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

MichaelElpers

@Thomasius

There's a difference between birth potential and currently developing into a human.  For example an embryo naturally is developing to perform human functions, while a sperm never will.  

Again if the lab creates something from skin cells ect that will naturally continue to develop its itself to produce human faculties (essentially an embryo) then it would become human, but just as a skin cell it is not capable of that.  The potential to create a human from something doesn't make that something a person until it has begun to grasp the natural ability to continue to grow itself into a being with human faculties.

If alien life has self awareness, ability to reason, solve complex problems and the other common human facilities that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom than we would not be able to eat them.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

If fertilized...When fertilized it becomes a separate entity/ substance. 

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

So does birth (create separate entities), and that's my chosen line... And besides as you argued, a sperm or an ovum still has the "potential to" (it just needs fertilization) but since you supposedly cannot discard potential (as per your argument) then you have to consider a single sperm or an ovum as human person if you want to be consistent...

Thomasius

@MichaelElpers
Will you be replying to my inquiry?

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Birth doesn't create separate entities, the fetus in the womb and the baby are the same entity.

I never said potential equals actual, only that potential adds value. A sperm cell  has more value in creating a human being because of its potential, but it is not a human being.  My point is you can't completely discard the potential of something when looking at its worth, that doesn't mean its on the same wavelength as an actual.

MichaelElpers

@Thomasius

I did: @ 4:16

There's a difference between birth potential and currently developing into a human.  For example an embryo naturally is developing to perform human functions, while a sperm never will.  

Again if the lab creates something from skin cells ect that will naturally continue to develop its itself to produce human faculties (essentially an embryo) then it would become human, but just as a skin cell it is not capable of that.  The potential to create a human from something doesn't make that something a person until it has begun to grasp the natural ability to continue to grow itself into a being with human faculties.

If alien life has self awareness, ability to reason, solve complex problems and the other common human facilities that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom than we would not be able to eat them.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

My point is you can't completely discard the potential of something when looking at its worth, that doesn't mean its on the same wavelength as an actual.

But you're still aiming at preventing people from stopping this potential from realizing, right?

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

 My main issue was that you were making equivalent an embryo and a skin cell and that doesn't make sense.  By my def. an embryo is a person.  By your definition it is not but I thought it wrong to say its equivalent to any other human cell.  You could then say that the potential doesn't give it enough value to place its life over the ability of the mother make a lifestyle choice, but not the previously mentioned.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

But you're still aiming at preventing people from stopping this potential from realizing, right? 

Thomasius

@MichaelElpers
Ah, that's my bad. I didn't see that the debate had extended to a second page. So I missed your reply. Now I'll give your post its due diligence.
I'll naturally first address your point on birth potential versus active fetal development. I suppose I'll recognize flaw in my exact future scenario, but I still hold on the essence of what the flawed demonstration was trying to get at, and that essence is that we cannot place moral gravity upon an unsentient fetus because morality can only be applied to things which have the capacity to experience the benefits or consequences of such morality in the first place, so, regardless of whether or not unaware living matter is developing to become sentient, the at least currently unaware matter cannot be examined morally because there is no sentient entity to subject the morality to.
To your point about my point on non-human life, if you argue that things like complex problem solving and other such mental human faculties are what grant such intelligent life moral sanctity, then I have two questions pertaining to this. First and foremost, how does the complexity or expansion of a sentient organism's cognition grant or strip it of moral sanctity? Second, what about humans who are severely mentally handicapped or those who are born as living vegetables? What about feral humans? Are we now in the right if we can kill and eat mentally handicapped, feral and vegetable-like humans?

John_C_87

Thomasius said:

@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.

It is not a claim it is my grievance pro-life and pro-choice are not logical to a presumption of innocence. Any crime that is taking place is on an international level.

Pregnancy Abortion makes a conclusion that woman will always be inept in understand United State Constitutional right, which is not true. There is a 5th Amendment right to not incriminate yourself. Female specific amputation hs no self-incrimination. The only part of your understanding correct is that pro-life and pro-choice are not logical in any way that might be seen in the pursuit of justice.

Thomasius

@John_C_87
What presumption of innocence and abortion have to do with each other? How does the United States constitution come to the conclusion that the existence of abortion means women will always be inept? What do self-incrimination and pursuit of justice in the U.S. have to do with abortion?

SuperSith89

@John_C_87 I have never been so confused and amused in the same day.  

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

That's not what my definition claims. The entity/substance can't change.  A sperm cell as an entity has no potential to produce a human.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I'm not talking about definitions or claims, I'm talking about goals and objectives... Your goal is to use the force of the law to prevent people from stopping this potential from being realized, right?

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

My goal would yes to be to prevent abortion, because I believe it to be a person.

MichaelElpers

@Thomasius

***we cannot place moral gravity upon an unsentient fetus because morality can only be applied to things which have the capacity to experience the benefits or consequences of such morality in the first place

Why not.  I could argue that babies don't really have the capacity to experience the benefits or consequences of such morality.  We aren't even able to make complete decisions for ourselves until 18.

****To your point about my point on non-human life, if you argue that things like complex problem solving and other such mental human faculties.  First and foremost, how does the complexity or expansion of a sentient organism's cognition grant or strip it of moral sanctity? Second, what about humans who are severely mentally handicapped or those who are born as living vegetables?

I will admit I have not fully studied what I believe to be solely "human functions".  I was just grasping at factors people usually cite.  I'm not set in stone of this, but i would argue the ability to solve more complex problems does holds slightly more value, I think evolution proves this to true.  This then comes into question if you believe personhood is a spectrum or set point?  i.e. Does being more intelligent make you more of a person or do you just have to pass a certain level.  Currently my view would be the latter.

Nearly all mentally handicapped can still perform more complex functions.  They have a higher ability to communicate, can still solve problems ect, so I wouldn't say it would strip away their humanity. I don't have enough expertise to provide you with where the bar should be placed.  I also believe being human plays a role in making you a person.  Species care about their own the most.  If intelligent alien life came to Earth, I'm not saying we shouldn't give them rights as people, only that humans would most likely still be more willing to protect and care about other humans.

I would also argue that because you are placing value solely on sentience, you would also be placing a higher value on those who have higher IQs.  You are merely claiming that the lowest level of sentience gives you the ability to be a person...meaning yes you'd be a hypocrite not to think nearly all animals deserve human rights.

Plaffelvohfen

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen

My goal would yes to be to prevent abortion, because I believe it to be a person.

An actual person or a potential person? 

John_C_87

Thomasius said:

@John_C_87
What presumption of innocence and abortion have to do with each other? How does the United States constitution come to the conclusion that the existence of abortion means women will always be inept? What do self-incrimination and pursuit of justice in the U.S. have to do with abortion?

What presumption of innocence and abortion have to do with each other?

Abortion is wording a person may use to express control over an official ending to something that is in progress. Presumption of innocence is the point of legal precedent at which all woman can, by choice create each other equal in constitutional preservation, or not. An admission to a crime does create woman as equal it however is wrong when it is presented as the only choice to make or not make.

 How does the United States constitution come to the conclusion that the existence of abortion means women will always be inept?

American United State Constitution make a conclusion? It doesn’t the principles of constitution comes in to play as a document in separation of legal precedent in matters of woman’s independence.

. What do self-incrimination and pursuit of justice in the U.S. have to do with abortion?

 America is not always the United States, it is law that is always the united state, a nation can preserve a union of principles. The independent States can be united under Constitutional law. You tell me, what would  self-incrimination logically have to do with justice if all woman who must break the 5th Amendment by saying an abort is connected with choice to life in writing?

What is the self-incrimination in abortion? A public declaration of false control that when held in law under oath to set a coerced admission. There is ample evidence to suggest both woman and men have enough reason of doubt to insist a presumption of innocence is held by legislation.

·         Miscarriage is when a baby dies in the womb before 20 weeks of pregnancy. Some women have a miscarriage before they know they’re pregnant.

·         We don’t know all the causes of miscarriage, but problems with chromosomes in genes cause most.

·         It can take a few weeks to a month or more for your body to recover from a miscarriage. It may take longer to recover emotionally.

·         Talk to your health care provider about having medical tests before you try to get pregnant again.

·         Most women who miscarry go on to have a healthy pregnancy later.

https://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/miscarriage.aspx

Miscarriage is used to only show woman does not always have the control in stopping pregnancy at all times and female specific amputation is stating the terminal condition to the life an human egg inside her held was unable to safely fulfill a condition of immigration across an international border.

John_C_87

SuperSith89 said:

@John_C_87 I have never been so confused and amused in the same day.  

Yes,
that is the reason of use of basic principle when addressing constitutional unions with legal precedent. Abortion creates a complex principle that is hard to understand with an admissions of guilt by self-incriminations, this makes it impossible for anyone to establish all woman as equal in a united state constitutional right. Unless corrected. Female specific amputation sates a limited fact it is up to other woman, an people to present the evidence that removes that presumption of innocence.

Less confusing?

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Yes, by the definition I subscribe to it is an actual person.  Because a person is an entity that has or will have human faculties.

Plaffelvohfen

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen

Yes, by the definition I subscribe to it is an actual person.  Because a person is an entity that has or will have human faculties.

So you indeed equate a potential to an actual, as you ascribe the same value to both, right? 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

In some sense yes, but it depends how you view a person. The ability to develop human faculties is what defines the "person" for me so it is already indeed an actual person.  If you view personhood as a spectrum than your view would be that the fetus is less of a person because it hasn't developed the human faculties yet.

I think this definition is the best one as it leads to least amount of hypocrisy in what defines a person.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

But then you have to, for the sake of consistence, consider a sperm or an ovum actual persons too, as they do intrinsically possess "the ability to develop human faculties"... You can't add a "by themselves" criterion as fetuses can't develop human faculties "by themselves" either, they require a host (the mother) like a sperm or ovum require fertilization...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I'm done arguing this.  The same point is being repeated. Sperm undergo a complete change in entity. The embryo is the same entity as the developed person.  A human life is created at the fertilization not at the creation of the sperm, that is the first singular moment a person can draw their life to...from that point on there is no change in entity.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I'm just going with your own definition of a person... 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

But not proving it false.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I'm just showing the inconsistency and the resulting absurdity, should your definition be used in any legal document... Don't blame me, it's your definition...

Thomasius

@MichaelElpers

Babies can’t experience the benefits or consequences of morality? So, if I pierce it with a spear, it won’t shriek and cry in agonizing pain? If I kill it, will it not experience itself being deprived of life?

For your point on intelligence and moral value, I see no reason as to why increased intellect or the trait of ‘personhood’ means an increase in moral value. Shouldn’t the only bar for moral sanctity be the capacity for experience via cognitive awareness?

For your point on sentient life in general, I’m not debating about what denotes personhood. I don’t care about what is truly a person, as this personhood point is irrelevant in this debate. Let me ask you this straight forward question to get a succinct answer from you... How do you both hold a pro-life stance and hold a stance of approving the killing and eating of non-human sentient life while also not claiming to be hypocritical on your principles?

Thomasius

@MichaelElpers
Now, I don't want our debate to go too far into the realm of the subject of human vs. non-human moral value because this was intended to be just a side note in our discourse and I don't want it to have us veer from the original topic.
To the main point, let's start with two questions. One, if a fetus currently is just a clump of unaware matter, then how do we apply morality to it since there's no aware entity to be subjected to moral consequences or benefits? Two, if the developing fetus is at the stage of having developed cognitive awareness of some degree, shouldn't we treat the pregnant woman and fetus of equal moral worth and still allow the woman an abortion if the needs of the woman are objectively valid?

Thomasius

@John_C_87

Okay, I’m honestly not understanding your points at all. Let’s start from the beginning so I can understand you and your views. For my first question to you, do you think abortion should be allowed at all?

MichaelElpers

@Thomasius

What is a person I believe is the main argument.  If the fetus is a person it is deserving of human rights then abortion would not be allowed.

****How do you both hold a pro-life stance and hold a stance of approving the killing and eating of non-human sentient life while also not claiming to be hypocritical on your principles?

I'm not being hypocritical because I think is morally wrong to kill something that is a person.  I'm pro-life for persons.

****One, if a fetus currently is just a clump of unaware matter, then how do we apply morality to it since there's no aware entity to be subjected to moral consequences or benefits?

This would fall under the proposal that the fetus is a person.  Whatever damage you apply to the entity (fetus) would be subjected to the individual if/when they gain consciousness.  This would also imply it is ok to kill a person that is sleeping/unconscious if it killed them instantly/painless because they would not experience pain or deprivation of life.  They may not know the difference...assuming there is no afterlife.

****Shouldn't we treat the pregnant woman and fetus of equal moral worth and still allow the woman an abortion if the needs of the woman are objectively valid?

That is essentially what pro-life people propose.  They are essentially on a equal plain, so only death or severe damage to the mother would make abortion  (killing the fetus) valid, but nothing less.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

There is no inconsistency with the reasons you provided.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Of course there are, sperms and eggs would fall under your definition of person, quote : "The ability to develop human faculties is what defines the "person" for me so it is already indeed an actual person" 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Your purposefully editing the beginning of the sentence that nullifies your argument.  An entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained.

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.  Sperm doesn't maintain identity through change.

This is the last time I responding to this argument because its going nowhere.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

You argue that the mere potential of becoming a person confers moral rights on a prima facie basis, and both sperms and eggs fall under this "potential" criterion... I go with the current legal definition as it's totally unambiguous.

1 U.S.C. 8 

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘‘person’’, ‘‘human being’’, ‘‘child’’, and ‘‘individual’’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term ‘‘born alive’’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘‘born alive’’ as defined in this section.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Yet makes no logical sense that you would give rights to something just based on location (in or out of the womb).  There is no other difference as far as the development of the human life.

At least say viability makes it a person, that's more logical although still has it flaws.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I cannot say that viability makes a "person", as it is ambiguous, variable and vague... Viability doesn't confer cognition, awareness or anything close to moral agency... And because until birth we're only still talking about potential...

Birth is the most black & white, unambiguous position one can get, that's why it's my chosen position... But I can agree that viability can confer additional subjective value because I've already agreed that the later an abortion occurs, the more morally challenging it becomes...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

You have yet to explain how birth changes the development of the individual at all, or how birth makes someone a person.  Birth doesn't confer confer cognition, awareness or anything close to moral agency either.

The fact that you are ok with killing a baby inside the womb but give it all moral value just for being outside is ludicrous.  Nothing but location sets them apart.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers ;

It doesn't "change" it, much like a sprinter doesn't change when he crosses the finish line, but his race is not finished until he crosses that line, his "potential" is only realized at that threshold... And that's what we're looking for, a definite unambiguous line, no? Nature drew that line with birth.

The fact that I'm ok with anyone aborting very late doesn't imply that I personally would do so...  But I do recognize the right of a pregnant woman to make this decision, my position is that no one else has the right to make that decision, much like the trolley problem...

MichaelElpers

What do mean the racer doesn't change? Change what.  He hasn't won the race yet, but that analogy doesn't link very well.  I'm looking for the line that makes someone a person.  I'm not just going to accept a line because its unambiguous and easy to comprehend.  It doesn't hold up to logic.

****Nature drew that line with birth. 

Not really, if nature had its way they wouldn't be able to abort, nature would have them carry the pregnancy.  Do other species abort their young?

Thomasius

@MichaelElpers

It’s not about whether or not something is human that the thing has morality. It’s about whether or not it can experience the benefits or consequences of morality so that we can apply morality to it. If a fetal human is being developed and is still unaware, then it’s just a clump of matter, no more or less morally applicable than a basketball, and the fact that it’s developing into an aware human doesn’t change things at this exact time because the unaware fetus still is unaware so it still cannot be judged morally.

Why are you pro-life for persons but not for non-persons?

The problem with your third point is that even if someone is in a state where they may not currently be aware, they’ll definitely go through the process of being deprived of life and, if not being killed, can still potentially experience pain due to the fact that the existence of its already developed brain allows it to have this potential at this point in time.

To your final point, my claim is not the same as yours because a fetus alone is not morally equivalent until it has the ability to be aware of itself.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Do other species abort their young?  Yes : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_effect

Why would anyone assume that "if nature had its way they wouldn't be able to abort, nature would have them carry the pregnancy."???

John_C_87

Thomasius said:

@John_C_87

Okay, I’m honestly not understanding your points at all. Let’s start from the beginning so I can understand you and your views. For my first question to you, do you think abortion should be allowed at all?

It is not necessarily my view, it is an objective that can be proven, holds woman in a presumption of innocence, and does not violate a medical Hippocratic oath during the licensed practice of medicine.
Yes there are three conditions that must take place to allow abortion.

1. All woman understand pregnancy abortion is an admission to a crime and act accordingly to the statement made, AND OR SIGNED.
2. All woman have been created equal with a choice that does not include an idea of murder, sexual assault, or prejudice to woman who are not licensed to have children by a state. Unwed mothers specifically. 
3. Any person who is favor of legislation containing pregnancy abortion must be able prove all woman are in control of every aspect of pregnancy in a way that can be shared in basic principle.

Honestly there is only one point being made. Female specific amputations are not female pregnancy abortions. We are past the point of if abortion should be allowed. It has been allowed, it has taken place, and it was both illegal and wrong. Its constitutional similar to a nations P.O.W.'s having being sold as salves. 

John_C_87

Plaffelvohfen said:

@MichaelElpers

You argue that the mere potential of becoming a person confers moral rights on a prima facie basis, and both sperms and eggs fall under this "potential" criterion... I go with the current legal definition as it's totally unambiguous.

1 U.S.C. 8 

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘‘person’’, ‘‘human being’’, ‘‘child’’, and ‘‘individual’’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term ‘‘born alive’’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘‘born alive’’ as defined in this section.

No MichaelElpers is not basically say any person confers moral right, what is stated as in fact all American United State Constitutional rights can be held as self-evident. In doing so meaning that by refusing to honor the likely-hood of Marriage, citizen ship denial on the grounds of age can come back a much higher price than anticipated by legal council. Malpractice. By the way this legislation is a religious test to hold Political office. 

MichaelElpers

@Thomasius

Now your using self aware, you just said they have to experience pain.

Babies are not self aware.

Also because your equating experiencing mortality with feeling pain, youd be saying nearly all animals deserve rights.  Your definition puts us and all animals on a equal playing field.

I still think being a person is what matters.  There are things that set us apart from the rest of animals. 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

My point was you said nature draws that line.  1. I'd agree nature doesn't determine what we can do.  2. If your going to claim that than nature doesn't agree with abortion either.

Vaulk

The issue with pro-choice is that "It's just a clump of cells" isn't substantiated in any meaningful way.  Like most Scientific theories it is based on a large collection of assumptions regarding when life begins.  

The biggest killer to the "It's just a clump of cells" argument is the discovery that, while it's not popular, these supposed clumps of cells can direct their own development in OR outside the womb which is the definition of embryo autonomy or what pro-choice advocates call "Personhood".  Essentially, the embryo will develop in or outside the womb devoid of the Mothers' input so long as it has nourishment.  This means, as I've always suspected, embryos know what they’re supposed to do to live, and they try to live, whether they’re in their mother or not.”  The embryo's "Capacity" for personhood (The pro-choice requirement) is still in development but is very much PRESENT.  They require no instruction from the mother's body to develop, only nourishment—which of course we all need.

You can call them whatever you want, clump of cells, zygotes, eggs...it doesn't change the fact that they are autonomous humans from the very beginning

Thomasius

@John_C_87
I can't understand what you're stating, so please just answer my questions one at a time. Yes or no, do you think abortions should be allowed at all? If no, why not? [Edited for grammar.]

Thomasius

@MichaelElpers

As I explained before, pain is just one consequence that I commonly use, but all these things are encompassed under the foundation of the capacity for experience.

Are you arguing that babies indeed cannot experience?

I am putting all sentient life, regardless of personhood or intellect, on an equal moral playing field. Now, of course, sentient organisms that are not born from humans nor can comprehend social contracts can’t be treated the same under law as humans in society because they’re a part of uncontrollable and unpredictable nature. For instance, there is no moral difference between running over a baby deer versus running over a human baby. The only difference is that we should, logically speaking, legally regard the slain human baby because it was born from civilized humans and is thus something that is innately attached to human social contracts, unlike feral nature.

What are these things that set us apart from other animals that give us moral sanctity but deny those animals moral worth?