I don't think personhood is at natural at all. It is conceptual construct built by humans for humans. I consider "personal being by nature" to be equivalent to " natural personhood" - it's oxymoronic. I'm not sure I can agree to "Personality is an attribute of personhood" either. People sleep, people get anesthetized, people fall into comas - all examples where people might be absent a personality but maintain their personhood by virtue of their capacity for consciousness. As for conception and early pregnancy - there is no personality there either. I get that you believe there's a personality at conception, but that has never been observed or demonstrated. In essence, what you hold up as a demonstration of personhood cannot be demonstrated at conception or early pregnancy. This is a problem for your contention of personhood at conception. You said " a person =/= process" I agree, but I would go further: a process =/= a person. In other words, it's not the process that is important, but the results. The fact that a developmental process has begun that could yield a person doesn't mean the process will be completed. ~ 50-80% of conceptions fail for various reasons - that would be a lot of rights attached to failed pregnancies.
I see no reason to believe minds can exist independent of a physical substrate and a fair amount of evidence to confirm a link between the two to a reasonable certainty.
Yes, humans are animals, and I agree there is a worldview interpretation at play - in the denial. I don't see the relevance this tangent has to abortion though - at least not to my view. We are animals, yes, but we have something other animals do not - the ability to reason, problem-solve, creativity, etc. and this is what we honor with personhood.
"A personal being is synonymous with being a person."
You've provided a circular definition. I am no closer to understanding what it is you actually mean.
Humans ARE animals whether you believe it or not (genetics, among other things, shows our relatedness), and every one of the traits you listed is derived from the brain. No brain = no imagination, love, empathy, communication, creativity, etc., and thus my view regarding personhood being connected with consciousness (or the capacity for it).
If you are not referring to "personhood is natural" when you say things like "personal being by nature", then I don't know what you mean. Humans come from humans. I'll need you to define "personal beings" before I agree to more. Please don't use the words you're defining in your explanation.
It seems like you're heading toward abiogenesis or evolution...How is this relevant to abortion? Regardless of the origins of life or how it diversified, there can be no denial of the link between consciousness and a physical brain as well as the significance of consciousness to humanity.
There is no dispute regarding a developmental process in which individual consciousness comes about. The point I was making is that your argument would functionally grant rights to a process rather than the product/subject.
Is the unborn an "it"? If someone asked me if they could kill "it" and I say yes - virtually no one would think I understood the question to be in regards to a person.
I really don't understand why you devote your time to personality if we're talking about the unborn in general. There is no demonstration of personality at conception or in early pregnancy. Personality is something that emerges from the brain. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on this subject might also point to how environment shapes it. Regardless, I'd think it would be fairly safe to say personality is not built into cells and DNA which seems to be what you're implying. I'm open to evidence to the contrary - if you can provide.
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.
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).
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.
The ability to reason, plan, think abstractly, etc., is the thing that makes us unique from other animals - do you disagree. If so, please tell me of another animal which does this?
People have rights - not processes. How absurd would it be if we gave rights to the process of building a boat? Also, I do not accept consciousness comes about at viability or birth. I think I've been pretty clear on this.
Human conception yields a single cell with human DNA. Its nature is human. It can't have a nature of personhood, because personhood is NOT natural - it comes from us. BTW, I understand "human being" to mean "person". If you'd like to argue for the personhood of something then perhaps you can make your questions clearer (and less equivocate-y) if you can use terms without this connotation.
This question regarding killing something without knowing what it is - it is not wrong by default to kill without knowing what it is. Have you never heard of someone shooting through a door when something or someone was attempting to get in? Do you really think this is wrong? If not, then you should retire this question.
I'm have limited time to respond, so I'll leave it there for now.
"And as I have said multiple times, if you can't produce facts you SHOULD give the unborn the benefit of the doubt, especially because all you ever witness is human beings as personal beings."
That's backward. You're assuming something is true in the absence of facts and evidence. Human consciousness is what separates humans from other animals - wouldn't you agree? The fact is this does not exist early in the pregnancy. Your arguments rely strongly on equivocation. Why is the unborn a human being? Certainly it is human, but is it a being...is there agency? If so, how do you figure? I can agree later in the pregnancy when the defining characteristic of humanity is most likely existent that the unborn is indeed a human being, but I see no reason to accept this early in the pregnancy. Possibilities and potentials are not facts.
"I never said we OBSERVE personalities at conception"
...and yet, it seems you want to act as though one exists at conception. I'm of the opinion we need facts and evidence before we accept something as true, and you do not seem to share this view. I seriously doubt we will be able to agree on any of the other points until we find common epistemological ground.
Haha! That's how all this started. I thought a debate would be the end of it, but I was wrong. Peter has a problem integrating new data, and I have a problem letting statements I don't agree with alone. đ
"ME: "The definition you provided in our first debates..."
YOU: "...is irrelevant to the definitions, arguments, and positions laid out in *this* debate. Focus."
Only if you are playing devil's advocate and do not believe what you are supporting, the pro-choice position."
"I believe you knew your argument would self-combust if you tried to prove personhood started at a specific point of development."
Just as there are many opening to chess, there are many approaches to debate. If I happen to choose the Scotch over the queen's gambit - it doesn't mean I think the queen's gambit is weak. Perhaps, I don't want to go down the Queen's gambit declined path...again. The route I've chosen and your unwillingness to adjust your strategy accordingly is most definitely to my advantage.
"As I already stated, I believe unless the unborn can be proven not to be a person [...]"
Shifting the burden. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
"3. That is where you are wrong if it can be established "the others" have done something wrong. Thus, is it wrong to kill innocent human beings, human beings that have not committed a crime?"
My point is that if the unborn has no consciousness, then holding others accountable is not just something that it lacks the ability to do, but that their is no existent subjectivity. You'll need to show otherwise before I can follow your reasoning that the unborn should be seen as a moral agent.
"4. But she did not. She allowed her body to be used by another, the result being the pregnancy in those cases where pregnancy occurs.
Again, choosing to share your body for a sexual encounter is not blanket consent to anything that might come from it. This is a misunderstanding of the conditional nature of consent.
"ME: "Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman."
YOU: "No, everyone has the right to choose the use of their body."
You are switching the subject to another topic. The woman chooses whether the unborn lives or dies. She makes that determination in most cases. Thus, the statement stands. She chooses whether it lives or dies.""
The subject here is equality - and I am explaining how a woman can refuse for her body to be used as life support - just like everyone else.
Most abortions occur at or before 13 weeks. This is mentioned in the description of this debate.
"1. [...]Thus its DNA is made up in part by the woman's DNA. It shares it genetic makeup with the woman."
This is true of human cancer as well. Your standard should not grant rights to cancer.
"2. They are living human beings, unique and different from every other human being, yet they have done nothing wrong, nothing evil, nothing immoral. Thus, they are innocent of wrongdoing, not guilty of doing something wrong yet. Their personalities begin to develop at fertilization. If allowed to continue these personalities with continuing to develop. Unless you can establish otherwise this is a reasonable deduction based upon what we observe."
We don't observe personalities at conception. That is blatantly false. And this dovetails into my point: the absence of any semblance of consciousness or even the structures necessary for it disallows innocence or guilt. By the loose definitions you are using we might say an inanimate object is 'innocent'. This is simply an emotional appeal built on strained words.
"If you were to look back upon your life, perhaps even viewing an ultrasound of you at your earliest stages of development, would you call that "you" or someone else? Would you be able to say that YOU began to grow and develop at fertilization or was it someone else until a certain age and stage of development was reached? Were you none existent at fertilization or was that distinct DNA yours? Obviously, something new and different started to exist at fertilization, a new, individual human being. Was the new ORGANISM or entity you? If not, what was it? If you can't answer these questions with certainty then should you not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt you have?"
"You" "I" "me" - these are all concepts dependent on consciousness. Without consciousness, they cannot be. By equating these terms to an entity where consciousness has never existed, you are anthropomorphizing it. My uncertainty about the exact time frame in late pregnancy when the capacity for consciousness might arise does not change the fact that early in the pregnancy (when most abortions occur) the structures known to house consciousness do not exist. My view is on much firmer scientific footing than the burden shifting argument from ignorance you advance.
Your argument is "well, we don't know when personhood begins, so *waves hand* personhood begins at conception". If the rights of women didn't hang in the balance, this wouldn't be such a problem, but, they do.
"To be frank, the after debate discussion is far more important than the debate itself. It gives a chance for both sides to expose hidden and unexpressed points that may be missed."
Given that the vote is still active, this can't really be considered an 'after debate discussion'. I generally don't discuss the debate publicly until the vote is over. However, in this case, I decided to make an exception so that I might defend myself from misrepresentations and counter the ongoing extra-debate perpetuated by my opponent.
"Therefore, since neither you nor science can determine when personhood begins, the unborn SHOULD be given the benefit of any doubt since we are talking about human rights."
You're misrepresenting my position suggesting that my "uncertainty" (6 or 7 month of pregnancy is what I am willing to allow) equates to the unborn automatically being considered persons. How does that follow? This is nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden to me rather than making a case for the personhood of the unborn. That's broken thinking, bud.
"Me: "Irrelevant. A homeowner who kills a burglar does not suffer the same degree of harm. Demanding equal harm would disallow self-defense in general - that's not how self-defense works."
You: No, granted, not in that case, but there are additional considerations here. As I said, the harm is relative when you compare two different things that are not overly related.
1. The burglar is (usually) a stranger. The unborn shares her DNA.
2. The burglar is guilty of wrongdoing, an immoral act. The unborn are innocent of wrongdoing.
3. The burglar is accountable for his actions, able to reason about breaking the law and invading personal space. The unborn are not yet accountable.
4. The unborn is NOT part of the woman's body, although it is attached. Thus, she is doing harm to ANOTHER body, not her own."
All responses will be in regards to the unborn 13 weeks or less:
1. No - you yourself have said that the DNA of the unborn is distinct (ie. not shared) You can't have it both ways...
2. Without a consciousness, the unborn cannot be guilty or innocent.
3. Not accountable - agreed, but no place to hold others accountable either.
4. She (just like everyone else) can withhold her body from anyone she chooses.
"Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman."
No, everyone has the right to choose the use of their body.
"I have never said pregnancy is a given with sex.
Great - you agree consent to sex is not agreeing to 'inflict' anything on oneself - except maybe a good time.
"The definition you provided in our first debates..."
...is irrelevant to the definitions, arguments, and positions laid out in *this* debate. Focus.
"Second, you were the person that equates personhood to legality. Hence, my response, "I focused more on HUMAN rights which can include personhood." I'm defining what I mean. You are the one who only includes or equates personhood to birth."
I am relying on the status quo. If you want to challenge that, you'll need to do better than shift the burden. If you were able to argue for the personhood of the unborn without causing absurdities or conflicts, you'd have my vote. I personally don't see how it can be done. I think I've been more than fair on this particular point given that I have allowed it may be acceptable for personhood to be granted at some point before birth when the capacity for consciousness exists.
You've provide much assertion already addressed in the debate, so I'm not going to respond to that again. I hope you'll forgive me, but I'd rather not ride the debate version of a merry-go-round, so I'll focus on the extra-debate material.
"And that is the point I was making. The harm is not equal in degree."
Irrelevant. A homeowner who kills a burglar does not suffer the same degree of harm. Demanding equal harm would disallow self-defense in general - that's not how self-defense works.
"The psychological harm is often self-inflicted."
1. I did not say psychological - I said physiological referring to the strain pregnancy puts on a body.
2. Something cannot be self-inflicted when two people are necessarily involved. Not to mention, you're assuming pregnancy is a given with sex (It isnt).
"Human rights necessarily includes personhood."
"You: Hence, the name - HUMAN."
Human =/= person. Example: human cancer.
"I did challenge the person's right to kill another because of inconvenience or unwantedness."
Inconvenience or unwantedness are sufficient reasons for abortion when the fetus lacks consciousness - and at 13 weeks (where most abortions occur) consciousness does not exist.
"Can you say with certainty that science has determined when a person starts?"
Can you? Of course not. I don't understand why you continue to appeal to science when you've been burned on that line of reasoning in this debate - science doesn't draw any conclusions on personhood.
"You: "Men and women both have the right to defend themselves from harm. This is equality."
Thank you for this conversation!
Yes, they do, but neither has the right to kill an innocent human being without their life being threatened by it, a human being that has done nothing wrong."
In the debate, I provided the harm that can come from an unwanted pregnancy. I don't accept your arm-hitting analogy as valid. The consequences a woman faces are long lasting and may have permanent repercussions. I would argue the physiological/biological strain alone is sufficient to warrant self defense should the pregnancy occur without consent.
You showed no example of my language in this debate being "dehumanizing", therefore your charge is unwarranted.
Is a zygote viable, Peter? If not, it is clearly *not* fully-functioning. Retreating to philosophical ambiguities to make your language seem more legitimate is no defense and its disingenuous.
"Extreme and intense in the dehumanization that takes place - yes. When you refer to a human being as an animal, disease, virus, waste, parasite, a group of cells, potential human beings, unwanted, instead of a fully-functioning actual, individual human being, to justify killing it, I think that is extreme."
I did not refer to the unborn as any of these things in this debate. This is a strawman, Peter. Also, it cannot be accurately stated the unborn (a term which applies to a broad range of development) is a "*fully-functioning* actual human being". This is one of the objections I have to your language. You misrepresent the biological facts and then (wrongly) accuse me of misleading language.
"Pro was SILENT on when personhood begins. He can't answer that question with certainty, thus the benefit of personhood SHOULD be given to the unborn since Pro does not know whether it is a person. Not only this, but he also conceded the argument. I had no need in pursuing it further."
Given that personhood is a legal designation, I can answer when personhood begins with certainty: birth. Also, you mistakenly deem an internal critique of your argument as a concession on my part. In that critique, I pointed out (even by your reasoning) abortion is justifiable in that it can be seen as a type of self defense and an unwanted pregnancy represents a threat to a person's education, career, body, and life. You did not challenge this as I remember.
"I focused more on HUMAN rights which can include personhood."
Human rights necessarily includes personhood.
"The legal issue is one of justice. Pros opening statement mentioned the UN declaration on human rights yet not once were equal rights applied to ALL."
You don't seem to grasp that the reasoning you use is overly broad and allows much more than just the unborn. ie. Cancer and STD's shouldn't be granted rights in the attempt to extend rights to the unborn. Essentially, if we followed your view, we would extend rights to *more* than all.
Scientific consensus does not endorse Conâs scientific claims as "it was concluded that biology alone is not able to determine the point at which personhood is establishedâ [6]
"Con's" in this sentence should be "Pro's". Apologies!
There is no need to apologize for voting against me. I have no problem with that so long as it is based on the debate. Whiteflame has voted against me in the past, and his vote could not be legitimately challenged. It was a solid vote highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each debater, and my case was weaker.
I understand the abortion issue can be emotionally charged, and I feel for your loved one. I have been on the other side of that and have seen a young lady make the difficult choice to have an abortion. Afterwards, she completed college, has a family, and is financially stable. I also have another friend with a promising future who became pregnant and dropped out of college. She and her daughter live with her mother - or at least she did last I spoke with her. Both of these ladies made a choice regarding their future and have very different lives because of it. Don't get me wrong, both chose their own path and I'm sure neither would be willing to give up their current life to undo that decision. I support the choice each made.
As for responsibility (duty and obligation) and the pill (contraceptives) - this was not left unaddressed in this debate.
I'm not going to run down the rabbit trails with you and debate what has already been provided over a two month period. All I ask is that you base your decisions on what has actually been written I never claimed 'the unborn has no right to life". I never claimed personhood from conception - I have allowed it for the sake of argument. Also, I barely mentioned rape in this debate. It seems you've misinterpreted "consent" to be in relation to sex rather than as intended which is consent to have a persons body used in a non sexual way, as in, life support.
I've said my piece- I'll leave it to the moderators.
I see no indication you are applying the same standards to both debaters. For instance, from what credible source do we find 'human life is special because of cells and DNA'? Your bias is plain.
My case was not built on negating personhood. If you had read the debate, you would understand that personhood is no defeator of my arguments. My entire point was that there is no right to use the body of another without consent, and, a right to life (along with the whole suite of human rights) doesn't change this.
Boo, bad vote x 2! You are not an objective voter, sir. No where did I say the unborn has no right to life. Take your ideology glasses off, and read the words I wrote and not the words you imagined I've said.
Here is a direct quote - from the debate - which refutes your misrepresentation:
"My opponent argues for human rights as well, namely, that the âunborn have the right to lifeâ. I am not unsympathetic to his argument, but the situation is much [too] nuanced to stop there."
We've moved passed Darwin's understanding of evolution just as we've moved passed Newton's understanding of gravity. Why would we limit ourselves to a truncated version of modern knowledge?
Don't get me wrong, you can do whatever you like - I just don't understand it.
It seems you want to imagine evolution in a time when it was not as well understood and put that against the creation account in Genesis. It's like a historical recreation of a debate that might have happened in Darwin's time. I don't see the purpose - isn't that like debating 'who will win WWII?' While pretending we don't know the answer?
"In 2005, Henderson founded the religion of Pastafarianism in response to the Kansas State Board of Education's decision to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in schools.[3] He requested that "Pastafarianism" be taught alongside intelligent design and "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence".After his protest letter to the board was ignored, he posted it online and the beliefs quickly gained traction."
I do hope to see your vote on this debate, but if not, perhaps you'll post an analysis. I tried to implement the suggestions from your last analysis and would like to know how they came across.
I agree: non-theism can reject atheism (even though it can also be viewed as atheism).
I don't think personhood is at natural at all. It is conceptual construct built by humans for humans. I consider "personal being by nature" to be equivalent to " natural personhood" - it's oxymoronic. I'm not sure I can agree to "Personality is an attribute of personhood" either. People sleep, people get anesthetized, people fall into comas - all examples where people might be absent a personality but maintain their personhood by virtue of their capacity for consciousness. As for conception and early pregnancy - there is no personality there either. I get that you believe there's a personality at conception, but that has never been observed or demonstrated. In essence, what you hold up as a demonstration of personhood cannot be demonstrated at conception or early pregnancy. This is a problem for your contention of personhood at conception. You said " a person =/= process" I agree, but I would go further: a process =/= a person. In other words, it's not the process that is important, but the results. The fact that a developmental process has begun that could yield a person doesn't mean the process will be completed. ~ 50-80% of conceptions fail for various reasons - that would be a lot of rights attached to failed pregnancies.
I see no reason to believe minds can exist independent of a physical substrate and a fair amount of evidence to confirm a link between the two to a reasonable certainty.
Yes, humans are animals, and I agree there is a worldview interpretation at play - in the denial. I don't see the relevance this tangent has to abortion though - at least not to my view. We are animals, yes, but we have something other animals do not - the ability to reason, problem-solve, creativity, etc. and this is what we honor with personhood.
"A personal being is synonymous with being a person."
You've provided a circular definition. I am no closer to understanding what it is you actually mean.
Humans ARE animals whether you believe it or not (genetics, among other things, shows our relatedness), and every one of the traits you listed is derived from the brain. No brain = no imagination, love, empathy, communication, creativity, etc., and thus my view regarding personhood being connected with consciousness (or the capacity for it).
If you are not referring to "personhood is natural" when you say things like "personal being by nature", then I don't know what you mean. Humans come from humans. I'll need you to define "personal beings" before I agree to more. Please don't use the words you're defining in your explanation.
It seems like you're heading toward abiogenesis or evolution...How is this relevant to abortion? Regardless of the origins of life or how it diversified, there can be no denial of the link between consciousness and a physical brain as well as the significance of consciousness to humanity.
There is no dispute regarding a developmental process in which individual consciousness comes about. The point I was making is that your argument would functionally grant rights to a process rather than the product/subject.
Is the unborn an "it"? If someone asked me if they could kill "it" and I say yes - virtually no one would think I understood the question to be in regards to a person.
I really don't understand why you devote your time to personality if we're talking about the unborn in general. There is no demonstration of personality at conception or in early pregnancy. Personality is something that emerges from the brain. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on this subject might also point to how environment shapes it. Regardless, I'd think it would be fairly safe to say personality is not built into cells and DNA which seems to be what you're implying. I'm open to evidence to the contrary - if you can provide.
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.
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).
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.
The ability to reason, plan, think abstractly, etc., is the thing that makes us unique from other animals - do you disagree. If so, please tell me of another animal which does this?
People have rights - not processes. How absurd would it be if we gave rights to the process of building a boat? Also, I do not accept consciousness comes about at viability or birth. I think I've been pretty clear on this.
Human conception yields a single cell with human DNA. Its nature is human. It can't have a nature of personhood, because personhood is NOT natural - it comes from us. BTW, I understand "human being" to mean "person". If you'd like to argue for the personhood of something then perhaps you can make your questions clearer (and less equivocate-y) if you can use terms without this connotation.
This question regarding killing something without knowing what it is - it is not wrong by default to kill without knowing what it is. Have you never heard of someone shooting through a door when something or someone was attempting to get in? Do you really think this is wrong? If not, then you should retire this question.
I'm have limited time to respond, so I'll leave it there for now.
I thought that would be a perfect scenario for a successful Gish Gallop. I'll pass!
5 rounds at 30,000 characters each - looks like this debate will be labor intensive! đ
"And as I have said multiple times, if you can't produce facts you SHOULD give the unborn the benefit of the doubt, especially because all you ever witness is human beings as personal beings."
That's backward. You're assuming something is true in the absence of facts and evidence. Human consciousness is what separates humans from other animals - wouldn't you agree? The fact is this does not exist early in the pregnancy. Your arguments rely strongly on equivocation. Why is the unborn a human being? Certainly it is human, but is it a being...is there agency? If so, how do you figure? I can agree later in the pregnancy when the defining characteristic of humanity is most likely existent that the unborn is indeed a human being, but I see no reason to accept this early in the pregnancy. Possibilities and potentials are not facts.
"I never said we OBSERVE personalities at conception"
...and yet, it seems you want to act as though one exists at conception. I'm of the opinion we need facts and evidence before we accept something as true, and you do not seem to share this view. I seriously doubt we will be able to agree on any of the other points until we find common epistemological ground.
Replying through the comments is tedious.
Haha! That's how all this started. I thought a debate would be the end of it, but I was wrong. Peter has a problem integrating new data, and I have a problem letting statements I don't agree with alone. đ
"ME: "The definition you provided in our first debates..."
YOU: "...is irrelevant to the definitions, arguments, and positions laid out in *this* debate. Focus."
Only if you are playing devil's advocate and do not believe what you are supporting, the pro-choice position."
"I believe you knew your argument would self-combust if you tried to prove personhood started at a specific point of development."
Just as there are many opening to chess, there are many approaches to debate. If I happen to choose the Scotch over the queen's gambit - it doesn't mean I think the queen's gambit is weak. Perhaps, I don't want to go down the Queen's gambit declined path...again. The route I've chosen and your unwillingness to adjust your strategy accordingly is most definitely to my advantage.
"As I already stated, I believe unless the unborn can be proven not to be a person [...]"
Shifting the burden. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
"3. That is where you are wrong if it can be established "the others" have done something wrong. Thus, is it wrong to kill innocent human beings, human beings that have not committed a crime?"
My point is that if the unborn has no consciousness, then holding others accountable is not just something that it lacks the ability to do, but that their is no existent subjectivity. You'll need to show otherwise before I can follow your reasoning that the unborn should be seen as a moral agent.
"4. But she did not. She allowed her body to be used by another, the result being the pregnancy in those cases where pregnancy occurs.
Again, choosing to share your body for a sexual encounter is not blanket consent to anything that might come from it. This is a misunderstanding of the conditional nature of consent.
"ME: "Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman."
YOU: "No, everyone has the right to choose the use of their body."
You are switching the subject to another topic. The woman chooses whether the unborn lives or dies. She makes that determination in most cases. Thus, the statement stands. She chooses whether it lives or dies.""
The subject here is equality - and I am explaining how a woman can refuse for her body to be used as life support - just like everyone else.
"Why are you choosing 13 weeks?"
Most abortions occur at or before 13 weeks. This is mentioned in the description of this debate.
"1. [...]Thus its DNA is made up in part by the woman's DNA. It shares it genetic makeup with the woman."
This is true of human cancer as well. Your standard should not grant rights to cancer.
"2. They are living human beings, unique and different from every other human being, yet they have done nothing wrong, nothing evil, nothing immoral. Thus, they are innocent of wrongdoing, not guilty of doing something wrong yet. Their personalities begin to develop at fertilization. If allowed to continue these personalities with continuing to develop. Unless you can establish otherwise this is a reasonable deduction based upon what we observe."
We don't observe personalities at conception. That is blatantly false. And this dovetails into my point: the absence of any semblance of consciousness or even the structures necessary for it disallows innocence or guilt. By the loose definitions you are using we might say an inanimate object is 'innocent'. This is simply an emotional appeal built on strained words.
"If you were to look back upon your life, perhaps even viewing an ultrasound of you at your earliest stages of development, would you call that "you" or someone else? Would you be able to say that YOU began to grow and develop at fertilization or was it someone else until a certain age and stage of development was reached? Were you none existent at fertilization or was that distinct DNA yours? Obviously, something new and different started to exist at fertilization, a new, individual human being. Was the new ORGANISM or entity you? If not, what was it? If you can't answer these questions with certainty then should you not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt you have?"
"You" "I" "me" - these are all concepts dependent on consciousness. Without consciousness, they cannot be. By equating these terms to an entity where consciousness has never existed, you are anthropomorphizing it. My uncertainty about the exact time frame in late pregnancy when the capacity for consciousness might arise does not change the fact that early in the pregnancy (when most abortions occur) the structures known to house consciousness do not exist. My view is on much firmer scientific footing than the burden shifting argument from ignorance you advance.
Your argument is "well, we don't know when personhood begins, so *waves hand* personhood begins at conception". If the rights of women didn't hang in the balance, this wouldn't be such a problem, but, they do.
"To be frank, the after debate discussion is far more important than the debate itself. It gives a chance for both sides to expose hidden and unexpressed points that may be missed."
Given that the vote is still active, this can't really be considered an 'after debate discussion'. I generally don't discuss the debate publicly until the vote is over. However, in this case, I decided to make an exception so that I might defend myself from misrepresentations and counter the ongoing extra-debate perpetuated by my opponent.
"Therefore, since neither you nor science can determine when personhood begins, the unborn SHOULD be given the benefit of any doubt since we are talking about human rights."
You're misrepresenting my position suggesting that my "uncertainty" (6 or 7 month of pregnancy is what I am willing to allow) equates to the unborn automatically being considered persons. How does that follow? This is nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden to me rather than making a case for the personhood of the unborn. That's broken thinking, bud.
"Me: "Irrelevant. A homeowner who kills a burglar does not suffer the same degree of harm. Demanding equal harm would disallow self-defense in general - that's not how self-defense works."
You: No, granted, not in that case, but there are additional considerations here. As I said, the harm is relative when you compare two different things that are not overly related.
1. The burglar is (usually) a stranger. The unborn shares her DNA.
2. The burglar is guilty of wrongdoing, an immoral act. The unborn are innocent of wrongdoing.
3. The burglar is accountable for his actions, able to reason about breaking the law and invading personal space. The unborn are not yet accountable.
4. The unborn is NOT part of the woman's body, although it is attached. Thus, she is doing harm to ANOTHER body, not her own."
All responses will be in regards to the unborn 13 weeks or less:
1. No - you yourself have said that the DNA of the unborn is distinct (ie. not shared) You can't have it both ways...
2. Without a consciousness, the unborn cannot be guilty or innocent.
3. Not accountable - agreed, but no place to hold others accountable either.
4. She (just like everyone else) can withhold her body from anyone she chooses.
"Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman."
No, everyone has the right to choose the use of their body.
"I have never said pregnancy is a given with sex.
Great - you agree consent to sex is not agreeing to 'inflict' anything on oneself - except maybe a good time.
"The definition you provided in our first debates..."
...is irrelevant to the definitions, arguments, and positions laid out in *this* debate. Focus.
"Second, you were the person that equates personhood to legality. Hence, my response, "I focused more on HUMAN rights which can include personhood." I'm defining what I mean. You are the one who only includes or equates personhood to birth."
I am relying on the status quo. If you want to challenge that, you'll need to do better than shift the burden. If you were able to argue for the personhood of the unborn without causing absurdities or conflicts, you'd have my vote. I personally don't see how it can be done. I think I've been more than fair on this particular point given that I have allowed it may be acceptable for personhood to be granted at some point before birth when the capacity for consciousness exists.
You've provide much assertion already addressed in the debate, so I'm not going to respond to that again. I hope you'll forgive me, but I'd rather not ride the debate version of a merry-go-round, so I'll focus on the extra-debate material.
"And that is the point I was making. The harm is not equal in degree."
Irrelevant. A homeowner who kills a burglar does not suffer the same degree of harm. Demanding equal harm would disallow self-defense in general - that's not how self-defense works.
"The psychological harm is often self-inflicted."
1. I did not say psychological - I said physiological referring to the strain pregnancy puts on a body.
2. Something cannot be self-inflicted when two people are necessarily involved. Not to mention, you're assuming pregnancy is a given with sex (It isnt).
"Human rights necessarily includes personhood."
"You: Hence, the name - HUMAN."
Human =/= person. Example: human cancer.
"I did challenge the person's right to kill another because of inconvenience or unwantedness."
Inconvenience or unwantedness are sufficient reasons for abortion when the fetus lacks consciousness - and at 13 weeks (where most abortions occur) consciousness does not exist.
"Can you say with certainty that science has determined when a person starts?"
Can you? Of course not. I don't understand why you continue to appeal to science when you've been burned on that line of reasoning in this debate - science doesn't draw any conclusions on personhood.
"You: "Men and women both have the right to defend themselves from harm. This is equality."
Thank you for this conversation!
Yes, they do, but neither has the right to kill an innocent human being without their life being threatened by it, a human being that has done nothing wrong."
In the debate, I provided the harm that can come from an unwanted pregnancy. I don't accept your arm-hitting analogy as valid. The consequences a woman faces are long lasting and may have permanent repercussions. I would argue the physiological/biological strain alone is sufficient to warrant self defense should the pregnancy occur without consent.
You showed no example of my language in this debate being "dehumanizing", therefore your charge is unwarranted.
Is a zygote viable, Peter? If not, it is clearly *not* fully-functioning. Retreating to philosophical ambiguities to make your language seem more legitimate is no defense and its disingenuous.
"How are a man's rights equal to hers?"
Men and women both have the right to defend themselves from harm. This is equality.
"Extreme and intense in the dehumanization that takes place - yes. When you refer to a human being as an animal, disease, virus, waste, parasite, a group of cells, potential human beings, unwanted, instead of a fully-functioning actual, individual human being, to justify killing it, I think that is extreme."
I did not refer to the unborn as any of these things in this debate. This is a strawman, Peter. Also, it cannot be accurately stated the unborn (a term which applies to a broad range of development) is a "*fully-functioning* actual human being". This is one of the objections I have to your language. You misrepresent the biological facts and then (wrongly) accuse me of misleading language.
"Pro was SILENT on when personhood begins. He can't answer that question with certainty, thus the benefit of personhood SHOULD be given to the unborn since Pro does not know whether it is a person. Not only this, but he also conceded the argument. I had no need in pursuing it further."
Given that personhood is a legal designation, I can answer when personhood begins with certainty: birth. Also, you mistakenly deem an internal critique of your argument as a concession on my part. In that critique, I pointed out (even by your reasoning) abortion is justifiable in that it can be seen as a type of self defense and an unwanted pregnancy represents a threat to a person's education, career, body, and life. You did not challenge this as I remember.
"I focused more on HUMAN rights which can include personhood."
Human rights necessarily includes personhood.
"The legal issue is one of justice. Pros opening statement mentioned the UN declaration on human rights yet not once were equal rights applied to ALL."
You don't seem to grasp that the reasoning you use is overly broad and allows much more than just the unborn. ie. Cancer and STD's shouldn't be granted rights in the attempt to extend rights to the unborn. Essentially, if we followed your view, we would extend rights to *more* than all.
Scientific consensus does not endorse Conâs scientific claims as "it was concluded that biology alone is not able to determine the point at which personhood is establishedâ [6]
"Con's" in this sentence should be "Pro's". Apologies!
There is no need to apologize for voting against me. I have no problem with that so long as it is based on the debate. Whiteflame has voted against me in the past, and his vote could not be legitimately challenged. It was a solid vote highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each debater, and my case was weaker.
I understand the abortion issue can be emotionally charged, and I feel for your loved one. I have been on the other side of that and have seen a young lady make the difficult choice to have an abortion. Afterwards, she completed college, has a family, and is financially stable. I also have another friend with a promising future who became pregnant and dropped out of college. She and her daughter live with her mother - or at least she did last I spoke with her. Both of these ladies made a choice regarding their future and have very different lives because of it. Don't get me wrong, both chose their own path and I'm sure neither would be willing to give up their current life to undo that decision. I support the choice each made.
As for responsibility (duty and obligation) and the pill (contraceptives) - this was not left unaddressed in this debate.
You are not expected to debate in the vote (ie. present your own arguments), but weigh the arguments actually presented against one another.
FWIW, Pro did not "talk a lot about Nazis" - that was Con. đ
I look forward to that as well!
I look forward to it!
Looks interesting!
Thanks for voting everyone.
Even though it didn't go my way, I thank you for reading it over. I'll console myself with your determination of the RFD being flawed. đ
I'm not going to run down the rabbit trails with you and debate what has already been provided over a two month period. All I ask is that you base your decisions on what has actually been written I never claimed 'the unborn has no right to life". I never claimed personhood from conception - I have allowed it for the sake of argument. Also, I barely mentioned rape in this debate. It seems you've misinterpreted "consent" to be in relation to sex rather than as intended which is consent to have a persons body used in a non sexual way, as in, life support.
I've said my piece- I'll leave it to the moderators.
...and just so you know, I'm not objecting to your negative vote, but a vote not informed by the debate.
I see no indication you are applying the same standards to both debaters. For instance, from what credible source do we find 'human life is special because of cells and DNA'? Your bias is plain.
My case was not built on negating personhood. If you had read the debate, you would understand that personhood is no defeator of my arguments. My entire point was that there is no right to use the body of another without consent, and, a right to life (along with the whole suite of human rights) doesn't change this.
Thank you.
Boo, bad vote x 2! You are not an objective voter, sir. No where did I say the unborn has no right to life. Take your ideology glasses off, and read the words I wrote and not the words you imagined I've said.
Here is a direct quote - from the debate - which refutes your misrepresentation:
"My opponent argues for human rights as well, namely, that the âunborn have the right to lifeâ. I am not unsympathetic to his argument, but the situation is much [too] nuanced to stop there."
Good luck! I look forward to your arguments.
Thanks for explaining! Good luck to you and have fun!
I'd be happy to accept, but I need longer argument times - 2 weeks?
I was actually hoping you would explain it so I can understand. I have no choice in that.
We've moved passed Darwin's understanding of evolution just as we've moved passed Newton's understanding of gravity. Why would we limit ourselves to a truncated version of modern knowledge?
Don't get me wrong, you can do whatever you like - I just don't understand it.
It seems you want to imagine evolution in a time when it was not as well understood and put that against the creation account in Genesis. It's like a historical recreation of a debate that might have happened in Darwin's time. I don't see the purpose - isn't that like debating 'who will win WWII?' While pretending we don't know the answer?
"In 2005, Henderson founded the religion of Pastafarianism in response to the Kansas State Board of Education's decision to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in schools.[3] He requested that "Pastafarianism" be taught alongside intelligent design and "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence".After his protest letter to the board was ignored, he posted it online and the beliefs quickly gained traction."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Henderson_(activist)
It looks like you may be defining yourself to a win by with equating evolution to "an ongoing process of creation".
Looks like an interesting debate! Let me know if you need voters.
I'm very sorry to hear about your sister, Peter. You have my condolences.
I do hope to see your vote on this debate, but if not, perhaps you'll post an analysis. I tried to implement the suggestions from your last analysis and would like to know how they came across.
Hi all! Vote! Vote! Vote! đ