Being Pro-Choice Is The Only Logical Position, Persuade Me Otherwise - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Being Pro-Choice Is The Only Logical Position, Persuade Me Otherwise
in Politics

By ThomasiusThomasius 74 Pts
The pro-life position is a flawed stance because a human at conception is just a collection of cells which contain human genetic information, and so if we ever do things like tear off hangnails, which contain some remnants of living skin cells, which are also cells that contain human genetic information, should we be imprisoned for homicide? If we ever scrape a knee or accidentally cut ourselves with a knife, should we be found to have committed involuntary manslaughter? Of course not, so this is a silly absolutist position to take. So, what is the proper stance to take? Well, the point to warrant concern is when a fetus is developed enough to experience pain, as then it is comparable in moral worth to sentient, born humans, due to its capacity for awareness. So, both the woman and the harbored developed fetus at this point are of equal moral worth, so we should weigh the needs and concerns of both to decide what action should be taken, still allowing the woman to have abortion in cases like health concerns, sudden issues arising in the woman’s livelihood, a fundamental change in parental prospects, et cetera.
PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Arguments

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 685 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    Thomasius said:
    @John_C_87
    Forget it, I'll not mention the grammar issue, as that's not helping me. So, is the reason you object to abortion because it implies self-incrimination? If so, are you making a moral case in principle or making a case in terms of U.S. legality?
    Some bots are notorious for making grammar errors.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 685 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓

    Well point out the grammar concern directly, rephrase the statement in question to English grammar mistake, you are literally arguing the alibi given to the admission of crime as a women’s choice and you are questioning how abortion is self-incriminating to woman.

    By the way in understanding how old you are may help me present the principles in an easier to understand way.

    in any case to do with do the abortion clinic and pro life or prochoice position one really has to as whether or not the bear eats shoots and leaves.

    Because if point out the relevance of the united state as a constitutional instituted things become clear about the womans choice and the featus of Barak Obama and Donald Trump.


    Plaffelvohfen대왕광개토
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • @Thomasius

    Well, to be honest, both opinions (pro-life or pro-choice) are valid in themselves. Anyone is quite justified in holding the belief that "life begins at conception", or not...

    What is unacceptable is the forceful imposition of either beliefs by law. You don't like abortion? Don't have one, problem solved...
    PHaze
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen
    I don't agree that it's equally valid to say or not say that life begins at conception. The sperm and egg before contact are cellular life which contain human genetic information, and so at conception the only difference is that the sperm has fertilized the egg. These things right at conception are just as equally alive in terms of being living matter as they were before contact, it's just that there's a change in the phases and processes.
    YeshuaRedeemed
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @Thomasius

    I don't personally hold the belief that a fertilized egg is as valuable as a full grown human being, but they are only opinion and as such are valid... I don't see the belief that life starts at conception an invalid opinion, the problem arise when someone wants to impose their belief by way of law... 
    PHaze
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Thomasius

    The difference between the embryo and a hangnail is that the embryo is a developing human being with cell functions specifically designed to further develop itself as a human.  
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • @MichaelElpers

    Again, the continuum fallacy... you like this one a lot right? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    You can call it a fallacy, but you still have to explain why its unreasonable. 

     Equating skin cells designed to exist as skin to a cluster of cells designed to develop itself as a human is intellectually dishonest/ inconsistent.  That is a logical difference to point out.
  • @MichaelElpers
    The difference between the cellular functions of embryotic cells and skin cells is irrelevant to the discussion. They are both cells without capacity to register pain, so they have the exact same moral worth at this point. Therefore, your attempt at a refutation is a fallacy.
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @MichaelElpers

    The continuum fallacy is a form of equivocation: treating as equivalent two things that should not be treated as such.

    The form of the argument is as follows:

    P1: X is one extreme and Y is another extreme.
    P2: There is no definable point where X becomes Y.
    C: Therefore, there is no difference between X and Y.

    In general, the fallacy takes situations where no clear cut-off point between X and Y exists, and either a) denies that any distinction really exists and commits an equivocation between both or b) takes advantage of the lack of distinction by arbitrarily shifting the distinction to unrealistic positions.

    And that is what you've been doing repeatedly...

    Where the fallacious use of this continuum occurs is in the anti-abortion argument that life begins at conception — at the stage where a sperm fuses with an egg. But at this point, the emerging embryo is not too dissimilar to any other stem cell. It lacks the complexity of an adult person, and so abortion at an embryonic stage destroys life only in the same sense scratching your own skin and removing (and killing) some cells does. However, this may be a case where a rationalist taboo on the word "life" would be useful, as while an embryo and a skin cell are both "alive", what is often meant is that at fertilization, a new living organism is formed, which is certainly true. At the other end of this continuum, you can suggest that it's acceptable to kill newborn children because they have not yet developed the same memory ability and coordination ability that is associated with an adult human. Though this is not a widely endorsed view (even by extremely literal utilitarians), a similar argument that a child hasn't developed a memory and so will forget any pain is often given in defense of circumcision.

    Deepiloteer
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • THe clusters of cells ca become a full human being, cells from nails cannot. I don't thin pro-death is a god stance
    PHaze
  • @Plaffelvohfen
    Life starting at conception is objectively a false point because the egg and sperm are cellular and are thus life as well, so life doesn't start at conception because life has already begun long before this point. Now, embryotic life may start at conception, but again, until the fetus can experience pain, its moral worth is no more or less than that of other types of cells or unsentient cellular groupings/tissues. So, if we are to decide by law whether or not abortion is justifiable, then understanding these things is key.
    PHaze
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @Thomasius

    It absolutely is a factor relevant to the discussion. What the future holds for something does factor into its worth.  If you have two items that are currently similar in nature but one will definitively transform into 1lb of gold and the other definitively into 1lb of limestone you don't believe that one is more valuable than the other?

    Also not sure what the ability to register pain has anything to do with being a person.  iIm assuming your equating the ability to register pain with proof of consciousness.
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    I think the key word there is unrealistic positions.  For yes it is unrealistic to compare the development an embryo to a 24 year old, but not to compare a 40 week old inside and outside the womb.

    We can do our bests to draw the distinctions between what makes something human or not.  After drawing definitive distinctions it is no longer a fallacy comparing those that meet these requirements and those that don't.  The used by some is when is someone bald, which definitive lost hair makes someone bald.  This is unreasonable and is completely opinionated depending on who you ask.  Requirements for being a person can be reasoned at a higher level.

    An embryo lacks the complexity of an adult, but it is a lot more complex than a skin cell as the design and coordination of the cells each uniquely performing a specific task further developing its humanity.  There is a lot more than one task being performed
  • @MichaelElpers

    It's that same fallacy really, you're saying that because an embryo or fetus can develop into a full grown human being, there's no point differentiating between them... A potential and an actual are very different... Before birth, there is only a potential and we're absolutely legitimized to stop this potential to develop beyond the point of where it actually does become a problem. 

    You would have a somewhat better case if your goal was to reduce late-term abortions (I have no problem with that), but you want to outright ban abortion from day 1, fallaciously using 38 weeks fetuses as the standard abortion when it represent barely 1% of all abortions and that the vast majority of those late-term abortions are medically needed to save the mother. 
    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    To develop beyond the point of where it actually does become a problem... You have to define when that becomes a problem.  Birth is not a form of additional development.

    I've never said there is no point in differentiating between them.  I just want the actual differences at each stage of development to be objectively pointed out.  I would like the differences to be examined until  dwindled down to a point where one can say, here is the point where there are logical differences in development that should make someone not a person.  Outright ban for day 1 is what I'd agree with but because no one gets abortions that early is not what would practically what would be actually happening.

    I also don't think that potential is a factor that can completely disregarded. The potential of something does make it more/less valuable.  One can argue the extent, but the discussion on what is person needs to come to the forefront. What I really despise though is people (not you) who don't think about the argument at all.  My body my choice trumps all level of reasoning someone else presents or you're a man you don't get a say.  This is as infuriating to me as the bible tells me so would be rightfully so to you.

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 824 Pts
    edited October 22
    @MichaelElpers

    Birth is not a stage of development, but it's an undeniable threshold though, a very clear and unmistakable one. That is as binary or black & white as one can get here... You want a line, Nature itself drew the line... I feel like you're asking me "When does yellow become green? Or when does grey become black"...

    You won't find a definitive precise moment because it's a continuum, a spectrum, and as no one perceives colours the same, no one perceives morality right/wrong, the same.

    All we can go with are vague "weeks" as the normative unit of reference (0-12 weeks, 13-24 weeks, and so on). But you will undoubtedly bring forth the same fallacy and ask "Well what's the difference between 12 and 13 weeks?" and I'll tell you again that it's fallacious reasoning that led to asking the question... 

    I can agree that the later an abortion, the more morally challenging it becomes, but that only strengthens my pro-choice position imo... It can be so challenging that no one else but the one involved can make the decision... To me it's akin to the trolley problem in a way, it would be immoral to punish or force either possible choices (to pull the lever or not), only the one at the lever has the right to decide, no one else... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Thomasius

    Well, to be honest, both opinions (pro-life or pro-choice) are valid in themselves. Anyone is quite justified in holding the belief that "life begins at conception", or not...

    What is unacceptable is the forceful imposition of either beliefs by law. You don't like abortion? Don't have one, problem solved...
    I beg your pardon? 
    Did you just write don't like abortion don't  have one problem solved? There was a United State Constitutional duty to preserve liberty and have a trial on an admission made directed at all woman as a united state. so to a type don't have one no problem after a publicly claimed murder with no trial is unacceptable. Short of a Presadera or Presidential pardon there will never be a resolution to the gross misconduct of legislation and malpractice that has taken place. Neither Pro-choice or Pro-Life are valid they are a misrepresentation to a life threatening issue of immigration of across international border by basic principle.
    PlaffelvohfenSuperSith89
  • @calebsica
    First and foremost, my stance isn't pro-death because I'm not actively seeking for death for its own sake. Second, as I pointed out with another contender, the differences between embryonic and skin cells are irrelevant, for the point is that embryonic and skin cells both cannot experience pain and are thus of equal moral value.
    Plaffelvohfen
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @MichaelElpers
    When I speak of pain, I mean specifically of the cognitive capacity to experience pain. Now, to your point on valuing things, regardless of the fact that embryonic cells are set to develop into a full human being, its moral value at that time is still the same as that of other unsentient cellular life because it cannot be compared to fully grown humans due to the simple truth that it doesn't hold basic sentient awareness.
    Plaffelvohfen
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @MichaelElpers To further illustrate my point, kicking a rock and theoretically kicking an embryonic clump are of same moral gravity because the only difference between a rock and this fetal clump at this stage is that the matter comprising the fetal clump is biotic, whereas the matter of the rock is abiotic. There is nothing great enough to justify that one kicking is not immoral whereas another is immoral.
    Plaffelvohfen
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • Imagine that in the distant (or maybe not so distant) future you have a chip integrated in your body, in which a powerful artificial intelligence is installed that enhances your body functionality. Then one day this intelligence evolves and essentially becomes alive, at which point it starts slowly taking control over your body. 

    Do you have the right to disable it at that stage? Obviously: it inhibits your body functionality, and the fact that it is alive is irrelevant, since you are the sole owner of your body.

    This is also how I view the matter of abortion. The woman is the full owner of your body, and it does not matter what traits her body parts exhibit - she has the full right to do anything she wants to any of those parts at any point in time. Once she pops the baby out, it is no longer a part of her body, and now a different ruleset is in place. But while it is inside, no matter at which stage - even if a few seconds before birth - it has absolutely 0 rights.
    piloteerSuperSith89
  • Thomasius said:
    @MichaelElpers To further illustrate my point, kicking a rock and theoretically kicking an embryonic clump are of same moral gravity because the only difference between a rock and this fetal clump at this stage is that the matter comprising the fetal clump is biotic, whereas the matter of the rock is abiotic. There is nothing great enough to justify that one kicking is not immoral whereas another is immoral.
    There are stem cells in a rock?
  • @John_C_87
    I said a rock is composed of abiotic matter, meaning matter that isn't living.
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @MayCaesar
    I mostly agree, though I do think a developed fetus has equal moral value in comparison to born humans since it has the capacity to experience, though of course I agree the woman harboring even a roughly developed fetus still should have lengthy amounts of agency over her own body, just that there should be consideration for a sentient fetus to some degree depending on all the variables in place.
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @Thomasius

    I do not think the capacity to experience alone changes anything; it really depends on what degree of experience we are talking about. Trees have the capacity to experience in a certain way, as they have a central neural system - however, they lack awareness, meaning their experiences are not registered by any conscious agent. As such, I would not equate it to the experiences that human have. When we are being hurt, for example, it is not just that our body instinctively contracts, it is also that our mind tells our conscious: "You are being hurt, and it is terrible! You need to do something about it!"

    Same question can be asked of AIs: at what point do AIs become worthy of consideration in terms of rights? And, just as well, I think that the point is where the AI becomes able to not only experience feelings, but also reflect on them. If an AI can think about its response to a feeling, if it is aware of that feeling and its context, then it has as many rights as any human has. Otherwise, it really is just a glorified machine.
  • @MayCaesar
    I agree completely with the essence of your point, though I do need to point out certain details. When I say experience, I mean experience in terms of a cognitive agent coming to terms with senses/reactions like pain, pleasure and so on. Not as to say that your use of experience to imply the simple encountering of things is incorrect, but I just want to establish that I'm using the term, experience, in a differing manner from how you're applying it. So, I completely agree that a reaction/response alone does not suffice for awareness as it's just functional circumstance, but when a fetus is developed enough that it can cognitively experience pain, then we should take this into account morally.
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @Thomasius

    Again I think it is wrong to say the embryo has the same moral value as other non-sentient life...the potential of something factors into its value.

    I guess you would then say there is also no moral difference in cracking a rock and smashing a bunch of bird eggs.  I think most people would disagree with 
  • @MayCaesar

    The difference is that the "alive chip" isn't human.  Other animals have cognitive function, but we're allowed to kill them for meat.

    **** It inhibits your body functionality, and the fact that it is alive is irrelevant, since you are the sole owner of your body.
    Other differences: 1. A baby only exists for 9 months, not completely inhibiting bodily function.  Serena Williams won a grand slam while pregnant.  2. You are the sole owner of your body, but if the chip implanted gained cognitive function, was human, and you consented to it being put there...yes you would have to keep because you consented to it being part of your body.

    Inside and a part of ones body are separate ideas.  Are conjoined twins not separate individuals? There isn't instantaneous death of both if either the fetus or mother die.

    What about birth gives the baby rights?  The baby has undergone no change as far as what should define it as a person.  Do you think the baby should be able to be killed up until the point the umbilical is cut (it's still attached to the mother)?   
  • @Thomasius ;
    Okay, so that is when sterol correct?
  • @John_C_87
    If you're asking about a rock being sterile, if I'm understanding your point correctly, then that misses the whole point entirely. I'm saying that there is no moral difference between kicking a rock and theoretically kicking an unsentient fetus because both are just groupings of matter, the only difference being that one is inert and the other is living in that it the matter is functioning on its own.
    Plaffelvohfen
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @Thomasius

    Do as you want but addressing John is a waste of time...  He uses his own very personal thesaurus and dictionary, made up words and concepts that have nothing to do with reality... 

    Just sayin...
    DeeMichaelElpersZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    Adoption, is my response to abortion.
  • Neither pro-choice, Pro-life, adoption are logical they all form an entrapment to self-incrimination. Female specific amputation is not made up, fabricated, they are  words placed in a phrase as a logical choices to detail a process of termination that would not be self-incrimination based on immigration. Plaffelvohfen you simply have no point to object when present with a public address abolishing abortions self-incrimination. Just sayin back at yeah.

    Presadera however is a made up word, created as there is not legal precedent of a woman ever placing herself into a united state with all other woman creating them equal as woman in a United State constitutional right. 

    The word is a state of the union that should have taken place over a Century ago with woman in America.
    SuperSith89
  • @MichaelElpers
    The problem with your claim on moral value is that, yes, it has the potential to turn into a sentient human, but until that point, it is equal in moral gravity to unsentient life or even abiotic matter. The potential doesn't affect its moral value until it's actualized this potential because it's not sentient until actualization. As for your bird egg example, if the baby bird isn't developed to the point of sentience, then there is no more difference between throwing it and throwing a rock because both are just unaware matter at this point, with the only fundamental difference being that the egg is composed of biotic matter.
    Plaffelvohfen
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts
    edited October 23
    @MichaelElpers

    Consented?!?! So that's your measure of why abortion is wrong?!? Exactly what binding contract is a woman violating if she decides that it would ruin her life if she proceeded with the pregnancy that's taking place in her body? And leave us not forget the instances where there was no consent. How exactly is "inside and a part of ones bodies" two different ideas? Do I not have a choice on how to treat my lungs or liver because they are inside my body? Are they somehow not parts of my body that I have a choice on because most of the time they're inside my body?   

    Whether MayCaesars body snatcher scenario was a robot or a human, I don't know of any legally binding contract that I'd be in violation of if I suddenly decided to remove it even for the slightest inconvenience. I'd say the only truly binding contract here is between me and myself.

        
    SuperSith89
  • @TKDB
    Not sure how I missed your comment, but now I'll reply. Why is adoption your answer to abortion?
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @Thomasius

    I disagree with that.  In some instances should would be fined or jailed for smashing specific birds eggs.  You can't factor out potential in the value of something.

    I would agree with Francis Beckworths theory of Personhood: What is crucial morally is the being of a person, not his or her functioning. A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained. …A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (either because she is too young or she suffers from a disability) is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes sense to speak of a human being’s lack if and only if she is an actual person.

    It is because an entity has an essence and falls within a natural kind that it can possess a unity of dispositions, capacities, parts and properties at a given time and can maintain identity through change.  I.E. What is done to the fetus would permanently affect the person.  The identity of the person never changes.

    Ones that require self awareness, reasoning ect. would discount a baby, and others based on whether society cares about you lead to a slippery slope.
  • @piloteer

    A square is a rectangle but a rectangle not a square. Something can be inside and a part of you, but just because inside of you doesn't mean a part of you. If you are inside a car it doesn't mean you are a part of it. A virus/bacteria is inside you, but not a part of you. A part of I think would mean means what happens to it directly affects you.  If you got a collapsed lung it would harm you, what happens to the fetus/ mother does not directly harm the other. 

    Ruin your life is a bit harsh.  I believe when you perform an action you consent to the more plausible outcomes.  The woman had the sole decision in whether or not to take an action that would produce a pregnancy.

    Depends on the contract.  If you agreed that the "human" chip could be placed inside you knowing the risks it might cause, I believe you couldn't remove it at slightest inconvenience.


  • @Thomasius

    Do as you want but addressing John is a waste of time...  He uses his own very personal thesaurus and dictionary, made up words and concepts that have nothing to do with reality... 

    Just sayin... 
    The important thing is that you do not have a legal objection to any removal of self-incrimination created by abortion with a phrase like female specific amputation. Right? Or do you have a legal objection to official stopping a group created with a self-incrimination.
    PlaffelvohfenSuperSith89
  • Thomasius said:
    @MichaelElpers
    The problem with your claim on moral value is that, yes, it has the potential to turn into a sentient human, but until that point, it is equal in moral gravity to insentient life or even abiotic matter. The potential doesn't affect its moral value until it's actualized this potential because it's not sentient until actualization. As for your bird egg example, if the baby bird isn't developed to the point of sentience, then there is no more difference between throwing it and throwing a rock because both are just unaware matter at this point, with the only fundamental difference being that the egg is composed of biotic matter.

    It can be said the problem with a claim of morality on abortion is the hypocrisy. It’s okay to morally make a claim of killing a baby when it is not true? All situations that woman find themselves independently must be equalized with a united state of crime, then using that admission to forfeit their presumption of innocence as a group. Just How is that moral? What is morally wrong is most do not legally object to the basic principle of abortion, all woman must self-incriminate regardless of any obstacles of personal privacy in understanding truth. 


    SuperSith89
  • @John_C_87
    I'm afraid I'm not following you. I'm not asking this as an ad hominem attack or anything, but is English your second language or something? If I'm to be honest, and again I'm not trying to be rude or derail, your grammar is too all over the place in order for me to understand a cogent argument from you.
    PlaffelvohfenSuperSith89
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • Mother women have a reproductive system they never had a choice whether or not they get pregnant. Yakk you all are stupid 
    대왕광개토
  • There is a legal objection to the use against abortion as a term for law. Both Pro-choice and Pro-life are not logical because of the self-incrimination the term abortion creates. I would say it is a case of the other reasons outside English grammar. Woman and men can constitutionally self-incriminate themselves, the united use of grammar in general might self-incriminate the public, The legal objection creates an obstacle for woman because they cannot self-incriminate a medical practice as a group without answer all possible legality objection. Not just the one some woman might favor.

    For what reason are you, MichaelElpers, piloteer, TKDB, Plaffelvohfen placing all woman as a group, with a claim that sounds just like an admission to a crime in the first place. The word Abortion is not necessity that must be used, to do so is not logical, female specific amputation does not make any self-incrimination so there are other options that could have taken place. So why the group insistence to keep a self-incrimination going on publicly? A explanation of not being able to understand or comprehend the grievance is not logical either. So, Why? Why group all woman with something that sound like an admission to a crime if it is not needed?


    PlaffelvohfenSuperSith89
  • @JesusisGod777888
    Well, women do have a choice if the pregnancy comes about consensually. Now, are you in defense of abortion or no?
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @MichaelElpers ;
    I missed this comment so sorry for response delay. To your point on bird eggs, I'd say that legal penalty should arise if the bird type is an endangered species so as to protect the environment, but this doesn't contradict my philosophy on abortion's morality.
    To your core argument, a human's moral value arises when it has developed cognitive sentience because then it can experience pain and is therefore equal in moral gravity to born humans. An unsentient fetus's potential to become sentient doesn't change its current moral worth because it's still just as aware as a rock at that stage. Lastly, in the future, we can potentially use technology to grow and birth humans in labs from cells that contain human DNA like skin cells and blood cells, so in the future, nearly all of our cells would have a potential to become sentient life, so, since you claim potentiality affects morality, should a person in this future time be tried for homicide if he pulls off a hangnail, which will contain some live skin tissue? 
    Also, as a minor point, I wonder what your rationale is for justifying the killing and eating of non-human sentient life, as you said to @MayCaesar, while being pro-life on abortion? Now, if you admit to being a hypocrite on this front that's fine because I'm a hypocritical meat eater myself, but do you view that you're still being ideologically consistent?
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @John_C_87
    I want to see if I'm understanding... so, are you claiming that being pro-choice or pro-life is illogical because the term abortion concludes that women are criminals under U.S. law? If this is your argument, then I think you're a tad confused, but please explain if my summary of your claim is incorrect.
    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @Thomasius

    If you think that a person can receive a penalty for crushing the egg of an endangered species, than your view would be that the potential for it to become an adult bird matters.  For at that precise moment you would claim that organism inside the egg is not a member of that species...crushing it would not have any moral weight, you didn't crush an endangered species you crushed a rock.

    There are people that have a disease that won't allow them to feel pain. Also newborns aren't self aware and don't really have any level of reasoning (much less than many animals) so I'm not sure how that  measures up when defining a person.

    As far a killing a hangnail or eating meat.  The definition I subscribe to is:  human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained.  A skincell ect does not have the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human function, if they develop the skin cells to the point where they will naturally develop into a human it would then be a person.  Animals also don't have these capabilities, so I'm not being hypocritical by eating them.
  • @MichaelElpers
    The reason I'm against the destruction of eggs of endangered bird species is not because I morally value their unsentient embryo, but because I recognize the objective potential destabilization it'd do to the environment if the bird species went extinct, which could harm us in the long run. If these were ordinary bird eggs, like fertile chicken eggs, and they didn't bear sentient embryo, then I see no issue with destroying those eggs arbitrarily.
    For your point on pain, sure, there are people who may not be able to experience pain due to biological phenomena, and, so my singular bar for its right to exist is that it still has a cognitive system for awareness, like normal human beings, meaning it is still morally comparable to us. Pain is just a major consequence from normal human awareness that I bring up, so I don't disagree with you that pain alone doesn't suffice for moral weight.
    For your point on my future era argument, whether or not the potential is artificial or natural is irrelevant because it still adds up to potential in the end. So, in this future when skin cells, blood cells and other human cells can be lab grown to birth humans, would not these cells have human birth potential and would not you be liable then for homicide by your reasoning due to killing these potential humans attached to your hangnail?
    For your point on animals, yes, these animals are not at all human, but they are sentient too like humans and so how come, in principle, we don't have to care about their sentience while, in principle, sanctifying our sentience? Aren't humans just sentient biological matter like other non-human life? If we meet intelligent alien life in the future, can we kill and eat them just because they're not humans?

    Gǣð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.
  • @MichaelElpers

    So, according to your definition, a single sperm or a single ovum is a human person, right? They all are entities (with distinct existence as individual units, as per your link), and they all have the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained...  I guess you'll want to ban masturbation and menstruation if you want to be consistent...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    Wrong because a sperm and egg on their own don't have the natural inherent capacity to develop human functions.  A sperm will never develop into a human, an embryo will.
    YeshuaRedeemed
  • @MichaelElpers

    It does have that potential if fertilized, and you said whether or not those functions are achieved (fertilization is just one step toward realizing this potential, just like birth is one such step), so it does indeed has the potential to give rise to human functions, as per your definition... I guess you'll have to adjust your definition...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch