Instigator / Pro
8
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Topic
#1889

Personhood begins at fertilization, according to most contemporary Science

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
14
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

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.

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.

-->
@Barney

Good to know. Thanks for that.

-->
@CaptainSceptic

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..

-->
@CaptainSceptic

Thanks for voting with the detailed analysis.

Bump to encourage voting.

-->
@fauxlaw

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

-->
@Nevets

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/

-->
@fauxlaw

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.

-->
@Nevets

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.

-->
@fauxlaw

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.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"Legally" is confused, Yes, your statement agrees with 1 USC §8, but disagrees with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 2004.

-->
@Nevets

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

-->
@Nevets

Ok.

-->
@Nevets

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.

-->
@Nevets

Friendly suggestion: take more than 2 minutes.
To your question: yes

-->
@dustryder

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.

-->
@Nevets

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

-->
@dustryder

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.

-->
@Nevets

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

-->
@SkepticalOne

So when do you think the beginning of life is, compared to beginning of personhood?

-->
@fauxlaw
@Nevets

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.

-->
@fauxlaw

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

-->
@fauxlaw

Anyway, i just done a quick one today. Took me 2 mins to compose.
So it is your turn already

-->
@fauxlaw

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.

-->
@Nevets

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.

-->
@Nevets

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.

-->
@Nevets

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.

-->
@User_2006

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.

-->
@SkepticalOne

I have reduced the characters to 10,000.
Also have changed wording of my description also.

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@SkepticalOne

It is not required to use all 30,000 characters. But am simply removing restrictions

-->
@Nevets

5 rounds at 30,000 characters each - looks like this debate will be labor intensive! 😅