Should anyone have missed the the flaws I pointed out, see my comment below starting with "In fairness". I'd be happy to entertain any analogy which does not have bias built-in.
I won't answer questions regarding an anology I consider to be unfair. I explained in detail the issues I have with it. It is up to you to fix the flaws if you want the conversation to proceed on that front.
Additionally, I think you are tracking similarly in "humans can't kill each other". I wonder how you're defining "human" that includes a fetus without the capacity for consciousness and excludes things such as terratomas or cancer. Plus, it should be noted how this statement denies justified killings such as self-defense and war which makes it incomplete and absent crucial nuance. Finally, even if we assume a fetus is a person with all accompanying rights, there is no right to use the body of another even if life depends on it, so this is no defense for your view. Rights apply to everyone the same - even the unborn.
I'm all for conversation, but I don't see much point in moving on to your questions until mine has been addressed. Plus, the questions you ask are either dependent on a non-analogous scenario (I've disputed the fairness of) or attempting to suggest dependence provides a justification for subverting human rights (there is no right to control the body of another). I think an honest attempt to answer my (one) question will explain where your priorities lie: equality, personal sovereignty, etc... or not.
Again, you present a non-analogous situation. If we don't want our money spent on welfare, we stop funding it, which isn't the same as killing the recipients.
My argument isn't about dependence - it is about personal sovereignty, equality, etc. Pro-life either denies these or creates a situation where control of another persons body is available to all (which isn't all that different from the first option). I reject both of these options.
*Edit* Sorry, @logicae I tagged you when this should have been directed to @Alec. Apologies to both of you.
In fairness, you've not answered my question. Rather you've presented a thought experiment which is more strawman-y that analogy. For instance, the woman is represented as thugs and the fetus is represented as completely benign. This is not representative of pregnancy in the real world. Pregnancy affects a woman's body, education, career, and life in drastic ways, and one needn't be a thug to want to avoid unwanted circumstances such as these.
So, I'll ask my question again: If all people are equally valuable (and we assume a fetus is a person), how can one person living off the body of another (without consent) be justified?
If all people are equally valuable (and we assume a fetus is a person), how can one person living off the body of another (without consent) be justified?
Ahh, you guys don't get too upset over this. I made a mistake in determining which side the instigator was for. I've learned from my mistake and my opponent gets an easy win. No harm, no foul. 😃😃
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.
Most all of this has been addressed in the debate. Scientist do not assign personhood, and if they did,
"Personhood" is a legal distinction and scientists are not qualified to make that call. If there were a omnibenevolent god interested in the rights of humanity, I feel he/she/it would accept my view preserving inalianable rights as superior. You can claim the support of god, but so can I. We will have to wait until god verifiably endorses one of us. 😉 In other words, you do not have a legitmate authority supporting your notion of personhood beginning at conception. Moving on - you are conflating personality and personhood. Any quote of mine about personhood has nothing to do with personality. I can argue my view, but I cannot understand it for you. I have emphatically stated my position that personhood starts at birth and provided my reasoning including 'rights being inalienable'. Assigning personhood to an entity *inside* a person would necessitate rights being taken away. It is quite dishonest to suggest this has not been addressed many times.
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.
"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.
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.
Ummm, you actually brought up *NON- consensual* sex, but..whatever. Birth control is not a guarantee against pregnancy. So, its possible responsible steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy (demonstrating there is no consent to pregnancy) and pregnancy still occur. Yet you would act as though the woman alone has acted irresponsibly. This is nonsensical, unfair, and a revocation of 'irrevocable' rights. If you think there is such a thing as inalienable rights for all persons, then your position is contradictory.
"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? 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."
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.
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.
The rest of your reply I consider to be rhetoric. It (and everything else here) has been sufficiently addressed within the debate itself, so I'll not beat a dead horse.
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.
Since consensual sex itself is not generally harmful, I think to view sex as a default threat to an individual, one would need to assume pregnancy is a given of sex. This is not (by default) true as pregnancy is dependent on a particular type of sex (vaginal), whether ovulation is occurring, whether implantation of the embryo to the uterine wall has occurred (assuming conception), and of course that no birth control has been successfully used. Anyone of these circumstances not being met will eliminate pregnancy as a possibility of sex and, by extension, consensual sex as a inherent threat to the individual.
Pregnancy is always a threat, and I am talking about a zygote/embryo/fetus, not babies/children. You should not be poisoning my well - especially as a judge in this debate.
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.
--> @PGA2.0
"I said nothing about murdering the mother. "
When you say 'then mother is dying anyway, so the surgeon has a responsibility to save the unborn' in response to "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?" It certainly seems you are endorsing killing a dying person earlier than nature would have it. Clarify your meaning.
"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."
Keep in mind my thought experiment said nothing about cancer, but even still... that's brutal, man. We are far from agreement. You are advocating involuntary euthanasia.
"There is nothing science can do at present to prevent their deaths. But there is something science can do you save the woman."
Thank you for a candid answer. Let me ask a question: if science could save the fetus but the woman was killed in the process, would your view be the same?
"It is preferable to save at least one life than none at all"
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?! 🤨😂🤣
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.
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.
"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,"
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. 😏😏😏
"Some laws do outweigh other laws, like the right to life. "
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...
We agree on the state's right to punish for infringing the rights of others. We do not agree a fetus has rights or that the state denying a woman's right to abort a pregnancy is justified.
"It makes the state control of her body justified because [...]"
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?
No insult was intended. You and my opponent both talk about castration and severe consequences for rapists as though this makes taking control of a woman's body (without her consent) by a third party (the state) justified. This would be the second violation.
You and my opponent are obviously reading from the same play book. Punishing someone who violates a woman's body doesn't justify a second violation - no matter how extreme the punishment. On this alone, (no matter if it is one woman raped) Pro's exceptions are too limited.
I think you probably meant "science confirms a fetus is an anatomically modern human" I won't disagree with that, but being human and being a person are not the same thing. I explain in the debate why granting personhood to a fetus is problematic.
Bumb
Is it just me, or does everyone become a better editor after the argument has been published?
Should anyone have missed the the flaws I pointed out, see my comment below starting with "In fairness". I'd be happy to entertain any analogy which does not have bias built-in.
I won't answer questions regarding an anology I consider to be unfair. I explained in detail the issues I have with it. It is up to you to fix the flaws if you want the conversation to proceed on that front.
Additionally, I think you are tracking similarly in "humans can't kill each other". I wonder how you're defining "human" that includes a fetus without the capacity for consciousness and excludes things such as terratomas or cancer. Plus, it should be noted how this statement denies justified killings such as self-defense and war which makes it incomplete and absent crucial nuance. Finally, even if we assume a fetus is a person with all accompanying rights, there is no right to use the body of another even if life depends on it, so this is no defense for your view. Rights apply to everyone the same - even the unborn.
I'm all for conversation, but I don't see much point in moving on to your questions until mine has been addressed. Plus, the questions you ask are either dependent on a non-analogous scenario (I've disputed the fairness of) or attempting to suggest dependence provides a justification for subverting human rights (there is no right to control the body of another). I think an honest attempt to answer my (one) question will explain where your priorities lie: equality, personal sovereignty, etc... or not.
Again, you present a non-analogous situation. If we don't want our money spent on welfare, we stop funding it, which isn't the same as killing the recipients.
My argument isn't about dependence - it is about personal sovereignty, equality, etc. Pro-life either denies these or creates a situation where control of another persons body is available to all (which isn't all that different from the first option). I reject both of these options.
*Edit* Sorry, @logicae I tagged you when this should have been directed to @Alec. Apologies to both of you.
In fairness, you've not answered my question. Rather you've presented a thought experiment which is more strawman-y that analogy. For instance, the woman is represented as thugs and the fetus is represented as completely benign. This is not representative of pregnancy in the real world. Pregnancy affects a woman's body, education, career, and life in drastic ways, and one needn't be a thug to want to avoid unwanted circumstances such as these.
So, I'll ask my question again: If all people are equally valuable (and we assume a fetus is a person), how can one person living off the body of another (without consent) be justified?
If all people are equally valuable (and we assume a fetus is a person), how can one person living off the body of another (without consent) be justified?
I must continue as though the debate is on until you forfeit or concede within the debate.
Thanks! Let's see if I can keep it up...
Ahh, you guys don't get too upset over this. I made a mistake in determining which side the instigator was for. I've learned from my mistake and my opponent gets an easy win. No harm, no foul. 😃😃
Thank you for the detailed RFD, WF. I appreciate the guidance!
All this rehashing the debate here in the comments is pointless. That being said, I will bow out. Good luck to you, sir.
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.
Inalienable: Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/inalienable
Most all of this has been addressed in the debate. Scientist do not assign personhood, and if they did,
"Personhood" is a legal distinction and scientists are not qualified to make that call. If there were a omnibenevolent god interested in the rights of humanity, I feel he/she/it would accept my view preserving inalianable rights as superior. You can claim the support of god, but so can I. We will have to wait until god verifiably endorses one of us. 😉 In other words, you do not have a legitmate authority supporting your notion of personhood beginning at conception. Moving on - you are conflating personality and personhood. Any quote of mine about personhood has nothing to do with personality. I can argue my view, but I cannot understand it for you. I have emphatically stated my position that personhood starts at birth and provided my reasoning including 'rights being inalienable'. Assigning personhood to an entity *inside* a person would necessitate rights being taken away. It is quite dishonest to suggest this has not been addressed many times.
"Stating personality is not natural to all human beings"
Show me where I made such an assertion, and we can go from there.
Previously, I was reading personal as personable. Excuse my misapprehension. My last response appropriately addresses the argument.
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.
"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.
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.
Instead of abortion, I think a debate on personhood would have been more appropriate.
Ummm, you actually brought up *NON- consensual* sex, but..whatever. Birth control is not a guarantee against pregnancy. So, its possible responsible steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy (demonstrating there is no consent to pregnancy) and pregnancy still occur. Yet you would act as though the woman alone has acted irresponsibly. This is nonsensical, unfair, and a revocation of 'irrevocable' rights. If you think there is such a thing as inalienable rights for all persons, then your position is contradictory.
"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? 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."
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.
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.
The rest of your reply I consider to be rhetoric. It (and everything else here) has been sufficiently addressed within the debate itself, so I'll not beat a dead horse.
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.
Since consensual sex itself is not generally harmful, I think to view sex as a default threat to an individual, one would need to assume pregnancy is a given of sex. This is not (by default) true as pregnancy is dependent on a particular type of sex (vaginal), whether ovulation is occurring, whether implantation of the embryo to the uterine wall has occurred (assuming conception), and of course that no birth control has been successfully used. Anyone of these circumstances not being met will eliminate pregnancy as a possibility of sex and, by extension, consensual sex as a inherent threat to the individual.
Pregnancy is always a threat, and I am talking about a zygote/embryo/fetus, not babies/children. You should not be poisoning my well - especially as a judge in this debate.
Actually, when the trespasser poses a threat (as pregnancy does to a woman) lethal force is justifiable.
"Science does not have the capability."
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.
Didn't tag you again...I forget this site doesn't notify debaters of comments to their debates.
--> @PGA2.0
"I said nothing about murdering the mother. "
When you say 'then mother is dying anyway, so the surgeon has a responsibility to save the unborn' in response to "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?" It certainly seems you are endorsing killing a dying person earlier than nature would have it. Clarify your meaning.
"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."
Keep in mind my thought experiment said nothing about cancer, but even still... that's brutal, man. We are far from agreement. You are advocating involuntary euthanasia.
I realize I did not tag you in my last response, Peter. Apologies.
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?
"There is nothing science can do at present to prevent their deaths. But there is something science can do you save the woman."
Thank you for a candid answer. Let me ask a question: if science could save the fetus but the woman was killed in the process, would your view be the same?
"It is preferable to save at least one life than none at all"
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?! 🤨😂🤣
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.
"What exactly do you mean by this?"
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.
"I do not propose taking an innocent life."
This would be true if no allowance for abortion had been made.
"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,"
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. 😏😏😏
"Some laws do outweigh other laws, like the right to life. "
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...
We agree on the state's right to punish for infringing the rights of others. We do not agree a fetus has rights or that the state denying a woman's right to abort a pregnancy is justified.
Under the Human and Person section:
Bonobos and Orangutans are NOT “human” by accurate definitions of the word.
"It makes the state control of her body justified because [...]"
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?
No insult was intended. You and my opponent both talk about castration and severe consequences for rapists as though this makes taking control of a woman's body (without her consent) by a third party (the state) justified. This would be the second violation.
You and my opponent are obviously reading from the same play book. Punishing someone who violates a woman's body doesn't justify a second violation - no matter how extreme the punishment. On this alone, (no matter if it is one woman raped) Pro's exceptions are too limited.
I think you probably meant "science confirms a fetus is an anatomically modern human" I won't disagree with that, but being human and being a person are not the same thing. I explain in the debate why granting personhood to a fetus is problematic.
"Why the fuck do you need to bring Hitler into this? Literally your entire closing statement of r4 is Hitler Hitler hitler"
This, and this: Reductio ad Hitlerum
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/152/Reductio-ad-Hitlerum
Per science, a human being is a species of Homo Sapiens. Orangutans are among these.
Science also says an Orangutan is a human being. Should Orangutans be recognized as persons?