Your Republic has worked better than most democracies, yet is it being undermined by Democratic Party values (or lack of good values and lack of common sense). I don't see how you can think that the Democrats are more intelligent than the Republicans, they are just more shifty and cunning and know how to manipulate their Democrat base and many independents.
So, unless you can show me that the unborn is not a human being, which you have confirmed it is, then it should have the same inalienable rights as every other human being. There should not be a distinction at birth. That is ridiculous and unequal treatment of a class or group of human beings.
"The woman, just like anyone else, has a right to control her own body. This right does not magically go away if she becomes pregnant. So, the bestowing rights at birth is the only logically consistent solution where rights are inalienable." - SKEP1
I agree the woman does have the right to control her own body, to an extent. There is no disputing this. The limit is where she uses her own body to hurt or kill another body. That is a different matter.
You're right, the law does not magically go away. If the woman uses her body to hurt or kill another human being (outside the womb) she is charged with a crime. Unfortunately, the law is discriminant and not equal in the case of the unborn human being. It is not given what every human being should be given, inalienable rights, universal rights to every human being. The most basic right of an innocent human being is the right to life. With the most vulnerable human, the one who should have the greatest protection, the right is stripped from them by unjust laws that do not follow the Declaration of Independence.
When you say, "the woman JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE," you make an exception because you are not treating her in the same manner as everyone else. If you use your body to kill another innocent human being either intentionally (murder) or in particular cases because of negligence (manslaughter) it is a crime. So you are not being consistent in your thinking here. I can do with my own body as I see fit as long as what I am doing does not hurt someone else, or myself. If I went around pounding my head against a brick wall I would probably be locked up and prevented from hurting myself. If I constantly went around pounding my head into someone else's head I would expect the same results. I would be classed a danger to myself and/or others. So the freedom to do what you want with your body is a limited freedom. The crazy abortion laws are not consistent with the principle of bodily harm to others.
Inalienable rights: "The word refers to a natural right that cannot be revoked by an outside force. ... In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson (using the un- variant) wrote that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
"Something that is yours forever, that can’t be taken away and given to your little brother instead? That something would be called inalienable. The word refers to a natural right that cannot be revoked by an outside force."
"The word inalienable is often linked to human rights — you’ve probably heard the term “inalienable rights.”
"an inalienable right is something that can’t be given or taken away by a government or another legal power."
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inalienable
"Inalienable right refers to rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else, especially a natural right such as the right to own property."
https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inalienable-right/
"Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life. To explore this concept, consider the following inalienable rights definition."
https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/
Yet, this is what is done in the case of abortion. The inalienable rights of one class or group of human beings are stripped away from that class by unfair laws that discriminate.
You say, "rights are inalienable" but you do not give one human being the same rights as another. Again you use the term "entity" to disguise what we are speaking of, a human being. It is a term used to diminish what the unborn human being is from conception. What about its inalienable rights? Just because a person or human being is located within another human being, in a particular environment, that does not change what the being in this environment is. It is not PART of the woman. It is its own human being in its own right.
The "part of the woman" is a fatal flaw in your argument, IMO. It is a separate individual human being who relies on another human being for its life because she is looking after it and has the responsibility to look after it until it becomes self-sufficient or others take that responsibility from her.
"Scientist do not assign personhood, and if they did,
"Personhood" is a legal distinction and scientists are not qualified to make that call." - SKEP1
If scientists can't make that call then neither can lawyers and judges. They should give the unborn "inalienable rights" too since it is a human being. If no one can determine when a person begins the unborn SHOULD be given the benefit of the doubt, not butchered, and that is what happens at some stages of pregnancy - the unborn is ripped and torn apart by medical instruments.
If human rights are inalienable, like was argued in the Declaration of Independence in your country, then the unborn SHOULD have those rights that we decree on every other human being. Even your UN statement recognized that all humans are equal, yet they treat the unborn human as unequal. They contradict their own standard which is hypocrisy.
A agree that person and personality can be thought of as two distinct things. A person is, however, a personal being with a personality.
"...you do not have a legitmate authority supporting your notion of personhood beginning at conception." - SKEP1
Whether or not I have legitimate authorities is something we can argue, but the greater point is you don't know, then you, the woman, the doctor, the politician should give the unborn the benefit of the doubt. Anyone can legalize something unjustly if they have the power to do so. It happens all around the world every day.
By your thinking in Round 4 it can't be a person until it is an individual, which scientifically speaking, it is from conception. Thus, with such logic, it would be a person from birth. You mistakenly, IMO, and in the opinion of scientists that I quoted, identified the unborn as a part of the woman's body and not in an environment. You cited that persons are not a location. I never argued human persons are a location, but they are in a location. That location is within the woman's womb. Legally, you can define them out of existence by stating personal rights start at birth, but to do so it would be reasonable to prove exactly when person beings. Legally, those in power can make anything "legal."
I identified natural rights (something we have because of our natures) is different from legal rights. By nature, I argued we are all human persons by nature, because of what we are. I invite you to prove otherwise.
"Previously, I was reading personal as personable. Excuse my misapprehension. My last response appropriately addresses the argument." - SKEP1
No problem, thanks!
"Stating personality is not natural to all human beings" - ME
"Show me where I made such an assertion, and we can go from there." - SKEP1
POST 71 - "'Personhood' is not natural, unless you consider a concept of humanity to be natural, in which case an appeal to nature is irrelevant."
ROUND 3: "That being said, the line of distinction I am interested in is when human becomes person, and that occurs at birth."
You agreed human beings begin at conception but that person begins at birth, as claimed by a panel of judges on the supreme court that made abortion law up to a particular point of development. What scientific evidence do you have to back this statement? Judges aren't embryologists or doctors or scientists.
ROUND 4: "My position is fetuses are an extension of a woman’s body, and cannot be considered a person until they are well and truly an individual human being."
According to scientists, a human being is an individual and uniquely new being at conception.
"You're talking in circles, buddy. Follow the logic: if personality is not exclusive to humanity, then (unless you're advocating non-human persons) it is not a relevant attribute for distinguishing personhood. And do you think arbitrarily adding 'personal' to something makes it a person? No response other than questioning the logic behind this is required from me." - SKEP1
Sure it is reasonable. Every human being is a personal being. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are personal beings. Thus, personality is not exclusive to humanity, providing God exists, which I have no doubt about.
Again, I asked you to identify when personhood begins. If you can't do that then you need to give the unborn from conception the benefit of the doubt. So, when does personhood begins, and please back up your claim? You have not responded to date.
I made my position clear. Personhood starts at conception. It is the nature of a human to be a personal being. Show me otherwise. What we are is built into our DNA code. When the code of the woman and man unite a separate unique individual human being exists, PER SCIENCE. It is not the woman's parts growing inside her, like a tumor or cyst, it is a newly formed human being with its own operating system in its basic form. What it is is directed from the inside, not from without. It doesn't start out as a dog, grow into a cat, then at a later stage of development turn into a human being. That is what it is from the start, from conception onwards. Every human being is a personal being, no matter how developed that personal nature is.
"Personhood" is not natural, unless you consider a concept of humanity to be natural, in which case an appeal to nature is irrelevant. Also, 'personailty' is not unique to humans, and 'personal' is a trait of *some* humans, so I don't understand how any of this makes a case for an entity being a *person*. Just because a word has "person" at its root doesn't make it meaningful in a discussion on personhood." - SKEP1
So you are saying that it is not in our nature to be personal beings?
No, personality is not unique to human beings, but is it the nature of all human beings to be personal beings? Thus, it is natural for human beings to be personal beings.
Stating personality is not natural to all human beings (when they are permitted to develop what they naturally are and something that they possess by their natures) is something you would need to develop and establish, as I asked you to - that is when a person starts. So far, you have just asserted it.
"Instead of abortion, I think a debate on personhood would have been more appropriate." - SKEP1
Maybe, but you have the same problem. Is personhood a natural trait of being human? Do you know of human beings, left to develop, that are not personal beings? IOW's is personality a part of what makes us human and thus part of our very nature. If you are not sure then you SHOULD give the benefit to the unborn. So, you would have to establish when a human being becomes a personal being if not so by their very nature. When does that happen? I know some have legislated personhood on beings at birth, others have not. Why do politicians and lawyers, not scientists decide when a human being is a personal being?
"The voter references things not said in debate, does not explain sources points, and dismisses Cons argument as ad hoc with no consideration of explanation made in debate. I request moderation, please." - SKEP1
Is this a reference to Ethang5 or me? It looks like his privileges have been revoked. I see a line through his name. I do not know how that affects the outcome of our debate. Does it mean one less judge or does it mean another debate in limbo?
"No, of course not. Pregnancy is a systemic burden on a human body. Nipple chewing...not so much. They are not comparable. I'm not sure why you've brought up non-consensual sex (assuming incest is non-consensual), because, as mentioned earlier, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The only absurdity is in the misrepresentation of my argument." - SKEP1
I bring up consensual sex because most pregnancies are a result of it and most abortions are from consensual sex. When a woman engages in consensual sex she understands the risk is there to become pregnant. Thus, she has a responsibility to take precautions if she does not want to get pregnant. If she gets pregnant she has a responsibility to guard her offspring. What mother has a right to kill her newborn because she doesn't want the responsibility? What person has the right to kill an innocent human being outside the womb? But abortion advocates have given this right to kill an innocent human being inside the womb. This is a gross injustice. The treatment is biased and unequal. Both are human beings, both are innocent, but one is discriminated against while the other is protected at all costs.
What is the greater harm - to suffer some discomfort or burden for nine months then put up for adoption the offspring, or to kill an innocent human being and your offspring because you are bothered by some discomfort or feel burdened? Where is the justice here? The scales are unbalanced between the unborn and newborn; between one human being and another. Can a person kill you because you cause them discomfort or become a burden to them?
"Pregnancy in all cases puts a strain on the physiology of the woman and is without a doubt a threat to life. On this alone, a woman is justified in terminating a pregnancy.
The intention of the offending entity is unimportant. After all, someone can *unintentionally* kill another person, and they can still be charged with manslaughter. Additionally, if the *unintentional* actions of another being continually threaten your life, you are within your rights to make this threat cease including lethal force. These are real life examples which negate the 'innocence of the unborn' approach, and for this reason it is irrelevant." - SKEP1
So if the newborn puts a strain on the woman's physiology by chewing too hard on her nipple for nine months, should she consider this a threat that deserves death? Again, I point out the absurdity of the argument. In most cases (.5-1% rape or incest) sex is engaged in by consent but the responsibilities that come along with it are shuffled off. The main reasons for killing the unborn are because the woman doesn't want the unborn.
Many sites and people, including the past president of Planned Parenthood have stated that in the MAJORITY of pregnancies there is no life-threating danger to the woman's life.
The 'threat' defense is an EXCUSE to terminate a life. Show me otherwise.
I have argued that there is an exception with abortion, and that is when there is a legitimate life-threatening danger to the woman continuing the pregnancy. That is rare. If the threat to the woman was so common then with the majority of pregnancies the woman would be dead. That is not the case.
Manslaughter is unintentional but it is careless and negligent. It is still judged harshly by the law of the land. The woman having an abortion is promoted and there is no criminality to it in your (or my) country.
"My analogy was not just about intruders, but intruders that are a threat. Self- defense is justified in this case. Also, consensual sex is not consent to pregnancy and I think you would have real difficulty showing otherwise." - SKEPTICAL1
This imagery of an intruder in comparing a burglar or criminal breaking into one's home is not a good parallel to the unborn for the reasons I highlighted in the debate. The analogy sucks.
The unborn did not intentionally break into the woman's womb. It is there through no ability of its own. The unborn are innocent of crime whereas the burglar or criminal is not since the intention is not there. If someone found a helpless newborn left in their homes they would not be allowed to kill that person. It presents no threat of harm to the inhabitants.
The newborn nor the unborn is a threat to the woman's life in a vast majority of all cases (a tubal pregnancy is one such exception).
Lastly, the unborn is part of her very DNA and is her offspring, her child. What mother would be able to kill her newborn offspring or child? Yet you think we should allow the woman to kill the unborn which is almost entirely the same in its development minutes before birth as the newborn, except for its location. Both unborn and newborns are the same human being. Their nature does not change.
What happens with Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups is they scale down the language by using these sterile terms to disguise what is being discussed - a unique and individual human being. Once any human being is dehumanized and devalued they can be discriminated against even to the point of killing them. This discrimination resulted in the mass slaughter of countless millions of human beings. As mentioned various times in the debate, the killing of the unborn is the most significant genocide in the history of humanity to date.
"Pregnancy is ALWAYS A THREAT, and I am talking about a zygote/embryo/fetus, not babies/children." - SKEP1
The percentage of women dying from pregnancy is virtually non-existent in our day and age. This is crazy logic. If pregnancy is always a threat, then this kind of logic would suggest that no pregnant woman should be allowed to have a child - end of humanity.
The definition of a child can include the unborn.
"1a : an unborn or recently born person"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
The definition of a baby can include the unborn.
": an extremely young child"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baby
The terms zygote, embryo, or fetus can be employed to lessen the killing of the unborn by making it seem that it is less than it is. Again these terms can be used to dehumanize it so that its humanity is lost in the medically sterile language. What should not be lost when using these terms is that it is as much a human being in its NATURE than any other human being. Its DNA is the same DNA that it carries throughout its life. You are you from conception onwards. You don't stop being you because of your level of development. When your mother shows you an ultrasound of your development in the womb she doesn't call you a blob but she calls you 'you.' When she discusses the ultrasound with the technician she and the technician refers to the what the image represents as the child or the baby or her baby.
"If science could save the fetus at the expense of the mothers life would you argue for the life of the fetus or the mother?" - SKEPTICAL1
"My example stipulated science having the ability. Additionally, there was no mention of a terminal condition in the mother. Essentially, the mother or the fetus can live, but one must die. Which should live?
This is obviously not part of this debate, but just a question that popped into my mind when considering your earlier comments." - SKEPTICAL1
Okay, so you want me to react to a hypothetical of weighing the woman's life against the unborns? Science has a gun and must choose to kill one or the other? Or what? If the mother's life is not threatened then why can't science save both? I'm not grasping what you are getting at.
First, if the mother is near the point of death and the operation will kill her the operation can possibly take place when she is dead, per the example I gave you.
Second, if the operation will not kill her and she will die anyway, then to operate will save one of them, just like in the case of tubal pregnancy the operation will save one of them. In that case, there is no other morally right option to save at least one of them, the one that will survive. The unborn is not developed enough for it to be saved at present in tubal pregnancies. Science does not have the capability.
Third, if the woman has a disease that she will die from and that disease will spread to the unborn, then does not the woman have a moral obligation to care for her offspring? Do you know of many women who would put themselves over their newborn or any born offspring, if she is deadly sick and she has a choice of saving her offspring from becoming likewise? The option for her is either both dying by disregarding her offspring's life (by being selfish) or preserving her offspring so that at least it will live?
Some women who had a chance for a cure for cancer but knew the unborn would die of radiation poisoning have opted to continue the pregnancy without chemotherapy at their own risk of dying. That is a selfless act of love. In such situations, the woman had the right to save herself since a cure was possible. In the case of no possible cure for the woman then the situation is different.
I said nothing about murdering the mother. I said save the unborn. How is taking the removing the unborn from the dying mother going to kill her? She is going to die, but how will that operation kill her? In the one scenario that I gave you, the mother was brain dead but they kept her body alive long enough until the unborn had a reasonable chance of living.
"I realize I did not tag you in my last response, Peter. Apologies." - SKEPTICAL1
No problem. (^8
"If science could save the fetus at the expense of the mothers life would you argue for the life of the fetus or the mother?" - SKEPTICAL1
Can you give me a scenario?
IMO, if the mother has cancer and is going to die before the unborn is born, then science/the surgeon has a responsibility and should save the unborn for the mother will die anyway.
"It is preferable to save at least one life than none at all" - ME
"Agreed, but per the position you've embraced, this would require violating the rights of the fetus and "taking an innocent human life". You..you..MONSTER! 'Denying the rights of an entire class of people' (the unborn in ectopic pregnancies) leads us to Hitler, Apartheid, American slavery, etc., no?! 🤨😂🤣" - SKEPTICAL1
There is no other choice. Either both will die or one will die. That is why I left ONE exception in the debate when the woman's life will be lost if she continues on with the debate. The unborn will die in such pregnancies. There is nothing science can do at present to prevent their deaths. But there is something science can do you save the woman.
"You can't have it both ways. Either the unborn have rights or they don't. If they have rights, then we'd better honor them without exception. If they don't, then aborting a pregnancy is nothing more than a recognition of a woman's rights." - SKEPTICAL1
When both are threatened with certain death but there is a chance to save one but you cannot save the other, no matter what you do, then it is better to save the one. The unborn cannot be saved because of its level of development but the woman still can. In the case of tubal pregnancies that is the grim reality.
If there was a way to save both then both should be saved.
"I don't think I can put it much simpler, but I will try. If you think abortion is wrong because it is "taking an innocent life", then allowing abortion under any circumstances undermines your position and shows your moral high ground to be a pretense.
You keep trying to make this into a 'black and white' issue while simultaneously allowing for areas of grey. This is incoherent." - SKEPTICAL1
No, it does not undermine it. As I said, one circumstance is allowable because the choice to keep both the woman and the unborn alive would result in the death of both such as in a tubal pregnancy. It is preferable to save at least one life than none at all. If the woman dies because of a tubal pregnancy the unborn will die also because we do not have the technology to save it in such circumstances. It is common sense.
"I do not propose taking an innocent life." - ME
"This would be true if no allowance for abortion had been made." - YOU
What exactly do you mean by this?
Do you mean that because some judges pass a law that makes killing innocent human beings morally right and discriminate against the most helpless in of all human beings, it is okay? Where is the equality you spoke of under the UN declaration of ALL humans being equal? You side-stepped the issue. This is precisely what I was speaking about with Nazi Germany, the American South during slavery, South Africa during Apartheid (that I witnessed when we used to go on holiday there), and a hundred or a thousand other injustices that people pass into law all over the world.
"As I said elsewhere, that is one reason in which killing someone may be justified." "It is a FUNDAMENTAL right that when denied leads to genocides and/or discrimination," - ME
"Per you, denying the right to life leads to "genocide and discrimination". Killing someone (in self-defense) is most certainly denying the 'right to life'. Either you're advocating genocide and discrimination or (more likely) this subject is much more nuanced than you'd like to admit." - YOU
I have given an exception for abortion in which the woman's life is threatened where both she and the unborn will die. There is no possible way for the unborn to survive and by not taking it then it will endanger the woman's life also. I do not propose taking an innocent life. The unborn has done no wrong. The person looking to intentionally hurt another is doing a wrong. This is the case in the self-defense scenario and also the case in the woman choosing to kill the unborn.
"Some laws do outweigh other laws, like the right to life. " - ME
"If you believe the 'right to life' trumps other rights, then I'm curious how you justify self-defense? After all, you and you're would-be attacker have the same right to life..." - YOU
Someone else is intentionally trying to do me harm. In such cases, I have a right to defend myself (although Jesus said to turn the other check). As I said elsewhere, that is one reason in which killing someone may be justified. He does not have the right to take my life and I do not have the right to take him, yet if he does then I have the right to defend myself.
Alec, SkepticalOne is not making a true case here since all humans have an equal right to life.
SKEP1: "Outside of punishment, nothing justifies state control of a person's body. Can you imagine a circumstance when blood, tissue, or organs can be taken without consent from men to provide for the development of others?"
Does NOTHING justify it? If you use your body, your fists, to kill someone because you don't like them (and you are practicing bodily autonomy), even though they have not meant you physical harm, does your bodily autonomy come under the States judgment? You do not have the autonomy to kill someone with your fists, your body parts unless in self-defense. The State legislates you can't do this; you are not allowed to take another life.
Some laws do outweigh other laws, like the right to life. It is a FUNDAMENTAL right that when denied leads to genocides and/or discrimination, depending on who controls power. If human beings are not intrinsically valuable, and universally so, then what does it matter what we do to the Jews of Nazi Germany, or slaves in America in earlier days, or person of color in South Africa under Apartheid, or the woman, or unborn, or any other group those in power do not like? SkepticalOne issued the UN declaration in the debate that I fully agree with. The part I did not agree with was when they discriminated against the unborn because they are not treating all humans equal.
I agree a woman does have the right to decide what to do with her own body, to an extent. Her bodily autonomy should not give her the right to kill another human being and her son or daughter at that. Again, you devalue the human being when you make the unborn nothing more than a group of cells, tissue or organs. This is not all that the unborn is. A human being is a self-directed being. With abortion, a human life is being taken and the abortion pro-choice crowd are downplaying it by devaluing it.
Alec, SkepticalOne is not making a true case here since all humans have an equal right to life.
SKEP1: "Outside of punishment, nothing justifies state control of a person's body. Can you imagine a circumstance when blood, tissue, or organs can be taken without consent from men to provide for the development of others?"
Does NOTHING justify it? If you use your body, your fists, to kill someone because you don't like them (and you are practicing bodily autonomy), even though they have not meant you physical harm, does your bodily autonomy come under the States judgment? You do not have the autonomy to kill someone with your fists, your body parts unless in self-defense. The State legislates you can't do this; you are not allowed to take another life.
Some laws do outweigh other laws, like the right to life. It is a FUNDAMENTAL right that when denied leads to genocides and/or discrimination, depending on who controls power. If human beings are not intrinsically valuable, and universally so, then what does it matter what we do to the Jews of Nazi Germany, or slaves in America in earlier days, or person of color in South Africa under Apartheid, or the woman, or unborn, or any other group those in power do not like? SkepticalOne issued the UN declaration in the debate that I fully agree with. The part I did not agree with was when they discriminated against the unborn because they are not treating all humans equal.
I agree a woman does have the right to her decide what to do with her own body, to an extent. Her bodily autonomy should not give her the right to kill another human being and her son or daughter at that. Again, you devalue the human being when you make the unborn nothing more than a group of cells, tissue or organs. This is not all that the unborn is. A human being is a self-directed being. With abortion, a human life is being taken and the abortion pro-choice crowd are downplaying it by devaluing it.
YOU SAID: "What if the woman was already wealthy before the pregnancy and considered the money to be of less value than the opportunity to not be pregnant? I'm pro-life personally, but the idea that you can bribe people to prevent abortions seems like a weak argument to me."
I think the fine and castration would be more of a restitution, punishment, and deterrence, myself. Who wants to get castrated? If they can't pay the fine they serve the time.
"This, and this: Reductio ad Hitlerum
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/152/Reductio-ad-Hitlerum" - Skeptical1
No fallacy here. There are many analogies and similarities. The first is the killing of humans. The second is regarding the intrinsic value of human beings. The third is like the first, the Holocaust in both cases. The fourth is the propaganda campaign used to influence the hearts and minds of the majorities. The fifth is the philosophies of the two founders, one being the Nazi Party, the other being Planned Parenthood, based on what they thought was for the good of society. The sixth is the devaluation and dehumanization of groups or segments of the population.
Why the fuck do you need to bring Hitler into this? Literally your entire closing statement of r4 is Hitler Hitler hitler.
Because what is being done to the unborn was done to the Jews - devaluation, dehumanization, discrimination, death.
I could have used slavery, or Apartheid, or The Caste System, or a number of different scenarios but I like using the Hitler example because I have read up on it, read Mein Kampf, read some of the Nazi propaganda documents from the 1930's and 1940's and see how the comparisons work by visiting a number of pro-life sites.
Basically what happens is that the intrinsic worth of some humans is deemed not equal to that of other humans. When that happens it can lead to any number of atrocities. The genocide from abortion practices is the most significant death toll to human beings in our history to date. It is also the one that goes least noticed today because of the current climate of political tolerance (except for certain positions) and cultural relativism (except in some cases).
Although Mopac was identified as the Contender, he took the pro side of the argument. You took the negative side. Thus, you were Con and Mopac was Pro.
"Reason for Mod Action: The justification for argument points was borderline, but we will default to considering it sufficient. S&G is insufficiently explained. There are two reasons why it's not enough to say Grammarly suggested that Con had better S&G. First, Grammarly looks at every single grammatical mistake, but S&G points should only be awarded when grammatical errors reach the point where the readability of debaters is severely impaired. Second, the voter is required to specifically reference text from the debate from both sides proving grammatical errors, and explain why one side's readability was worse than the other. The voter may properly revote by sufficiently justifying the S/G points they awarded or by choosing not to award those points."
***
So, you want me to subtract the point I awarded to Con? Fine!
Grammarly lists spelling and grammar, plus a number of other issues I did not include. On the issue of spelling and grammar alone, Con had fewer errors, but that could have been because he supplied half the argument that Pro did. There was just that much less to make mistakes over.
YOU SAID: "We must look at Lewis's intended meaning behind "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord". This could be reworded as "Either Jesus was a man who lied about his claims of divinity, or Jesus was a man who was insane, or Jesus really was God in human flesh and therefore you ought to acknowledge Him as your Lord". All of these are exclusive to Jesus being a "legend", which as interpreted by Con meant "something that is a fable but which did not exist in fact". To Pro's credit, I will discount Con's side arguments as to why Jesus was not Lord, on the grounds that He was either a liar or a lunatic; I do not feel that Con has satisfactorily proved either of these things. But in any case, were Jesus to be a liar or a lunatic that would not be a repudiation of Lewis's trilemma. However, since the reasonable possibility of Jesus being a non-existent person would negate Lewis's Trilemma, Pro's job was to show that this was not the case."
The unfortunate thing is that unless a person is a theist they tend to look at the Bible as myth or legend and build that presupposition into their judgment, despite the evidence to the contrary. Something happened that some of these early disciples (and in some cases direct eyewitnesses) died excruciating deaths for what...a lie/liar or a lunatic? That doesn't make sense. The gospel writers do not act as conspirators in this theory. And all the Roman or Jewish authorities need to do was produce the dead body from the grave to squash the whole movement. This did not happen. What is more, the OT predicted the coming Messiah within the timeframe of the OT economy. These people went to their death proclaiming Jesus is Lord. Much of the NT and OT looks towards the coming judgment by God on a disobedient people. These things are not easily explained away.
Also, Jesus being a non-existent person is stretching it.
Con took the one verse and excluded it from the immediate context and the context of the whole NT in its relationship to the OT. Anyone can take a verse out of context and give the impression that Jesus lied, yet they ignore the rest of the testimony. Plus, who would willingly go to their deaths for a lie or a lunatic? Maybe one or a couple of deranged people, but not only all those closest to Jesus but many who believed on their message.
Jesus said later in Mark 3:
24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! 27 But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man,
JUDGMENT!
Thus, He was not out of His mind like they thought and He did not lie.
"In addition: con clearly cites examples of Lies told by Jesus, and examples where his family thought he was mad. Unfortunately for pro - the argument in favour of Jesus not being a liar or mad was entirely uncompelling and smacked of cherry picking - simply selecting all the times Jesus supposedly didn’t lie or didn’t appear mad cited from a clearly biased source isn’t a clear indication that he is not a liar, or a “lunatic”, and as a result cons position clearly wins on these two examples also."
These kinds of claims of Jesus lying are put forth all the time, yet there are mostly refuted by logical reasoning on a number of websites. Just because those crowds did not fully UNDERSTAND who He was or what He was saying at the time, they knew so after His resurrection and many changed died excruciating deaths because they would not recant their testimony and deny Jesus as Lord.
The point is that their whole OT spoke of these times they lived in and their promised Messiah. No other person can fulfill this prophetic Messiah after AD 70 because the whole OT economy, including its Mosaic prophecy is null and void after AD 70. The Messiah was to come to a Mosaic Covenant people. That covenant does not exist as they agreed to before God (Exodus 24:3) after AD 70. God brought judgment on Israel as a nation per Deuteronomy 28, and in AD 70 many would understand this. Their whole world, their heaven and earth (Matthew 5:17-18) would come crashing down in AD 70, because their relationship with God and their whole worship system could no longer be fulfilled by THEM. That is judgment.
"In addition: con clearly cites examples of Lies told by Jesus, and examples where his family thought he was mad. Unfortunately for pro - the argument in favour of Jesus not being a liar or mad was entirely uncompelling and smacked of cherry picking..."
Con established no such thing, that Jesus was a liar or lunatic. In fact, after His resurrection, we find that close followers rejoiced. According to the disciples, Jesus did not lie but rose from the dead, and these followers went to their deaths believing this. He did not show in any way that these disciples had made Him into a legend, considering they believed and went to their death believing they had seen the risen Lord. What is more, the entire OT has prophecy, images, types, shadows, patterns, that point to Jesus as Messiah, Savior, Lord, and God.
I think more to the question would be if only a citizen of a country should be allowed to vote or not. To that question, I say, "Yes, only a citizen." Why should non-citizens have a say in the governance of a country?
A citizenship test would educate a person on HOW the system and country work, but it would not educate the person on the candidate's moral fiber and the issues at hand.
I don't think a literacy test should disbar a person from voting, but I do feel that a sound mind and, in some circumstances, a knowledge of (some of) the issues should be a requirement.
Anyone who is dumb enough to think that the socialistic Democrats have your best interests in mind should listen to Mark Levin, February 23, 2019.
Try and understand what freedom really is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMP2EcZdMMg
Your Republic has worked better than most democracies, yet is it being undermined by Democratic Party values (or lack of good values and lack of common sense). I don't see how you can think that the Democrats are more intelligent than the Republicans, they are just more shifty and cunning and know how to manipulate their Democrat base and many independents.
"Thank you for the detailed RFD, WF. I appreciate the guidance!"
It was good! I appreciated FaustianJustice honesty too.
"All this rehashing the debate here in the comments is pointless. That being said, I will bow out. Good luck to you, sir." - SKEP1
Thank you for your good will!
So, unless you can show me that the unborn is not a human being, which you have confirmed it is, then it should have the same inalienable rights as every other human being. There should not be a distinction at birth. That is ridiculous and unequal treatment of a class or group of human beings.
"The woman, just like anyone else, has a right to control her own body. This right does not magically go away if she becomes pregnant. So, the bestowing rights at birth is the only logically consistent solution where rights are inalienable." - SKEP1
I agree the woman does have the right to control her own body, to an extent. There is no disputing this. The limit is where she uses her own body to hurt or kill another body. That is a different matter.
You're right, the law does not magically go away. If the woman uses her body to hurt or kill another human being (outside the womb) she is charged with a crime. Unfortunately, the law is discriminant and not equal in the case of the unborn human being. It is not given what every human being should be given, inalienable rights, universal rights to every human being. The most basic right of an innocent human being is the right to life. With the most vulnerable human, the one who should have the greatest protection, the right is stripped from them by unjust laws that do not follow the Declaration of Independence.
When you say, "the woman JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE," you make an exception because you are not treating her in the same manner as everyone else. If you use your body to kill another innocent human being either intentionally (murder) or in particular cases because of negligence (manslaughter) it is a crime. So you are not being consistent in your thinking here. I can do with my own body as I see fit as long as what I am doing does not hurt someone else, or myself. If I went around pounding my head against a brick wall I would probably be locked up and prevented from hurting myself. If I constantly went around pounding my head into someone else's head I would expect the same results. I would be classed a danger to myself and/or others. So the freedom to do what you want with your body is a limited freedom. The crazy abortion laws are not consistent with the principle of bodily harm to others.
Inalienable rights: "The word refers to a natural right that cannot be revoked by an outside force. ... In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson (using the un- variant) wrote that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
"Something that is yours forever, that can’t be taken away and given to your little brother instead? That something would be called inalienable. The word refers to a natural right that cannot be revoked by an outside force."
"The word inalienable is often linked to human rights — you’ve probably heard the term “inalienable rights.”
"an inalienable right is something that can’t be given or taken away by a government or another legal power."
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inalienable
"Inalienable right refers to rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else, especially a natural right such as the right to own property."
https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inalienable-right/
"Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life. To explore this concept, consider the following inalienable rights definition."
https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/
Yet, this is what is done in the case of abortion. The inalienable rights of one class or group of human beings are stripped away from that class by unfair laws that discriminate.
You say, "rights are inalienable" but you do not give one human being the same rights as another. Again you use the term "entity" to disguise what we are speaking of, a human being. It is a term used to diminish what the unborn human being is from conception. What about its inalienable rights? Just because a person or human being is located within another human being, in a particular environment, that does not change what the being in this environment is. It is not PART of the woman. It is its own human being in its own right.
The "part of the woman" is a fatal flaw in your argument, IMO. It is a separate individual human being who relies on another human being for its life because she is looking after it and has the responsibility to look after it until it becomes self-sufficient or others take that responsibility from her.
"Scientist do not assign personhood, and if they did,
"Personhood" is a legal distinction and scientists are not qualified to make that call." - SKEP1
If scientists can't make that call then neither can lawyers and judges. They should give the unborn "inalienable rights" too since it is a human being. If no one can determine when a person begins the unborn SHOULD be given the benefit of the doubt, not butchered, and that is what happens at some stages of pregnancy - the unborn is ripped and torn apart by medical instruments.
If human rights are inalienable, like was argued in the Declaration of Independence in your country, then the unborn SHOULD have those rights that we decree on every other human being. Even your UN statement recognized that all humans are equal, yet they treat the unborn human as unequal. They contradict their own standard which is hypocrisy.
A agree that person and personality can be thought of as two distinct things. A person is, however, a personal being with a personality.
"...you do not have a legitmate authority supporting your notion of personhood beginning at conception." - SKEP1
Whether or not I have legitimate authorities is something we can argue, but the greater point is you don't know, then you, the woman, the doctor, the politician should give the unborn the benefit of the doubt. Anyone can legalize something unjustly if they have the power to do so. It happens all around the world every day.
By your thinking in Round 4 it can't be a person until it is an individual, which scientifically speaking, it is from conception. Thus, with such logic, it would be a person from birth. You mistakenly, IMO, and in the opinion of scientists that I quoted, identified the unborn as a part of the woman's body and not in an environment. You cited that persons are not a location. I never argued human persons are a location, but they are in a location. That location is within the woman's womb. Legally, you can define them out of existence by stating personal rights start at birth, but to do so it would be reasonable to prove exactly when person beings. Legally, those in power can make anything "legal."
I identified natural rights (something we have because of our natures) is different from legal rights. By nature, I argued we are all human persons by nature, because of what we are. I invite you to prove otherwise.
"Previously, I was reading personal as personable. Excuse my misapprehension. My last response appropriately addresses the argument." - SKEP1
No problem, thanks!
"Stating personality is not natural to all human beings" - ME
"Show me where I made such an assertion, and we can go from there." - SKEP1
POST 71 - "'Personhood' is not natural, unless you consider a concept of humanity to be natural, in which case an appeal to nature is irrelevant."
ROUND 3: "That being said, the line of distinction I am interested in is when human becomes person, and that occurs at birth."
You agreed human beings begin at conception but that person begins at birth, as claimed by a panel of judges on the supreme court that made abortion law up to a particular point of development. What scientific evidence do you have to back this statement? Judges aren't embryologists or doctors or scientists.
ROUND 4: "My position is fetuses are an extension of a woman’s body, and cannot be considered a person until they are well and truly an individual human being."
According to scientists, a human being is an individual and uniquely new being at conception.
"You're talking in circles, buddy. Follow the logic: if personality is not exclusive to humanity, then (unless you're advocating non-human persons) it is not a relevant attribute for distinguishing personhood. And do you think arbitrarily adding 'personal' to something makes it a person? No response other than questioning the logic behind this is required from me." - SKEP1
Sure it is reasonable. Every human being is a personal being. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are personal beings. Thus, personality is not exclusive to humanity, providing God exists, which I have no doubt about.
Again, I asked you to identify when personhood begins. If you can't do that then you need to give the unborn from conception the benefit of the doubt. So, when does personhood begins, and please back up your claim? You have not responded to date.
I made my position clear. Personhood starts at conception. It is the nature of a human to be a personal being. Show me otherwise. What we are is built into our DNA code. When the code of the woman and man unite a separate unique individual human being exists, PER SCIENCE. It is not the woman's parts growing inside her, like a tumor or cyst, it is a newly formed human being with its own operating system in its basic form. What it is is directed from the inside, not from without. It doesn't start out as a dog, grow into a cat, then at a later stage of development turn into a human being. That is what it is from the start, from conception onwards. Every human being is a personal being, no matter how developed that personal nature is.
"Personhood" is not natural, unless you consider a concept of humanity to be natural, in which case an appeal to nature is irrelevant. Also, 'personailty' is not unique to humans, and 'personal' is a trait of *some* humans, so I don't understand how any of this makes a case for an entity being a *person*. Just because a word has "person" at its root doesn't make it meaningful in a discussion on personhood." - SKEP1
So you are saying that it is not in our nature to be personal beings?
No, personality is not unique to human beings, but is it the nature of all human beings to be personal beings? Thus, it is natural for human beings to be personal beings.
Stating personality is not natural to all human beings (when they are permitted to develop what they naturally are and something that they possess by their natures) is something you would need to develop and establish, as I asked you to - that is when a person starts. So far, you have just asserted it.
"Instead of abortion, I think a debate on personhood would have been more appropriate." - SKEP1
Maybe, but you have the same problem. Is personhood a natural trait of being human? Do you know of human beings, left to develop, that are not personal beings? IOW's is personality a part of what makes us human and thus part of our very nature. If you are not sure then you SHOULD give the benefit to the unborn. So, you would have to establish when a human being becomes a personal being if not so by their very nature. When does that happen? I know some have legislated personhood on beings at birth, others have not. Why do politicians and lawyers, not scientists decide when a human being is a personal being?
"The voter references things not said in debate, does not explain sources points, and dismisses Cons argument as ad hoc with no consideration of explanation made in debate. I request moderation, please." - SKEP1
Is this a reference to Ethang5 or me? It looks like his privileges have been revoked. I see a line through his name. I do not know how that affects the outcome of our debate. Does it mean one less judge or does it mean another debate in limbo?
"No, of course not. Pregnancy is a systemic burden on a human body. Nipple chewing...not so much. They are not comparable. I'm not sure why you've brought up non-consensual sex (assuming incest is non-consensual), because, as mentioned earlier, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The only absurdity is in the misrepresentation of my argument." - SKEP1
I bring up consensual sex because most pregnancies are a result of it and most abortions are from consensual sex. When a woman engages in consensual sex she understands the risk is there to become pregnant. Thus, she has a responsibility to take precautions if she does not want to get pregnant. If she gets pregnant she has a responsibility to guard her offspring. What mother has a right to kill her newborn because she doesn't want the responsibility? What person has the right to kill an innocent human being outside the womb? But abortion advocates have given this right to kill an innocent human being inside the womb. This is a gross injustice. The treatment is biased and unequal. Both are human beings, both are innocent, but one is discriminated against while the other is protected at all costs.
What is the greater harm - to suffer some discomfort or burden for nine months then put up for adoption the offspring, or to kill an innocent human being and your offspring because you are bothered by some discomfort or feel burdened? Where is the justice here? The scales are unbalanced between the unborn and newborn; between one human being and another. Can a person kill you because you cause them discomfort or become a burden to them?
"Pregnancy in all cases puts a strain on the physiology of the woman and is without a doubt a threat to life. On this alone, a woman is justified in terminating a pregnancy.
The intention of the offending entity is unimportant. After all, someone can *unintentionally* kill another person, and they can still be charged with manslaughter. Additionally, if the *unintentional* actions of another being continually threaten your life, you are within your rights to make this threat cease including lethal force. These are real life examples which negate the 'innocence of the unborn' approach, and for this reason it is irrelevant." - SKEP1
So if the newborn puts a strain on the woman's physiology by chewing too hard on her nipple for nine months, should she consider this a threat that deserves death? Again, I point out the absurdity of the argument. In most cases (.5-1% rape or incest) sex is engaged in by consent but the responsibilities that come along with it are shuffled off. The main reasons for killing the unborn are because the woman doesn't want the unborn.
Many sites and people, including the past president of Planned Parenthood have stated that in the MAJORITY of pregnancies there is no life-threating danger to the woman's life.
The 'threat' defense is an EXCUSE to terminate a life. Show me otherwise.
I have argued that there is an exception with abortion, and that is when there is a legitimate life-threatening danger to the woman continuing the pregnancy. That is rare. If the threat to the woman was so common then with the majority of pregnancies the woman would be dead. That is not the case.
Manslaughter is unintentional but it is careless and negligent. It is still judged harshly by the law of the land. The woman having an abortion is promoted and there is no criminality to it in your (or my) country.
"My analogy was not just about intruders, but intruders that are a threat. Self- defense is justified in this case. Also, consensual sex is not consent to pregnancy and I think you would have real difficulty showing otherwise." - SKEPTICAL1
This imagery of an intruder in comparing a burglar or criminal breaking into one's home is not a good parallel to the unborn for the reasons I highlighted in the debate. The analogy sucks.
The unborn did not intentionally break into the woman's womb. It is there through no ability of its own. The unborn are innocent of crime whereas the burglar or criminal is not since the intention is not there. If someone found a helpless newborn left in their homes they would not be allowed to kill that person. It presents no threat of harm to the inhabitants.
The newborn nor the unborn is a threat to the woman's life in a vast majority of all cases (a tubal pregnancy is one such exception).
Lastly, the unborn is part of her very DNA and is her offspring, her child. What mother would be able to kill her newborn offspring or child? Yet you think we should allow the woman to kill the unborn which is almost entirely the same in its development minutes before birth as the newborn, except for its location. Both unborn and newborns are the same human being. Their nature does not change.
What happens with Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups is they scale down the language by using these sterile terms to disguise what is being discussed - a unique and individual human being. Once any human being is dehumanized and devalued they can be discriminated against even to the point of killing them. This discrimination resulted in the mass slaughter of countless millions of human beings. As mentioned various times in the debate, the killing of the unborn is the most significant genocide in the history of humanity to date.
"Pregnancy is ALWAYS A THREAT, and I am talking about a zygote/embryo/fetus, not babies/children." - SKEP1
The percentage of women dying from pregnancy is virtually non-existent in our day and age. This is crazy logic. If pregnancy is always a threat, then this kind of logic would suggest that no pregnant woman should be allowed to have a child - end of humanity.
The definition of a child can include the unborn.
"1a : an unborn or recently born person"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
The definition of a baby can include the unborn.
": an extremely young child"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baby
The terms zygote, embryo, or fetus can be employed to lessen the killing of the unborn by making it seem that it is less than it is. Again these terms can be used to dehumanize it so that its humanity is lost in the medically sterile language. What should not be lost when using these terms is that it is as much a human being in its NATURE than any other human being. Its DNA is the same DNA that it carries throughout its life. You are you from conception onwards. You don't stop being you because of your level of development. When your mother shows you an ultrasound of your development in the womb she doesn't call you a blob but she calls you 'you.' When she discusses the ultrasound with the technician she and the technician refers to the what the image represents as the child or the baby or her baby.
"If science could save the fetus at the expense of the mothers life would you argue for the life of the fetus or the mother?" - SKEPTICAL1
"My example stipulated science having the ability. Additionally, there was no mention of a terminal condition in the mother. Essentially, the mother or the fetus can live, but one must die. Which should live?
This is obviously not part of this debate, but just a question that popped into my mind when considering your earlier comments." - SKEPTICAL1
Okay, so you want me to react to a hypothetical of weighing the woman's life against the unborns? Science has a gun and must choose to kill one or the other? Or what? If the mother's life is not threatened then why can't science save both? I'm not grasping what you are getting at.
First, if the mother is near the point of death and the operation will kill her the operation can possibly take place when she is dead, per the example I gave you.
Second, if the operation will not kill her and she will die anyway, then to operate will save one of them, just like in the case of tubal pregnancy the operation will save one of them. In that case, there is no other morally right option to save at least one of them, the one that will survive. The unborn is not developed enough for it to be saved at present in tubal pregnancies. Science does not have the capability.
Third, if the woman has a disease that she will die from and that disease will spread to the unborn, then does not the woman have a moral obligation to care for her offspring? Do you know of many women who would put themselves over their newborn or any born offspring, if she is deadly sick and she has a choice of saving her offspring from becoming likewise? The option for her is either both dying by disregarding her offspring's life (by being selfish) or preserving her offspring so that at least it will live?
Some women who had a chance for a cure for cancer but knew the unborn would die of radiation poisoning have opted to continue the pregnancy without chemotherapy at their own risk of dying. That is a selfless act of love. In such situations, the woman had the right to save herself since a cure was possible. In the case of no possible cure for the woman then the situation is different.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/woman-dies-of-cancer-after-refusing-treatment-to-save-unborn-child
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/emotional-goodbye-for-young-italian-mother-who-died-for-unborn-child
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/australian-doctor-dies-after-refusing-cancer-treatment-in-order-to-save-her
http://briggsview.blogspot.com/2017/01/perfect-love-pregnant-woman-chose-to.html
I said nothing about murdering the mother. I said save the unborn. How is taking the removing the unborn from the dying mother going to kill her? She is going to die, but how will that operation kill her? In the one scenario that I gave you, the mother was brain dead but they kept her body alive long enough until the unborn had a reasonable chance of living.
I don't understand how Contender received any points???
"I realize I did not tag you in my last response, Peter. Apologies." - SKEPTICAL1
No problem. (^8
"If science could save the fetus at the expense of the mothers life would you argue for the life of the fetus or the mother?" - SKEPTICAL1
Can you give me a scenario?
IMO, if the mother has cancer and is going to die before the unborn is born, then science/the surgeon has a responsibility and should save the unborn for the mother will die anyway.
https://www.thelocal.it/20141031/doctors-battle-to-save-baby-from-dead-mums-womb
"It is preferable to save at least one life than none at all" - ME
"Agreed, but per the position you've embraced, this would require violating the rights of the fetus and "taking an innocent human life". You..you..MONSTER! 'Denying the rights of an entire class of people' (the unborn in ectopic pregnancies) leads us to Hitler, Apartheid, American slavery, etc., no?! 🤨😂🤣" - SKEPTICAL1
There is no other choice. Either both will die or one will die. That is why I left ONE exception in the debate when the woman's life will be lost if she continues on with the debate. The unborn will die in such pregnancies. There is nothing science can do at present to prevent their deaths. But there is something science can do you save the woman.
"You can't have it both ways. Either the unborn have rights or they don't. If they have rights, then we'd better honor them without exception. If they don't, then aborting a pregnancy is nothing more than a recognition of a woman's rights." - SKEPTICAL1
When both are threatened with certain death but there is a chance to save one but you cannot save the other, no matter what you do, then it is better to save the one. The unborn cannot be saved because of its level of development but the woman still can. In the case of tubal pregnancies that is the grim reality.
If there was a way to save both then both should be saved.
"What exactly do you mean by this?" - ME
"I don't think I can put it much simpler, but I will try. If you think abortion is wrong because it is "taking an innocent life", then allowing abortion under any circumstances undermines your position and shows your moral high ground to be a pretense.
You keep trying to make this into a 'black and white' issue while simultaneously allowing for areas of grey. This is incoherent." - SKEPTICAL1
No, it does not undermine it. As I said, one circumstance is allowable because the choice to keep both the woman and the unborn alive would result in the death of both such as in a tubal pregnancy. It is preferable to save at least one life than none at all. If the woman dies because of a tubal pregnancy the unborn will die also because we do not have the technology to save it in such circumstances. It is common sense.
"I do not propose taking an innocent life." - ME
"This would be true if no allowance for abortion had been made." - YOU
What exactly do you mean by this?
Do you mean that because some judges pass a law that makes killing innocent human beings morally right and discriminate against the most helpless in of all human beings, it is okay? Where is the equality you spoke of under the UN declaration of ALL humans being equal? You side-stepped the issue. This is precisely what I was speaking about with Nazi Germany, the American South during slavery, South Africa during Apartheid (that I witnessed when we used to go on holiday there), and a hundred or a thousand other injustices that people pass into law all over the world.
"As I said elsewhere, that is one reason in which killing someone may be justified." "It is a FUNDAMENTAL right that when denied leads to genocides and/or discrimination," - ME
"Per you, denying the right to life leads to "genocide and discrimination". Killing someone (in self-defense) is most certainly denying the 'right to life'. Either you're advocating genocide and discrimination or (more likely) this subject is much more nuanced than you'd like to admit." - YOU
I have given an exception for abortion in which the woman's life is threatened where both she and the unborn will die. There is no possible way for the unborn to survive and by not taking it then it will endanger the woman's life also. I do not propose taking an innocent life. The unborn has done no wrong. The person looking to intentionally hurt another is doing a wrong. This is the case in the self-defense scenario and also the case in the woman choosing to kill the unborn.
"Some laws do outweigh other laws, like the right to life. " - ME
"If you believe the 'right to life' trumps other rights, then I'm curious how you justify self-defense? After all, you and you're would-be attacker have the same right to life..." - YOU
Someone else is intentionally trying to do me harm. In such cases, I have a right to defend myself (although Jesus said to turn the other check). As I said elsewhere, that is one reason in which killing someone may be justified. He does not have the right to take my life and I do not have the right to take him, yet if he does then I have the right to defend myself.
Alec, SkepticalOne is not making a true case here since all humans have an equal right to life.
SKEP1: "Outside of punishment, nothing justifies state control of a person's body. Can you imagine a circumstance when blood, tissue, or organs can be taken without consent from men to provide for the development of others?"
Does NOTHING justify it? If you use your body, your fists, to kill someone because you don't like them (and you are practicing bodily autonomy), even though they have not meant you physical harm, does your bodily autonomy come under the States judgment? You do not have the autonomy to kill someone with your fists, your body parts unless in self-defense. The State legislates you can't do this; you are not allowed to take another life.
Some laws do outweigh other laws, like the right to life. It is a FUNDAMENTAL right that when denied leads to genocides and/or discrimination, depending on who controls power. If human beings are not intrinsically valuable, and universally so, then what does it matter what we do to the Jews of Nazi Germany, or slaves in America in earlier days, or person of color in South Africa under Apartheid, or the woman, or unborn, or any other group those in power do not like? SkepticalOne issued the UN declaration in the debate that I fully agree with. The part I did not agree with was when they discriminated against the unborn because they are not treating all humans equal.
I agree a woman does have the right to decide what to do with her own body, to an extent. Her bodily autonomy should not give her the right to kill another human being and her son or daughter at that. Again, you devalue the human being when you make the unborn nothing more than a group of cells, tissue or organs. This is not all that the unborn is. A human being is a self-directed being. With abortion, a human life is being taken and the abortion pro-choice crowd are downplaying it by devaluing it.
Alec, SkepticalOne is not making a true case here since all humans have an equal right to life.
SKEP1: "Outside of punishment, nothing justifies state control of a person's body. Can you imagine a circumstance when blood, tissue, or organs can be taken without consent from men to provide for the development of others?"
Does NOTHING justify it? If you use your body, your fists, to kill someone because you don't like them (and you are practicing bodily autonomy), even though they have not meant you physical harm, does your bodily autonomy come under the States judgment? You do not have the autonomy to kill someone with your fists, your body parts unless in self-defense. The State legislates you can't do this; you are not allowed to take another life.
Some laws do outweigh other laws, like the right to life. It is a FUNDAMENTAL right that when denied leads to genocides and/or discrimination, depending on who controls power. If human beings are not intrinsically valuable, and universally so, then what does it matter what we do to the Jews of Nazi Germany, or slaves in America in earlier days, or person of color in South Africa under Apartheid, or the woman, or unborn, or any other group those in power do not like? SkepticalOne issued the UN declaration in the debate that I fully agree with. The part I did not agree with was when they discriminated against the unborn because they are not treating all humans equal.
I agree a woman does have the right to her decide what to do with her own body, to an extent. Her bodily autonomy should not give her the right to kill another human being and her son or daughter at that. Again, you devalue the human being when you make the unborn nothing more than a group of cells, tissue or organs. This is not all that the unborn is. A human being is a self-directed being. With abortion, a human life is being taken and the abortion pro-choice crowd are downplaying it by devaluing it.
Oh yes, how silly of me. I forgot to mention that both societies put legislation into place that promoted discrimination that led/leads to death.
YOU SAID: "What if the woman was already wealthy before the pregnancy and considered the money to be of less value than the opportunity to not be pregnant? I'm pro-life personally, but the idea that you can bribe people to prevent abortions seems like a weak argument to me."
I think the fine and castration would be more of a restitution, punishment, and deterrence, myself. Who wants to get castrated? If they can't pay the fine they serve the time.
"This, and this: Reductio ad Hitlerum
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/152/Reductio-ad-Hitlerum" - Skeptical1
No fallacy here. There are many analogies and similarities. The first is the killing of humans. The second is regarding the intrinsic value of human beings. The third is like the first, the Holocaust in both cases. The fourth is the propaganda campaign used to influence the hearts and minds of the majorities. The fifth is the philosophies of the two founders, one being the Nazi Party, the other being Planned Parenthood, based on what they thought was for the good of society. The sixth is the devaluation and dehumanization of groups or segments of the population.
Why the fuck do you need to bring Hitler into this? Literally your entire closing statement of r4 is Hitler Hitler hitler.
Because what is being done to the unborn was done to the Jews - devaluation, dehumanization, discrimination, death.
I could have used slavery, or Apartheid, or The Caste System, or a number of different scenarios but I like using the Hitler example because I have read up on it, read Mein Kampf, read some of the Nazi propaganda documents from the 1930's and 1940's and see how the comparisons work by visiting a number of pro-life sites.
Basically what happens is that the intrinsic worth of some humans is deemed not equal to that of other humans. When that happens it can lead to any number of atrocities. The genocide from abortion practices is the most significant death toll to human beings in our history to date. It is also the one that goes least noticed today because of the current climate of political tolerance (except for certain positions) and cultural relativism (except in some cases).
@ DebateArt.com
The solution was to get the panel to agree to judge before initiating the judicial voting process.
Thank you for your suggestions on how to use the link feature!
Although Mopac was identified as the Contender, he took the pro side of the argument. You took the negative side. Thus, you were Con and Mopac was Pro.
"Regardless if my errors were fewer you should not have awarded me that point."
I should not have?
I gave you a point because you had fewer errors.
"Reason for Mod Action: The justification for argument points was borderline, but we will default to considering it sufficient. S&G is insufficiently explained. There are two reasons why it's not enough to say Grammarly suggested that Con had better S&G. First, Grammarly looks at every single grammatical mistake, but S&G points should only be awarded when grammatical errors reach the point where the readability of debaters is severely impaired. Second, the voter is required to specifically reference text from the debate from both sides proving grammatical errors, and explain why one side's readability was worse than the other. The voter may properly revote by sufficiently justifying the S/G points they awarded or by choosing not to award those points."
***
So, you want me to subtract the point I awarded to Con? Fine!
Grammarly lists spelling and grammar, plus a number of other issues I did not include. On the issue of spelling and grammar alone, Con had fewer errors, but that could have been because he supplied half the argument that Pro did. There was just that much less to make mistakes over.
YOU SAID: "We must look at Lewis's intended meaning behind "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord". This could be reworded as "Either Jesus was a man who lied about his claims of divinity, or Jesus was a man who was insane, or Jesus really was God in human flesh and therefore you ought to acknowledge Him as your Lord". All of these are exclusive to Jesus being a "legend", which as interpreted by Con meant "something that is a fable but which did not exist in fact". To Pro's credit, I will discount Con's side arguments as to why Jesus was not Lord, on the grounds that He was either a liar or a lunatic; I do not feel that Con has satisfactorily proved either of these things. But in any case, were Jesus to be a liar or a lunatic that would not be a repudiation of Lewis's trilemma. However, since the reasonable possibility of Jesus being a non-existent person would negate Lewis's Trilemma, Pro's job was to show that this was not the case."
The unfortunate thing is that unless a person is a theist they tend to look at the Bible as myth or legend and build that presupposition into their judgment, despite the evidence to the contrary. Something happened that some of these early disciples (and in some cases direct eyewitnesses) died excruciating deaths for what...a lie/liar or a lunatic? That doesn't make sense. The gospel writers do not act as conspirators in this theory. And all the Roman or Jewish authorities need to do was produce the dead body from the grave to squash the whole movement. This did not happen. What is more, the OT predicted the coming Messiah within the timeframe of the OT economy. These people went to their death proclaiming Jesus is Lord. Much of the NT and OT looks towards the coming judgment by God on a disobedient people. These things are not easily explained away.
Also, Jesus being a non-existent person is stretching it.
Con took the one verse and excluded it from the immediate context and the context of the whole NT in its relationship to the OT. Anyone can take a verse out of context and give the impression that Jesus lied, yet they ignore the rest of the testimony. Plus, who would willingly go to their deaths for a lie or a lunatic? Maybe one or a couple of deranged people, but not only all those closest to Jesus but many who believed on their message.
Continue:
Jesus said later in Mark 3:
24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! 27 But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man,
JUDGMENT!
Thus, He was not out of His mind like they thought and He did not lie.
"In addition: con clearly cites examples of Lies told by Jesus, and examples where his family thought he was mad. Unfortunately for pro - the argument in favour of Jesus not being a liar or mad was entirely uncompelling and smacked of cherry picking - simply selecting all the times Jesus supposedly didn’t lie or didn’t appear mad cited from a clearly biased source isn’t a clear indication that he is not a liar, or a “lunatic”, and as a result cons position clearly wins on these two examples also."
These kinds of claims of Jesus lying are put forth all the time, yet there are mostly refuted by logical reasoning on a number of websites. Just because those crowds did not fully UNDERSTAND who He was or what He was saying at the time, they knew so after His resurrection and many changed died excruciating deaths because they would not recant their testimony and deny Jesus as Lord.
The point is that their whole OT spoke of these times they lived in and their promised Messiah. No other person can fulfill this prophetic Messiah after AD 70 because the whole OT economy, including its Mosaic prophecy is null and void after AD 70. The Messiah was to come to a Mosaic Covenant people. That covenant does not exist as they agreed to before God (Exodus 24:3) after AD 70. God brought judgment on Israel as a nation per Deuteronomy 28, and in AD 70 many would understand this. Their whole world, their heaven and earth (Matthew 5:17-18) would come crashing down in AD 70, because their relationship with God and their whole worship system could no longer be fulfilled by THEM. That is judgment.
Ramshutu states:
"In addition: con clearly cites examples of Lies told by Jesus, and examples where his family thought he was mad. Unfortunately for pro - the argument in favour of Jesus not being a liar or mad was entirely uncompelling and smacked of cherry picking..."
Con established no such thing, that Jesus was a liar or lunatic. In fact, after His resurrection, we find that close followers rejoiced. According to the disciples, Jesus did not lie but rose from the dead, and these followers went to their deaths believing this. He did not show in any way that these disciples had made Him into a legend, considering they believed and went to their death believing they had seen the risen Lord. What is more, the entire OT has prophecy, images, types, shadows, patterns, that point to Jesus as Messiah, Savior, Lord, and God.
IMO:
I think more to the question would be if only a citizen of a country should be allowed to vote or not. To that question, I say, "Yes, only a citizen." Why should non-citizens have a say in the governance of a country?
A citizenship test would educate a person on HOW the system and country work, but it would not educate the person on the candidate's moral fiber and the issues at hand.
I don't think a literacy test should disbar a person from voting, but I do feel that a sound mind and, in some circumstances, a knowledge of (some of) the issues should be a requirement.