wiki yet again: “Some[not most? – oops] members of the medical community[does that include janitors working in hospitals?]accept that fertilization occurs…”well, you know the rest. It’s in the debate title. As source material, too bad it’s electronic, because it might actually have some other good uses of paper. See IIIa rebuttal.
d. Therefore, according to Pro, it’s proven. IIIa, b, c, d say otherwise, and I’ve not argued a single point, yet. That’s about all that is needed for this round.
IV Argument: When does personhood begin?
Professor of Biology, Dr. Scott Glibert “admits he can’t answer the question” he posed himself at a lecture given at Swarthmore College.[1] In the third paragraph of lecture material, he admitted, “I really can’t tell you when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty that there’s no consensus among scientists.”[2]
The “science” of “personhood” was, once, in the 19thcentury, at the moment of the “quickening,” that is, when the mother first felt the fetus kick, usually around the 20thweek of pregnancy. Actually, that “science” has been around since Aristotle.[3] However, the fetus, we have learned since, becomes so from the embryonic stage, at around the 8thweek.[4]
Pro argues that personhood begins at fertilization. But, when is that? And what, exactly, is that? And does that “event” include pregnancy by invitro-fertilization, which takes place, effectively, in an impersonal test tube?[5] Or, how about the fact that, “There’s an incredibly high rate of fertilized eggs that don’t implant,” says Diane Horvath-Cosper, an OB-GYN in Washington, DC. Estimates run from 50 to 80 percent, and even some implanted embryos spontaneously abort. The woman might never know she was pregnant.”[6]
Are all these naturally occurring losses, as noted, 50 to 80 percent, people [the linguistic plural of the singular: person]? When does personhood begin, again?
Further, “An embryologist might say gastrulation, which is when an embryo can no longer divide to form identical twins. A neuroscientist might say when one can measure brainwaves.”[7] Gastrulation occurs at 2 weeks.[8] Brainwaves become evident at 5 to 6 weeks.[9]
These sources do not seem to agree on much of anything relative to “personhood.” And, no wonder. “Contemporary Science” can cover the wide, varied fields of virtually every –ology one can apply to human entities, including the –ologies of philosophy, theosophy, ethics and the law. As an aside, why does Pro require that these sidelines “sciences” be ignored [see comments, post #7]? If one can argue that climate science is science, why not these others? I suggest Pro add to his definitions: “contemporary science.”
fauxlaw wrote....I will argue first, based on the Con claim of sourcing by Wikipedia, that beginning and ending a source search with wiki is harboring lack of reliability, according to that source, itself. I question any sourcing that begins and ends there.
fauxlaw wrote.... II Definitions.What definitions?
fauxlaw wrote....a. Pro defined “personhood” from wiki [see my argument I] as from the point a human is a person. Circular reference. That’s the kind of lack of accuracy I noted re: wiki.
The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human is first recognized as a person. There are differences of opinion as to the precise time when human personhood begins and the nature of that status. The issue arises in a number of fields including science,
The issue arises in a number of fields including science, religion, philosophy, and law,.
fauxlaw wrote....b. So, school officials from one city, NYC, no less, held a sex-ed program and produced a book defining personhood. That was sourced from wiki, too. And this is declared by Pro to be: “mainstream science.” See the III.a. rebuttal.
fauxlaw wrote....c. Pro quoted wiki yet again: “Some[not most? – oops] members of the medical community[does that include janitors working in hospitals?]accept that fertilization occurs…”well, you know the rest. It’s in the debate title. As source material, too bad it’s electronic, because it might actually have some other good uses of paper. See IIIa rebuttal.
fauxlaw wrote....d. Therefore, according to Pro, it’s proven. IIIa, b, c, d say otherwise, and I’ve not argued a single point, yet. That’s about all that is needed for this round.
fauxlaw wrote....Professor of Biology, Dr. Scott Glibert “admits he can’t answer the question” he posed himself at a lecture given at Swarthmore College.[1] In the third paragraph of lecture material, he admitted, “I really can’t tell you when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty that there’s no consensus among scientists.”[2]
Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology Scott Gilbert admits he can't answer the question he poses at the start of his popular talk. However, he adds with "absolute certainty" that there is also "no consensus among scientists."
but scientists know when it begins. It begins at fertilization." Why do people think this? I think that there's social information, or misinformation, that's being given, and I call this the Syllabus of Errors.
The first one is that the instructions for development and heredity are all in the fertilized egg. The second, that the implanted embryo is safe within the womb. The third, that there is a moment, a specific moment, of fertilization where a passive egg meets an active sperm, think about the Look Who's Talking movies. Fourth, there's a consensus among scientists that this is where personhood begins.
Shortly after being awarded my Ph.D. by the University of Chicago’s department of Comparative Human Development this year, I found myself in a minor media whirlwind.
However, members of the media were mostly interested in my finding that 96% of the 5,577 biologists who responded to me affirmed the view that a human life begins at fertilization.
fauxlaw wrote....However, the fetus, we have learned since, becomes so from the embryonic stage, at around the 8thweek.[4]
Almost all organs are completely formed by about 10 weeks after fertilization (which equals 12 weeks of pregnancy). The exceptions are the brain and spinal cord, which continue to form and develop throughout pregnancy. Most malformations (birth defects) occur during the period when organs are forming. During this period, the embryo is most vulnerable to the effects of drugs, radiation, and viruses. Therefore, a pregnant woman should not be given any live-virus vaccinations or take any drugs during this period unless they are considered essential to protect her health (see Drug Use During Pregnancy).
SCOTT GILBERT WAS walking through the halls of Swarthmore when he saw the poster, from a campus religious group: “Philosophers and theologians have argued for centuries about when personhood begins,”
A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that occurs due to the interference of an unconscious subdued wish or internal train of thought. The concept is part of classical psychoanalysis. Classical examples involve slips of the tongue,
I.a. Pro offered about a third of round 2 proposing conspiracy theories regarding my round 1 argument. I propose by rebuttal that I am not the subject of the debate.
I.b. Pro then complained about a simple, well known [at least, I though it was well known; I’ve been using the technique, along with many more students of the art of the essay, article, white paper, and debate since I was 16. That was a few months ago. It is a reference technique: ibid:meaning “in the same source [used to save space in textual references to a quote4d work which has been mentioned in a previous reference” Trying to click on the ibid, itself, will result in nothing. One clicks on the previous full reference. If there is a string of consecutive ibids, one clicks on the full reference preceding the first ibid in the string. It is standard reference practice.
I am frankly surprised that my opponent is familiar with “’all’ the philosophical and legal arguments,” but missed this common referral practice.
I.c. My reference to my opponent’s dependence on a claimed scientific reference of the New York City Schools in round 1 was accused of being yet another conspiracy theory. That ought not need a rebuttal. I reject out of hand the notion that city elementary and secondary schools are scientific authorities.
I.d. My opponent declared, in the debate title that “most” contemporary scientists agree that personhood begins at fertilization, then offers, from wiki, that “some members of the medical community…” I rebut, again, that “some” is not “most.”
I.e. My opponent quoted in round 1, and repeated in round 2, from Wiki, concerning commentary by Dr. Bradley M. Patten, et al, to whom I referred in my round 1 rebuttal. See my response, which began with my I.d rebuttal immediately above, which was in my round 1 argument, III.c. re: “most” and “some.” He then asks, “This is considered a good informative rebuttal?” I would reply, “yes.” It demonstrates, simply, that as said in rebuttal I.d immediately above, that “some” is not “most.”
II Rebuttal: He said, he said.
II.a. My opponent’s round 2 argument: “So he [Dr. Gilbert, from my round 1 argument IV] does say this [“there is no consensus among scientists”] But later, in the same article… he actually says, ‘but scientists know when it begins. It begins at fertilization.’”
Well, my opponent just made my point. There is no consensus, as Dr. Gilbert said. In fact, he can’t reach consensus with himself! I suspect there is a reason for that, and that will be explained:
II.b. Pro did stipulate that 96% of 5,577 biologists affirmed that human life begins at fertilization. That raises, however, a few questions:
1 Do 5,354 biologists comprise “most” biologists?
2 Are biologists the only “contemporary scientists?”
3 Is the debate question “human life begins at fertilization,” or is it, as stated in the debate title, “personhood begins at fertilization.” The two, according to the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, are not synonymous, as follows:
3.a The “human social order recognizes the personhood of human beings within two competing constructs—an existential construct that personhood is a state of being inherent and essential to the human species [this agrees with Pro’s postulate], and a relational construct that personhood is a conditional state of value defined by society [does not agree with Pro].”[1]
4. What defines fertilization? Is it when the ovum is penetrated by the sperm, or some other of several possible definitions. Refer to the questions of potential definition as listed in my round 1, IV, third paragraph.
III Rebuttal: Button, button, who’s got the audio recording
III.a Did I mention an audio recording? In fact, I was aware of it, but did not use it as a reference. My opponent did. Refer to my opponent for further comment. I have no need to rebut something attributed to me that I did not cite.
IV Rebuttal: ibid revisited
IV.a Please refer to the discussion, inclusive, of my rebuttal, round 2, I.b
V Rebuttal: Last, but another revisit regarding debate subject
V.a I do not see “Freudian slip” as a debate subject, yet it deserves a citation as if it was relevant, according to Pro. Again, I will not debate, nor rebut, an argument I did not raise, and which has naught to do with the debate.
VI Argument: Definitions
VI.a Unfortunately, this will be a short argument. In the annals of debate, waiting to round 3 is probably a delay too extensive to bother defining terms, such as “personhood,” “fertilization,” and “contemporary science,” all three of which I have questioned in rounds 1 & 2, and without reply by Pro. As such, they become argumentative; an utter waste of debate space, making a difficult job for judges, who must raise their hands in defeat, or impose their own definitions; never a task that should be owned by judges of debate and remain impartial. It is typical for the Instigator to declare definitions, and, if necessary, negotiate them before debate begins. Too late; the cows have left the barn.
VII Argument: “Personhood is a conditional state of value defined by society”[2]
VII.a According to Pro’s argument I may argue points of the Law, [See Pro round 1, 8thparagraph, beginning: “Arguments include…”] even though Pro does not value them. That is entirely on him.
1 USC § 8 states unequivocally, “a. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”[3]
This definition is legally binding, and declares, as science is hesitant to define with clarity as non-debatable as the law, that a person is defined as such only upon live birth, a full three trimesters [approximately, given the difficulty of defining “fertilization,” at least by contemporary science] following “fertilization.”
I rest my case for round 2.
fauxlaw wrote....I.a. Pro offered about a third of round 2 proposing conspiracy theories regarding my round 1 argument. I propose by rebuttal that I am not the subject of the debate.
fauxlaw wrote....I.b. Pro then complained about a simple, well known [at least, I though it was well known; I’ve been using the technique, along with many more students of the art of the essay, article, white paper, and debate since I was 16. That was a few months ago. It is a reference technique: ibid:meaning “in the same source [used to save space in textual references to a quote4d work which has been mentioned in a previous reference” Trying to click on the ibid, itself, will result in nothing. One clicks on the previous full reference. If there is a string of consecutive ibids, one clicks on the full reference preceding the first ibid in the string. It is standard reference practice.
fauxlaw wrote....I.c. My reference to my opponent’s dependence on a claimed scientific reference of the New York City Schools in round 1 was accused of being yet another conspiracy theory. That ought not need a rebuttal. I reject out of hand the notion that city elementary and secondary schools are scientific authorities.
fauxlaw wrote....I.d. My opponent declared, in the debate title that “most” contemporary scientists agree that personhood begins at fertilization, then offers, from wiki, that “some members of the medical community…” I rebut, again, that “some” is not “most.”
fauxlaw wrote....I.e. My opponent quoted in round 1, and repeated in round 2, from Wiki, concerning commentary by Dr. Bradley M. Patten, et al, to whom I referred in my round 1 rebuttal. See my response, which began with my I.d rebuttal immediately above, which was in my round 1 argument, III.c. re: “most” and “some.” He then asks, “This is considered a good informative rebuttal?” I would reply, “yes.” It demonstrates, simply, that as said in rebuttal I.d immediately above, that “some” is not “most.”
fauxlaw wrote....c. Pro quoted wiki yet again: “Some[not most? – oops] members of the medical community[does that include janitors working in hospitals?]accept that fertilization occurs…”well, you know the rest. It’s in the debate title. As source material, too bad it’s electronic, because it might actually have some other good uses of paper. See IIIa rebuttal.This is considered a good informative rebuttal?
fauxlaw wrote....II.a. My opponent’s round 2 argument: “So he [Dr. Gilbert, from my round 1 argument IV] does say this [“there is no consensus among scientists”] But later, in the same article… he actually says, ‘but scientists know when it begins. It begins at fertilization.’”
The first one is that the instructions for development and heredity are all in the fertilized egg. The second, that the implanted embryo is safe within the womb. The third, that there is a moment, a specific moment, of fertilization where a passive egg meets an active sperm, think about the Look Who's Talking movies. Fourth, there's a consensus among scientists that this is where personhood begins.
fauxlaw wrote....II.b. Pro did stipulate that 96% of 5,577 biologists affirmed that human life begins at fertilization. That raises, however, a few questions:
fauxlaw wrote....1 Do 5,354 biologists comprise “most” biologists?
fauxlaw wrote....2 Are biologists the only “contemporary scientists?”
fauxlaw wrote.....3 Is the debate question “human life begins at fertilization,” or is it, as stated in the debate title, “personhood begins at fertilization.” The two, according to the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, are not synonymous, as follows:
fauxlaws own source, which he thinks supports his claims, Scott Gilbert wrote.....there is a moment, a specific moment, of fertilization where a passive egg meets an active sperm, think about the Look Who's Talking movies. Fourth, there's a consensus among scientists that this is where personhood begins.
U.S. Supreme Court had suggested there was no consensus on “the difficult question of when life begins”
. In 1973 the Supreme Court had refused to resolve the question. In 1981 Senator Helms Human Life Amendment (2038) to debt ceiling legislation stated that life begins at conception and the fetus was entitled to protection under the law. This would have created severe abortion funding restrictions and has not yet been passed. From the scientific point of view it was concluded that biology alone is not able to determine the point at which personhood is established. Several scientists expressed their view on personhood covering such areas as subjective awareness including personality, a sense of self and consciousness, social status rights and obligations. Reasons for not defining the fetus as a person included the negative impact on providing medical services to the mother and the fetus,
3.a The “human social order recognizes the personhood of human beings within two competing constructs—an existential construct that personhood is a state of being inherent and essential to the human species [this agrees with Pro’s postulate], and a relational construct that personhood is a conditional state of value defined by society [does not agree with Pro].”
36Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 2002), n. 357.
37Catechism 1929.
38Eugene IV, Sicut Dudum, 13 January 1435; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm.
39John Paul II, ‘Centesimus Annus’ (Vatican City, 1 May 1991);
A read of Dr. Jacobs’ “survey” revealed that the good doctor may have expertise in biology, but as a statistician, he’s has elementary problems. Dr. Jacobs failed to note his calculated margin of error, to collect samples [poll subjects] of a diverse demographic, and did not clearly explain his purpose.
1.b Margin of error is a plus/minus percentage reflecting the statistical error rate that the survey is expected to have relative to accuracy of the data. Without the MOE, one should have no confidence in the survey results. This was not a survey; it was a questionnaire; statistically, a waste of time.
1.c As the survey was directly related to the subject of abortion, it is curious that the political/social demographic reported that“of Americans who expressed party preference, the majority identified as Democrats (92%).”[3] Is anyone surprised by the irony of expressing an opinion of personhood at fertilization and a marked preference for abortion rights? This “study” was as politically skewed as it could possibly be.
Curious, too, that my opponent suggests that he is not partial to legal source material since Dr. Jacobs’ article spends much time to reference the Supreme Court’s attitude on abortion, reproductive rights, and the like on multiple occasions.
II Rebutal: Go your own way
III Rebuttal: Paging Dr. Patten... Dr. Bradley Patten, STAT!”
III.a My opponent’s round 3 argument: “I will copy and psate [sic] below our conversation from round 1. You made no mention of Dr. Bradley M. Patten." Yes, I recognize I erred in referring to round 1 rebuttal. However, my round 2 rebuttal does refer to Dr. Patten. Musy I reference him in every round? He’s Pro’s source; he’s Pro’s responsibility to manage, not mine. And, I am not the subject of this debate. Is that clear enough, yet?
IV Rebuttal: Wiki, Wiki, on the wall…
V Rebuttal: To personicate, or not to personicate
V.a My opponent quotes wiki: “The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human is first recognized as a person.”
V.a.1 Once again, because it did not digest the first time down, as I argued in round 2 VVI.1: “USC § 8 states unequivocally, ‘a. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.’”Biologists do not make law. Congress does. This is a legal argument, just in case we were vague on the matter.
V.a.2 And again, my opponent’s source is offering a circular reference: Personhood is when a human is recognized as a person. That tells me as much as saying, “An apple is when a fruit is an apple.” Therefore, are all fruits apples? What if all humans are not persons? Such as, when they are still in the womb, such as stipulated by the law referenced in round 2, and in this round, V.a.1.
V.a.3 My opponent is insistent that I have misrepresented my source, Dr. Gilbert, because I have erroneously quoted his own contradiction. I repeat, Dr. Gilbert says, in his lecture, “I really can’t tell you when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty that there’s no consensus among scientists.”But, then he says, "Philosophers and theologians have argued for centuries as to when personhood begins, but scientists know when it begins. It begins at fertilization." By his dismissal of these two statements as contradictions, he accuses me of lying.
VI Rebuttal: “To thine own self be true”[4]
VI.b Then Pro declares that I was supposed to refute the following from Dr. Gilbert,“…there's a consensus among scientists that this is where personhood begins," and immediately declares that I did not refute this, “mean[ing] [I] did not acknowledge[my] error.”
My round 2 rebuttal: “II.a. My opponent’s round 2 argument: “So he [Dr. Gilbert, from my round 1 argument IV] does say this [“there is no consensus among scientists”] But later, in the same article… he actually says, ‘but scientists know when it begins. It begins at fertilization.’
VI.c Not to mention the contraction later identified as I’ve highlighted above, VI.a.
VII Rebuttal: "By the word ‘Religion’ I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of very denomination be called the 'Will of God.'”[5]
VII.a “My opponent now goes in to philosophy, which is completely meaningless.
A lot of the sources at the bottom of his article, are biblical,”my opponent accuses.
May I re-quote my opponent from his round 1of this debate: “I am pretty much going to skip the philosophical [sic]and metaphysical concepts of subjectivity, such as mind and soul. I am also going to skip the legal arguments, as-well as religious arguments.
I am even going to skip the Scientific explanations, and cut direct to the chase.
Which is the Scientific conclusion.”
VII.b Who said, however, in round 2: “Arguments include, philisophical [sic]arguments (which i do not value, personally). Theosophical arguments. (which i equally personally do not value). And also, Law. However, what is to say philosophers, or Theosophists, or the Law, have the correct answers? Can you prove they do? And does it matter? It is the Scientific understanding i am discussing here.”
VII.c And just who also noted in round 2 with mention of, by quoting Dr. Gilbert [not my quote from him, mind you], the Syllabus of Errors,a papal decree.
VII.d That my opponent then charges that because one of my sources refers to sources of his own, and, therefore, they are my sources is ludicrous. See Pro’s round 3, last reference in his argument. Am I responsible for Dr. Gilbert’s article, and his references? Really? And, so what, even if that linkage is rational, if I do, by my own reference, “bring the Bible into this?” Show me where that is forbidden in this debate?
VIII Argument: “Clowns to the left of me. Jokers to the right.”[6]
VIII.a My opponent claims, by citation, that 96% of 5,577 biologists agree with Pro’s premise that “Personhood begins at fertilization.” However, I asked some questions in my round 2 rebuttal of this claim; one being: “Do 5,354 biologists [the 96% of 5,577] comprise “most” biologists?”
VIII.b The question has gone unanswered by Pro, other than saying, in round 3, “Well, I think 96% is an ‘extremely’ high percentage.”Yes, it is… for 5,000 plus biologists, but that answer does not satisfy the question. As it happens, according to CareerExplorer, the estimate of biologists just in the U.S. is 112,800.[7]I won’t do the math; this is my opponent’s neighborhood, and I don’t want to affect property values, but my guess is that 5,000 biologists is not a “most” percentage of the larger population. Oh, bloody bunnies; it’s less than 5%.
VIII.c However, I’ll allow that it’s possible that a higher percentage of nearly 113,000 biologists agree with Pro, but I’m afraid that’s just going to have to be challenged right now, and credible stats are expected before I’m going to turn that vinyl over to side ‘B.’
VIII Argument: “Clowns to the left of me. Jokers to the right.”[i]
VIII.a My opponent claims, by citation, that 96% of 5,577 biologists agree with Pro’s premise that “Personhood begins at fertilization.” However, I asked some questions in my round 2 rebuttal of this claim; one being: “Do 5,354 biologists [the 96% of 5,577] comprise “most” biologists?”
VIII.b The question has gone unanswered by Pro, other than saying, in round 3, “Well, I think 96% is an ‘extremely’ high percentage.”Yes, it is… for 5,000 plus biologists, but that answer does not satisfy the question. As it happens, according to CareerExplorer, the estimate of biologists just in the U.S. is 112,800.[ii]My guess is that 5,000 biologists is not a “most” percentage of the larger population
See refereeces in comments
fauxlaw wrote.....I Rebuttal: ““Sure hope YOU aren’t a f^%$#ing christian!!
fauxlaw wrote.....1.b Margin of error is a plus/minus percentage reflecting the statistical error rate that the survey is expected to have relative to accuracy of the data. Without the MOE, one should have no confidence in the survey results. This was not a survey; it was a questionnaire; statistically, a waste of time.
fauxlaw wrote....Is anyone surprised by the irony of expressing an opinion of personhood at fertilization and a marked preference for abortion rights? This “study” was as politically skewed as it could possibly be.
Reasons for not defining the fetus as a person included the negative impact on providing medical services to the mother and the fetus, and ethical issues in fetal surgery.
fauxlaw wrote..." Yes, I recognize I erred in referring to round 1 rebuttal. However, my round 2 rebuttal does refer to Dr. Patten. Musy
fauxlaw wrote....V.a.1 Once again, because it did not digest the first time down, as I argued in round 2 VVI.1: “USC § 8 states unequivocally, ‘a. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.’”Biologists do not make law. Congress does. This is a legal argument, just in case we were vague on the matter.
fauxlaw wrote....V.a.2 And again, my opponent’s source is offering a circular reference: Personhood is when a human is recognized as a person. That tells me as much as saying, “An apple is when a fruit is an apple.” Therefore, are all fruits apples? What if all humans are not persons? Such as, when they are still in the womb, such as stipulated by the law referenced in round 2, and in this round, V.a.1.
fauxlaw wrote.....V.a.3 My opponent is insistent that I have misrepresented my source, Dr. Gilbert, because I have erroneously quoted his own contradiction. I repeat, Dr. Gilbert says, in his lecture, “I really can’t tell you when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty that there’s no consensus among scientists.
Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology Scott Gilbert admits he can't answer the question he poses at the start of his popular talk. However, he adds with "absolute certainty" that there is also "no consensus among scientists."
His work in the interactions of biology and religion have included extensive analysis of wonder,
He has identified (with Ziony Zevit) the bone from which Eve was generated,
Ziony Zevit is an American scholar of biblical literature and Northwest Semitic languages, and a professor at the American Jewish University.
fauxlaw wrote....VII.b Who said, however, in round 2: “Arguments include, philisophical [sic]arguments (which i do not value, personally). Theosophical arguments. (which i equally personally do not value). And also, Law. However, what is to say philosophers, or Theosophists, or the Law, have the correct answers? Can you prove they do? And does it matter? It is the Scientific understanding i am discussing here.”
I do not see your problem with Wikipedia.In the "second" sentence, the article backs up "your" concern. "There are differences of opinion as to the precise time when human personhood begins and the nature of the status. Wikipedia does not deny this. And "i" your opponent, am aware of "all" the philisophical and legal arguments.Arguments include, philisophical arguments (which i do not value, personally). Theosophical arguments. (which i equally personally do not value). And also, Law.However, what is to say philosophers, or Theosophists, or the Law, have the correct answers? Can you prove they do? And does it matter? It is the Scientific understanding i am discussing here.
fauxlaw wrote....VII.d That my opponent then charges that because one of my sources refers to sources of his own, and, therefore, they are my sources is ludicrous. See Pro’s round 3, last reference in his argument. Am I responsible for Dr. Gilbert’s article, and his references? Really? And, so what, even if that linkage is rational, if I do, by my own reference, “bring the Bible into this?” Show me where that is forbidden in this debate?
fauxlaw wrote....VIII.a My opponent claims, by citation, that 96% of 5,577 biologists agree with Pro’s premise that “Personhood begins at fertilization.” However, I asked some questions in my round 2 rebuttal of this claim; one being: “Do 5,354 biologists [the 96% of 5,577] comprise “most” biologists?”
CareerExplorer rates biologists with a D employability rating, meaning this career should provide weak employment opportunities for the foreseeable future. Over the next 10 years, it is expected the US will need 16,500 biologists. That number is based on 10,100 additional biologists, and the retirement of 6,400 existing biologists.
[i]Rafferty, Gerry; Egan, Joe, Stuck in the Middle with You, Stealers Wheel, Apple, 1972
interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists.
That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being.
I.a I raise the 50s game show routine because throughout this debate, my opponent has vacillated between two objects of the debate: personhood, and beginning of life, which, though Pro maintains holds no distinction, scientific, legal, philosophical, and theological arguments sustain a distinction.
I.b If one wants to call the incident of “life” as the root of humanity, one must consider whether or not the two gametes, the sperm and the ovum, are alive. They are living cells, but for a limited period should they never unite.[i] There is no cessation of life during fertilization. However, this does not mean that they can be considered wholly human, because neither contains the entire set of 46 chromosomes that constitute the human genome.[ii]
Therefore, since life exists at the gamete stage, but that stage is not considered wholly human, personhood cannot be considered an extant condition.
I.c Of course, my opponent also maintained that legal, theological, or philosophical arguments cannot be accepted. A review of the actual debate description, and first round of pro’s argument, ignores the prohibition of these source types. Once I started using them, then my opponent complaining I was using invalid sources. Once the debate launched, unless both parties agree, definitions cannot be added or modified. As Pro initiated the debate, that time passed when he could impose interdictions in the debate description.
He mentioned in round 1 that he is not going to use these source types. Well and good; his choice.
I.d My opponent raises the legal argument and claims he “…did tackle[my] definition of the law, and personhood, and life…”and I assume he is referring to my introduction of the statute, 1 U.S.C. § 8, although he fails to cite it for reference. I introduced that argument in round 2, which defines a person as, “…every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”[iii] Yes, my opponent made a pass at tackling my 1 U.S.C. § 8 ‘running back’ by saying, in round 4, “My title makes no mention of a discussion regarding law. Nowhere have i even implied that I [sic]think the law says any different. However, law, does not refute Science law may over-rule it, for ethical reasons or other, but does not refute it”.Yes, his title makes no reference to law, but as already stipulated, there, nor anywhere else, does my opponent prevent discussion using the law, either. However, the cited statute does refute my opponent’s claim that personhood and beginning of life are synonymous, when coupled with the argument I presented above in I.b.
I.e In round 2, my opponent misunderstood my round 1 argument that his definition of personhood was a circular reference in that it effectively defines “personhood” as a “person.” That’s a circular reference. It’s like saying, “Applehood is an apple,” which does nothing to help me understand what, exactly, an apple is. I know, of course, but it does not excuse using a circular reference. A circular reference is not an adequate definition.
II My sources can beat up your sources, reprised
II.a A degreed biologist I sourced admitted that, 1. Biologists cannot reach consensus when personhood begins, and then, 2. Contradicts himself that it’s possible to determine. The point I was making, missed by my opponent in the following 4 rounds, is that I discounted this source by offering his contradiciton. Instead, my opponent led a four-round shooting gallery, ignoring the real subject of the debate, , to ultimately conclude… That my source was inconsistent, just as I argued in the first place.
II.a.1 I ignored his other three sources for exactly this reason: I needed no further argument to demonstrate my point; my opponent made it for me. Dr. Gilbert, was, after all, my red herring source to be discounted by my opponent. He did. Over, and over, and over, and over again, ad nauseam.
III. One source, two sources, three sources, more…
III.a My opponent launched a campaign, instead of arguing the point of the debate, by a diversion. Well, he did claim in round 1 that he had already offered, in a two-minute composition, [comments, post #12] sufficient proof of his victory: “I feel already, i have proven exactly what my title say's.” [sic] Did he offered more sources than I did? I didn’t count them. Count must mean something to Pro.
Refer to my argument, and quote of my opponent in this regard in my argument II.a.2.
IV Example of baffling: “Sure hope YOU aren’t a f^%$#ing christian!!”[iv]
IV.a In round 5, my opponent admits being baffled by the above quote in argument IV, claiming, in round 4, that my round 3 was superimposed by Dr, Gilbert, who, in Pro’s round 3… My opponent missed that the entire quote is from my source, as referenced below [2] which was apparently not read completely by my opponent. I’m not responsible for my opponent, but, as a favor, he will consult my sources. Apparently not. Hallelujah.
IV.b Pro then charges that I did not include, with my citation of a source, Steven Jacobs, who Pro cited as the originator of the poll of 5,577 biologists, 96% of whom supported pro’s contention that personhood begins at conception, “any negative reviews”of Jacobs. Reviews? [Pro’s word] Opinons? [my word] Pray, tell, why would a debate participant who sustains only a scientific approach to the debate ask for “reviews;” basically, “opinions?”
What I did provide, in round 2, Rebuttal II.b, was an argument that 5,577 biologists – no, actually only 96% of them, 5,353, may not comprise “most contemporary Science,” as the debate title claims. [bolded for emphasis]. In round 3, I answered the question I posed n round 2 if 5,353 biologists amounted to “most” biologists. The answer was… no. I offered a separate source[v] claiming that there were some 112,000 biologists just in the U.S., and that my opponent’s 5,353 amounted to less than 5% of them; not “most,” but only “some.”
My opponent attacked my source, but never did refute the conclusion drawn by the source. Pro claimed in his round 5 rebuttal: “Over the next 10 years, it is expected the US will need 16,500 biologists. That number is based on 10,100 additional biologists, and the retirement of 6,400 existing biologists.” That’s 10 years from now, not now.
V Let’s find dirt on sources. Maybe Hillary Clinton can use us
V.a Seven accusations were thrown at my arguments of previous rounds, to wit:
“(1) So my opponent failed to find any dirt on my three scientists.
(2) Failed to provide a reputable and reliable one of his own, that does not have borderline charlatan tendencies. Unless you believe his Scientific claims regards to Eve, of course.
(3) Failed to find any dirt or counter critique of Steve Jacobs.
(4) Only his own unsupported opinion.
(5) Did not challenge the definition of life/personhood.
(6) Did not challenge the reasons for the Supreme court 1973 ruling.
(7) Irrelevant links and sources. Barely pertaining to the subject, and missing the key points.”
V.b In response:
[4] As no reference is given what the “unsupported” opinion was, I am to guess. Sorry, as they say of ideal real estate, citation, citation, citation. I’m pretty sure I can rule out Wiki as a source of my one [by his singular reference] unsupported opinion.
[5] Did not challenge the definition of life/personhood. Refer to my:
Round 1: III.a, b, c, d
Round 1: IV
Round 2: VII.a
Round 3: V.a, V.a.1, V.a.2, V.a.3, VIII.a, VIII.b
Round 4: II.c, III,
Round 5: I, inclusive
[all others] I’ll offer the identical claim made by Pro’s round 5: “And… i think i left one or two of his sources unchallenged, as they appeared to be irrelevant factoids not key to the subject. Not key points.”
VI Sometimes, sources say things you just wish they didn’t say because they say something that just refutes what you just quoted, and you missed it.
VI.a Pro’s round 5 offered Princeton University’s Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D., who said, “The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists.”
Typical Ph.D kind of jargon. I’m one, myself. I don’t think I’ve ever followed such an all-inclusive recognition of colleagues by adding in the very next sentence:
“The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.”[vi]
VI.b My opponent offered a follow-up from the same Princeton source, “That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being.”
“…aye, there’s the rub.”[vii]
We’re pieces-parts of two other humans. At no time in their relationship to our singularity is there a nanosecond of non-life. There is not a beginning. Life extends from the two to the one [or however many individuals are derived from a pre-gastrulation embryo [see my round 1, IV, § 5]. When is that life also a person? Not at the moment of life, which never hads a distinct start, according to the good doctor. But, I will bow to her in both of her contradictive quotes; my expertise is not medical science. My older brother, a physician, remarks of his own profession: “Why do you think we call it ‘practice?” I wonder about it in in my own profession.
My conclusion: If this is the kingdom of personhood, let biologists and philosophers deal with it.
Arguments:
First got to say that con had an inherent edge here from use of headings and subsections. He was able to cite back to previous replies (such as when pro denied their very existence), and as a voter I was then easily able to find them. This caused presented arguments therein to have greater impact than they otherwise would have. ... I did dislike some of the headings selections later, because by putting things into quotation marks it instinctively looks like it stemmed from something one of the debaters said.
Many arguments were presented. At one moment I thought pro was going to win by showing some data from biologists, but then con turned those numbers around with details on the poor technique, and under 5% of the population being in the n when it was implied to be N (sample vs whole population).
At the end of the day, pro kept using life and personhood interchangeably, which muddled his own arguments, denying himself BoP. Things got really ugly with focus on insults, instead of in upholding the resolution.
Sources:
First got to say that the effort spent voicing a disdain for wiki, would have been better spent quote mining that page for some of the information therein which was damaging to pro's case. Tactically what was done is trying to lower the confidence in what was presented, which missed the bigger opportunity in turning it into a concession (pro was later able to temporarily do this to one of con's sources, but a successful defense was raised).
Regarding if https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/when-does-personhood-begin exists within con's case or not, I can easily view it. Denying the verifiable presence of something, is far worse than merely insulting the authorship. Doing something this cheap and obvious, poisons your own well instead of your opponents (which was the intended target).
In the first round I thought this would go to con, but pro brought in more sources and put up a good fight here.
I should add that if going the direction of assassinating the credibility of a source, it's really best to be done before trying to cite that same source yourself.
Full comments on https://pastebin.com/q1rYFUjH
TLDR: CON wins, mores because PRO lost. Pro just got too personal, too pedantic, did not provide any sort of diverse or real evidence as to what personhood is, what fertilization is etc. He argued this is about science, yet he provided virtually none. His entire argument sat with one survey, and he destroyed his own position 4 times by referencing the uncertainty around the definition of personhood, or when it occurs.
Conduct was poor on both sides. Very annoying to read.
Oh, HELL NO!!!
Personhood is a legal term, and such that is established within the 14th A.
One has to be BORN to be considered [a] person.
Conception = cellular life. Not personhood. Two different things.
Good to know. Thanks for that.
If we had more users, I would attempt to streamline the entire CoC. As is, it's just not worth my time and effort right now.
Currently, your tl;dr would be outright good as a vote with the addition of one more comment on con's arguments. As is, I would personally call it borderline and not delete it were it the vote. If I felt it were suspect, I'd probably ask you some basic question about the debate.
Sorry for the spelling errors. I did not intend on writing such a big response.
I read the rules for voting, and they. are ridiculous. You gotta review every point or have the vote discounted.
I don't think I will do any more voting. No wonder debates go unvoted here..
Thanks for voting with the detailed analysis.
Bump to encourage voting.
I am well aware that you have a round remaining.
And you have the freedom to use the final round to prove yourself in this argument once and for all.
I have highlighted the weaknesses in your arguments.
Your message to me is almost an acknowledgement that you "agree" with my summary.
And you are now going to try and make ammends with your last argument.
I have not placed any restrictions on you in my description that prevents counter arguments in the final round.
So go ahead.
Good luck
You, my friend, are fond of saying I have not yet argued this or that, apparently forgetting I have a round remaining. I hesitated to advise you of this when you first started complaining about a schedule that has and remains mine to manage, regardless of your constant barrage of complaint. That you initiated this debate does not give you licenser to manage my schedule of argument. I say: patience, my friend. All will be revealed in my conclusion. Thanks for playing.
My round 3 references:
1 https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/
2 https://asq.org/cert/six-sigma-black-belt
3 https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/
4 Shakespeare, William, Hamlet, I, iii
5 Scott, Ridley, Kingdom of Heaven, 20th Century Fox, 2005.
6 Rafferty, Gerry; Egan, Joe, Stuck in the Middle with You, Stealers Wheel, Apple, 1972
7 https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/biologist/job-market/
Well, i will continue to put my sources where everyone can see them, and will continue to quote my sources so that i cannot be accused of misquoting. Quite simply, i cannot misquote, what i quote. If you understand.
But you can conduct yourself as you wish. I will make an effort however to bend over backwards and produce your links, and quote them for you, and try to establish if your sources contradict themselves or not, and also if they even say what you attribute to them.
I will do this. Dont worry.
Hint: "ibid" is defined as: "in the same source (used to save space in textual references to a quoted work which has been mentioned in a previous reference)."
You don't click on an "ibid" reference; you click on the reference immediately above - in this case, ref #1. And if there are multiple "ibid" references in a string of references, each "ibid" reference refers to the one immediately above the first ibid reference in the string. If you would stop stopping at wiki, you would learn this typical referencing shorthand.
I agree with your point. The law is confused. The only way I know to make sense of it (if sense can be made of it) is that in the former this is a default regarding one individual. The latter takes into account the family.
"Legally" is confused, Yes, your statement agrees with 1 USC §8, but disagrees with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 2004.
The "beginning of life" would be billions of years ago. The "beginning of an individual human life" would be at conception. Legally, personhood is at birth, although I can see a strong argument being made for the line of demarcation being when consciousness is possible/existent in the fetus (ie. When the cortex and necessary connections are known to exist by developmental benchmarks).
Just gonna put this here. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/assessing-contemporary-science/content-section-2
Ok.
You said, "I purely made a claim this is what Science says." What, the science of NYC schools? The science of wiki?
Come on, dig deeper. You're supposed to win this debate, not me. I even agree with you, but not your science, so far.
Only problem is 2 problems:
1. define "fertilization. It's more than boy meets girl.
2. stop stopping at wiki, goddamit.
3. [there's always more than 2, in spite of what's said] most is not some. be specific.
Friendly suggestion: take more than 2 minutes.
To your question: yes
Who has position to decide the definition of personhood is a subject for a different debate.
Science defines "life" as being the point an egg becomes a person.
The topic is actually somewhat flawed imo because science doesn't have position on when personhood starts so the key point of this debating is equating the two concepts
I don;t think i have. I purely made a claim this is what Science says. And Science does say that.
Whether or not philosophy says this, or the courts say this, is not included in the debate.
The only way it can be proven wrong, is to prove Science does not say this.
Personhood and life are generally not regarded as the same thing. By using the wikipedia definition of personhood, I think you've shot yourself in the foot
So when do you think the beginning of life is, compared to beginning of personhood?
You and your opponent can haggle over definitions (I'm not in this debate) I happen to agree with Fauxlaw that 'beginning of life' and 'personhood' are not the same thing though.
For definition of personhood you would be better asking SkepticOne. As it is SkepticOne who i initially invited for this debate.. As SkepticOne is the person arguing that personhood is something not recognised so early on in a pregnancy, and happens well after the recommended time limit for abortions
Anyway, i just done a quick one today. Took me 2 mins to compose.
So it is your turn already
Hi..I did not alter the title.
I altered the amount of characters from 30,000 to 10,000.
Also, person-hood and life, is regarded as pretty much the samething.
While I was composing my initial comment, and only after accepting the debate, you have altered your challenge. Is it "personhood" or is it "when life begins?" I submit there is scientific debate even on that. Since the debate title says "personhood," which, again, you have not defined, I will reject any argument from you declaring "when life begins." Make up your mind and hold onto it for a little longer than a few hours.
I accept taking the Con argument, but, yet again [I've done this before] I do so only from a position of it being a challenge because I actually favor the pro argument. However, without given definitions by Pro before the debate begins [in my judgment, definitions, without prior recording, will cause the debate to turn on these factors. If Pro is to take the first round first, these definitions ought to be recorded in the description so that a contender knows what the deal is before the debate begins. Common courtesy, folks.
Then I agree. However, no not-born-yet child gets an ID card while their parents are just finishing having sex unless it is royalty.
I am referring to what most contemporary Science say's on the subject.
I am not referring to what Philosophy, Theosophy, Criminal courts of law, Common law courts, say about it.
Purely when Science say's life begins. Nothing else.
Are we arguing about biological personhood or social personhood? A boy in the womb would not receive an ID card in the social security system.
I have reduced the characters to 10,000.
Also have changed wording of my description also.
I thought that would be a perfect scenario for a successful Gish Gallop. I'll pass!
As a note, Nevets recently used 29,440 characters for an opening round. Since replies often take longer than the initial statements, the rule "If my opponent does not dispute any of the information provided, then it must be accepted that my opponent agrees with the information" is a dangerous one.
It is not required to use all 30,000 characters. But am simply removing restrictions
5 rounds at 30,000 characters each - looks like this debate will be labor intensive! 😅