Can a fetus be considered a person? - 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!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Can a fetus be considered a person?

Debate Information

Central to the pro-life stance is the assumption that a fetus developing inside a mother is considered a person. Without this key assumption, the central claim of proponents of abortion restriction becomes untenable. However, this begs the question: is this a reasonable assumption? Can a fetus be properly considered a person?
At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life 
developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

All of that so we can argue about nothing.
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • exconexcon 324 Pts   -  
    Can a fetus be properly considered a person?
    Hello H:

    Depends on who's doing the considering, and what you mean by consider.  Does consider mean you're thinking about it?  Does it mean there are several options under consideration??  Or, does it mean you've considered it, and you know what it is, no matter what other people consider it to be?  What does consider even mean, anyway??

    excon
    Blastcat
  • My stance right now is I don't know due to the term "personhood" being ill-defined. Exactly at what point do we decide to call a person a person? Is it when we are out of the womb with all our anatomical parts in place? If that is the case, then what if we are in an accident and lose one or more of our limbs? Does that mean we are still a person? What if we are at some point rendered brain dead? Does that mean we are still a person?


    Blastcat



  • exconexcon 324 Pts   -  
    Exactly at what point do we decide to call a person a person?

    Hello Z:

    A person is a person, unless you wanna kill it. 

    excon
    Blastcat
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2100 Pts   -   edited November 22
    excon said:
    Exactly at what point do we decide to call a person a person?

    Hello Z:

    A person is a person, unless you wanna kill it. 

    excon

    Hello @excon. Define person, please. Btw, I marked your post as irrelevant before as it looked like you were being sarcastic. Were you being sarcastic?



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @excon ;

    consider:

    kən-sĭd′ər

    intransitive verb
    1. To think carefully about (something), especially before making a decision;
    2. To think or deem to be; regard as.
    3. To suppose or believe.

    "You might want to consider consulting a dictionary when you want to know what words mean"
    BlastcatNotReallyDonsonRonaldTheIII
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • exconexcon 324 Pts   -  

    Hello @excon. Define person, please. Btw, I marked your post as irrelevant before as it looked like you were being sarcastic. Were you being sarcastic?
    Hello Z:

    I may have been..  I often use sarcasm to make a point.  When a person is conceived, he's a person..  I don't wanna kill it, so I don't have to make up names. 

    Having said that, I support a women's right to choose..  And, I have no compunction about using the word kill.  That's what we do..  That's what we should call it.

    excon
    Blastcat
  • excon said:

    Hello @excon. Define person, please. Btw, I marked your post as irrelevant before as it looked like you were being sarcastic. Were you being sarcastic?
    Hello Z:

    I may have been..  I often use sarcasm to make a point.  When a person is conceived, he's a person..  I don't wanna kill it, so I don't have to make up names. 

    Having said that, I support a women's right to choose..  And, I have no compunction about using the word kill.  That's what we do..  That's what we should call it.

    excon

    I didn't ask you when you believe a person becomes a person. I asked you to define what a person is. @excon.



  • exconexcon 324 Pts   -  
    kən-sĭd′ər

    intransitive verb
    1. To think carefully about (something), especially before making a decision;
    2. To think or deem to be; regard as.
    3. To suppose or believe.

    "You might want to consider consulting a dictionary when you want to know what words mean"
    Hello again, H:

    Oh, man..  Thank you for that..  I don't know how I've gotten along so well without you

    excon
    Blastcat
  • exconexcon 324 Pts   -  
    I didn't ask you when you believe a person becomes a person. I asked you to define what a person is. @excon.

    Hello again, Z:

    Ok, a trick question..  I'll bite..  A person is a human being.. 

    excon

    PS>  Look..  I'm tired of guessing and what's your point?


    Blastcat
  • @Happy_Killbot
    The key opposition to abortion in the United States of America by legal precedent is the illegal invasion of privacy which was ignored by the legal council by the use of admission to what is described as a murder to the public. This being the possible cause of the illegal invasion it has been left unrepresented in the American court system for almost 50 years.
  • @ZeusAres42
    I didn't ask you when you believe a person becomes a person. I asked you to define what a person is.

    The issue is an invasion of privacy over an explained made of murder. The wrong is the invasion of privacy had been taken as a united state regardless of its truth as fact.  Human pregnancy is life-threatening and there is no other reason than negligence to have allowed the invasion of privacy to continue. When the medical system and the judicial system are not going to Identify murder the idea of still describing the medical treatment as murder is negligent.

    When abortions have been a religious action before the American untied states constitution and the midwife might confess her sin to the church by saying she and a woman conducted a pregnancy abortion is not the same as having a licensed medical doctor do the same.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 922 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    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.
    Blastcat
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1332 Pts   -   edited November 23
    Central to the pro-life stance is the assumption that a fetus developing inside a mother is considered a person. Without this key assumption, the central claim of proponents of abortion restriction becomes untenable. However, this begs the question: is this a reasonable assumption? Can a fetus be properly considered a person?
    Yes. A fetus, at some point before birth, CAN be considered a person. I personally think a good argument can be made for personhood before birth and I am pro-choice.

    However, the question of personhood is irrelevant: being a person doesn't give someone the right to control the body of another.

    Happy_KillbotOakTownAZeusAres42
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;

    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.
    What about people who have severe malformities, especially ones effecting the brain?

    Since those people have just as much capacity to give rise to human functions as a toaster, shouldn't they then not be considered people?

    And speaking of toasters, suppose I upgrade one to the point that it does have human function, (including giving birth to humans) proving that this entity has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human function. By that logic, toasters should be considered people shouldn't they?


    ZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne ;
    Yes. A fetus, at some point before birth, CAN be considered a person. I personally think a good argument can be made for personhood before birth, and I am pro-choice.
    At what specific point would you draw that distinction? It seems to me that a zygote is as human as a bag of stem cells, even if a fetus 10 seconds before being born is not significantly different from a baby 10 seconds after birth.

    Also, would you defend the right of someone to take out a life-insurance policy on an unborn fetus if indeed it is a person?

    The question of personhood is irrelevant: being a person doesn't give someone the right to control the body of another.
    I would agree with this fully, but it is beside the point in this debate.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1332 Pts   -   edited November 23
    @Happy_Killbot

    At what specific point would you draw that distinction?

    The capacity for consciousness. It is our minds which makes humanity special. I'm happy to extend a benefit of a doubt when all the structures necessary for consciousness have sufficiently developed to allow for the possibility. Zygotes and a bag of stem cells lack this whereas a fetus 10 seconds before birth and a newborn do not.

    Also, would you defend the right of someone to take out a life-insurance policy on an unborn fetus if indeed it is a person?

    Good question. Can a life insurance policy be taken out for a person on life support? If so, then I have no issue with life insurance on a fetus.

    Happy_KillbotBlastcatZeusAres42
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -  

     Can a fetus be properly considered a person?

    No it cannot , it’s a denial of accepted definitions of “person” , “personhood “ and it suits the anti crowd perfectly as it appeals to emotions , most the anti crowd over here are religious and they also add on that the foetus has a soul 

    Those who say they oppose abortion are agreed they value personhood  they see the foetus as a person, if that is good reasoning then it must follow contraception is morally wrong as it’s denying by prevention the existence of future persons

    It can be argued then that a foetus is a single entity with personhood, why should the singleness of the entity be morally relevant?

    A foetus poseeses the potential to be a person , but a potential X is not an X , Acorns are not Oak  trees 

    The whole Abortion debate is nearly always men dictating to women what they should do even if it’s against their wishes and they want to punish women by forcing them to give birth against their will.


    Women choose abortion for so many different reasons but the choice is their own and not taken easily , to deny them this choice is bullying

    A foetus is not just a “person” in the eyes of the Anti abortion crowd it’s a “very special person “ as it seemingly had a right to life that must always trump a citizens right to bodily autonomy 

    OakTownAZeusAres42
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4153 Pts   -  
    Intuitively, to me a person is someone who has a somewhat developed character that they can exhibit through intentional action. They should be able to communicate their thoughts somewhat coherently, verbally or otherwise.

    In this sense, nobody before the age of 2-3 is really a person. The age of 4 is where I would start recognizing most people's personal traits. I have some fuzzy memories of my life when I was 4, and I was by no means someone who had much clue about anything. Certainly, before that, I was nobody, a primal creature.

    I do not see though the question of personhood as central here. Nobody would call a calf a person, yet almost everybody senses some wrong in someone killing a calf for entertainment, for instance. A person who believes that "proper" morals should be enforced by a central authority may advocate for restrictions on hurting calves, even if they do not consider calves to be persons.
    The argument of the anti-abortion folks mostly seems to come down to the claim that this little creature has a potential to become a person in the future. Somehow from this they derive that this creature has the right to live that surpasses the rights of its host. This never made much sense to me, but this is a different argument than "the fetus is a person", which I honestly have never heard anyone make. Then, again, I have never taken these abortion debates seriously, so I may very well have missed something big here.
    ZeusAres42
  • The argument of the anti-abortion folks mostly seems to come down to the claim that this little creature has the potential to become a person in the future. Somehow from this they derive that this creature has the right to live that surpasses the rights of its host. 

    The United States argument held by the constitution is the medical institution is not legally required to maintain its own hypocritic oath made to the people in the circumstances of privacy. While the legal council has an obligation to the United States Constitution in conducting its public practice.

    Women choose abortion for so many different reasons but the choice is their own and not taken easily, to deny them this choice is bullying

    It may be bullying as a united States, the harassment takes place as an invasion of privacy, fraud takes place when a woman is not told it is the name of the medical treatment itself which creates the loss of not only their privacy but that of those they are intimate on a personal level with. To use a medical treatment that violates a Hypocritic oath on an international level by violating doctor-patient privacy is argued over the potential of a wrong that takes place on behalf of a child who is not considered an adult.

    How to stop medical malpractice from taking place? Can the malpractice of the medical institution take place? Does the medical malpractice also create a legal malpratice as a lawyer is also taking part in the loss of their client's privacy?? In order to form a more perfect union, this must stop according to the actions of legislation, professionals, and the people and the imperfect unions must be allowed to continue and be used under a shrowd of the argument made that no solution to the invasion of privacy exists.

    Reading allows us to accomplish many things in basic principle one of those objectives is to place words together that relay a meaning. Female-specific amputation creates all women equally, it is a better state of the union made between all women and medical treatments involving the termination of a form of immigration that is/can be life-threatening to women.

    @Dee
     No woman ever chooses Pregnancy abortion. This is a fraud as there is no alternative choice made that does not violate the medical Hypocritic oath on an international level. This includes Canada. Had there been a medical choice formed, described, and or created to offer a number of alternatives that did not violate privacy illegally then there would be a choice made.


  • @Happy_Killbot
    In truth, a fetus cannot make a claim for its own emancipation. This describes a state of the union on a constitutional level that a fetus is a slave, a person who cannot be emancipated and was not assigned the position of a slave by the courts. The fetus lost its liberty by the illegal invasion of privacy.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 922 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    The definition is posted directly answer disabilities.

    Regarding upgrading a toaster, that's more in the realm of robotics. But yeah if the toaster started functioning exactly like a human I'm not sure why it wouldn't be a person.
  • dallased25dallased25 67 Pts   -  
    To me it doesn't matter. The minute you say it is human, or as rights as a human and that somehow trumps the bodily autonomy of the woman, then you've run into a slippery slope. Imagine a child needing a bone marrow transplant or they will die and you are the only matching person for 100 miles. If for some reason you don't want to donate and it doesn't matter the reason, under the current law, you can refuse. Yet if you refuse, the child will die in a short time. Imagine now if the laws were changed to where refusing to donate is considered murder and the courts step in to issue a court order to arrest you and force you to donate the bone marrow against your will, thus violating your right to your own bodily autonomy. This is why in the abortion case why no matter what you think about the fetus, or if it has rights...why the woman's right to bodily autonomy must come first. Basically what you are telling a woman is "you don't have the right to make medical decisions over your own body. You must carry this baby to term and if you don't, we have the right to jail you!" If allowed, then why not also allow the first scenario whereby you take away men's rights as well not to donate blood, or organs, or anything else. Either we have medical rights over our own bodies to make choices as we see fit...or we don't. If we don't, then the government can use force or criminalize something as simple as not donating blood or bone marrow, because they can classify you not doing that as you terminating someone else's life. 
    OakTownAZeusAres42
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
    The definition is posted directly answer disabilities.
    What I am asking here goes beyond disabilities.

    When I say "malformities" I mean instances where there is no real connection to any actual humanity with the exception of a human origin. Think more "Anencephaly" and less "neuro-divergent".
    Regarding upgrading a toaster, that's more in the realm of robotics. But yeah if the toaster started functioning exactly like a human I'm not sure why it wouldn't be a person.
    So do you consider all toasters to be people then, given their potential to be recreated or developed into a person? Is destroying a toaster then a moral wrong comparable to murder?
    SkepticalOne
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Happy_Killbot

    There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the theory a human fetus can be anything other than a human, the theory of evolution does not support that kind of evolutionary change in people.
  • A human fetus is a person, a human embryo is a person, human sperm are all a person as a basic principle, plus all three types of humans are each alive. How good of an argument is this, I killed him, I killed her, because he or she was not living? Under what conditions does a lawyer or medical doctor find this argument a reasonable act of intelligence in a defense of a person who is under age to represent themselves in a murder trial?
  • SonofasonSonofason 378 Pts   -  
    Central to the pro-life stance is the assumption that a fetus developing inside a mother is considered a person. Without this key assumption, the central claim of proponents of abortion restriction becomes untenable. However, this begs the question: is this a reasonable assumption? Can a fetus be properly considered a person?
    A fetus is more a person than is a rapist.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 922 Pts   -   edited November 24
    @Happy_Killbot

    In that instance their is nothing we can really do to give the baby life.  It would be like pulling the plug on a brain dead person.  For a healthy fetus is would be like pulling the plug on a coma patient you are pretty certain will turn out to be perfectly fine.

    Toasters do not naturally evolve in humans.  If science found a way to insert a gene where a toaster would begin natural development into/as a human then yes it would be a person.

    It's basically the difference between a sperm/egg and a zygote.  A sperm and egg by themselves cannot naturally begin development into a human person so they arent one.
  • @Sonofason

    A fetus is more a person than is a rapist.

    And a rapist's seed is more a person than the woman who unwillingly receives it, amiright?!

    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1332 Pts   -   edited November 24
    Duplicate
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1332 Pts   -   edited November 24
    Duplicate
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1332 Pts   -   edited November 24
    Duplicate
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason ;
    A fetus is more a person than is a rapist.
    y tho?

    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
    In that instance their is nothing we can really do to give the baby life.  It would be like pulling the plug on a brain dead person.  For a healthy fetus is would be like pulling the plug on a coma patient you are pretty certain will turn out to be perfectly fine.
    So, you would agree then that people with malformities should not really be considered people, but what about a fetus prior to neural development, especially when it is only a few cells. Why should that be considered a person, if someone who is brain dead is not, and neither is someone who is severely malformed?
    Toasters do not naturally evolve in humans.  If science found a way to insert a gene where a toaster would begin natural development into/as a human then yes it would be a person.
    Suppose this "gene" (I don't think this is correct but I will ignore that for now) does in fact exist, and happens to be rather easy to implement but is currently unknown. If this does make a toaster a person, then how can you readily reject the personhood of current toasters given that personhood might potentially be in their future?

    That is to ask, if the possibility that something might turn into a person makes it as if it were a person, how can you reject the personhood of anything given that ubiquitous things might be capable of turning into a person?
    It's basically the difference between a sperm/egg and a zygote.  A sperm and egg by themselves cannot naturally begin development into a human person so they arent one.
    I want to explore this idea more, because both sperm and egg are entirely independent, and in fact fertilization can be accomplished outside of the mother, an increasingly popular method known as In Vitro fertilization and this process could theoretically occur outside of the lab in nature. While you might argue that this is irrelevant because the formed zygote still needs the mother to actually develop, I would refute that by pointing out that the fetus can not naturally begin to develop into a person without the mother, and therefore it could not be considered a person by your own logic.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 922 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    A person who is brain dead is a person but they are essentially dead.
    Again like I said no one would pull the plug on a brain dead person if they new there was a high probability they would turn back to normal.

    Regarding the toasters, because they  haven't yet been changed to develope human function yet. They would become perosons once their essence or entity has been changed to start developing into a person.  
    A fetus doesn't have a probability to become a person, they already are one.

    With in vitro you have created persons because an essence or entity has been created which begins development as a human being. As soon as an entity or organism has been created whose natural inclination is to develope as a human they are a person.
    Changing the environment the newly formed person needs to live in doesn't change that it is a person.  Just as if we removed oxygen from a room.


    ZeusAres42
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
    A person who is brain dead is a person but they are essentially dead.
    Again like I said no one would pull the plug on a brain dead person if they new there was a high probability they would turn back to normal.
    A brain dead person can't return to normal, and neither can someone who has a severe brain malformity from birth, but this is beside the question.

    If a person who is brain dead/malformed is effectively dead, then why shouldn't a fetus also be considered effectively dead matter?
    Regarding the toasters, because they  haven't yet been changed to develope human function yet. They would become perosons once their essence or entity has been changed to start developing into a person.  
    A fetus doesn't have a probability to become a person, they already are one.
    I think you are missing the point here, if you want to argue that a fetus is a person, then so are toasters that can be made human, and that would apply to all toasters. If you don't like the toaster example, then we can use something more grounded like chimps or dolphins, which could naturally evolve sapience.
    With in vitro you have created persons because an essence or entity has been created which begins development as a human being. As soon as an entity or organism has been created whose natural inclination is to develope as a human they are a person.
    That would then necessarily apply to sperm and egg, because as stated there is a direct causal chain between these two entities forming the 8 entities that is a zygote, and then forming the trillions of entities that is a grown person.

    Why place the cut off there anyways? Wouldn't it make more sense to assert continuity between personhood from parents to children, such that there is never a moment where anything is considered inhuman?
    Changing the environment the newly formed person needs to live in doesn't change that it is a person.  Just as if we removed oxygen from a room.
    That is very much beside the point here, I don't care about environment.

    What I do care about is why you think that sperm & egg do not have natural capacity to develop into a person, but a zygote does given the empirical evidence that in fact, there is causal continuity here.

    It seems to me this idea is completely defeated by science.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 922 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    Because like you said a brain dead person can't come back. A fetus is a developing person that most likely will develop normal human function.

    I'm not sure how else I can explain this.  There is a difference between a person/fetus which is already naturally developing human function and a toaster or anything else that must be modified before it meets that category.
    Only after the modification would it be a person.  Much like a sperm and egg separately aren't persons until they combine. They could potentially become people but aren't until they produce 1 entity that is now developing as a person.

    "Wouldn't it make more sense to assert continuity between personhood from parents to children"
    What's considered children? If it's born human...no. I don't think it makes sense, as there is essentially no biological or developmental difference between a baby inside or outside the womb 

    Because a sperm and an egg if left alone would no produce a human.  A zygote is a human, and as an entity has a natural purpose to continue human development.
  • Medically and scientifically a fetus is a very young person.

     This does not mean the very young child is subject to have its privacy violated as a possible murder. It does not mean the legal state of Texas has the right to violate this privacy even when the rest of the world did as well, even if the violation continues to this day. Is Female-specific amputation and abortion? No, it is not. Why is F.S.A .not abortion, or pregnancy abortion? It does not violate a basic united states constitutional right to privacy by describing an order to apply lethal force.

    "Pater q
    uadringentesimus undicum quingenti."
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
    Because like you said a brain dead person can't come back. A fetus is a developing person that most likely will develop normal human function.
    If you take evolution and abiogenesis seriously, then doesn't it stand to reason that in fact all dead and living matter has that capacity by means of the ability to develop into a person?
    I'm not sure how else I can explain this.  There is a difference between a person/fetus which is already naturally developing human function and a toaster or anything else that must be modified before it meets that category.
    Only after the modification would it be a person.  Much like a sperm and egg separately aren't persons until they combine. They could potentially become people but aren't until they produce 1 entity that is now developing as a person.
    Has it occurred to you that a fetus is not 1 entity any more than the whole of humanity is 1 entity?

    Think about it, the fetus is made of multiple cells which in some situations can act independently.
    "Wouldn't it make more sense to assert continuity between personhood from parents to children"
    What's considered children? If it's born human...no. I don't think it makes sense, as there is essentially no biological or developmental difference between a baby inside or outside the womb 
    What I am saying here is this:

    p1 Sperm and egg naturally combine to produce a zygote.
    p2 Anything that naturally gives rise to a human is a person (your stance)
    => Sperm and egg are persons

    This is a deductive argument that follows from your position, so my question is: Why shouldn't sperm and egg be considered human given that this preserves continuity of humanity (no non-human steps)?

    Because a sperm and an egg if left alone would no produce a human.  A zygote is a human, and as an entity has a natural purpose to continue human development.
    Bruh, we just talked about In Vitro fertilization, this is objectively false. A zygote can be formed in a lab just by putting sperm and egg together in a dish.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @MichaelElpers
    Because a sperm and an egg if left alone would no produce a human.  A zygote is a human, and as an entity has a natural purpose to continue human development.

    There is a fallacy with this better constitutional union MichaelElpers, the fact is even if left alone the sperm of a male, then the embryo of a human woman does produce two people. So age is only a principle of being a legal citizen to the general welfare. The issue of argument is over the life of a patient and the use of human experimentation on an ethical medical level. The embryo is a patient who cannot sign a medical waiver of treatment from the doctor's lawyer. The sperm is a patient who cannot sign a medical waiver from the doctor. By request of a lawyer to limit any liabilities.

    A human sperm or human embryo alone will in fact produce a human. If we are going to detail the search for discovery as a whole truth a basic principle we can say the end of the search will produce two humans a male and female.
  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    The  sperm is a patient who cannot sign a medical waiver from the doctor.

    The great thing about this site is you learn something new every day 


    Happy_KillbotBlastcatZeusAres42
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 922 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    No evolution is over a long period of time.  An ant isn't just going to magically become similar to a human.

    "Has it occurred to you that a fetus is not 1 entity any more than the whole of humanity is 1 entity?
    Think about it, the fetus is made of multiple cells which in some situations can act independently."

    The same applies to you and me. All of the cells work together in as a part of 1 organism.

    "Sperm and egg naturally combine to produce a zygote.
    p2 Anything that naturally gives rise to a human is a person (your stance)
    => Sperm and egg are persons"

    The sperm and the egg have to come together and produce 1 entity.  That entity then starts developing human function, the sperm and egg by themselves do not.  You have to keep reading the definition. It talks about the entity maintaining its identity through change.  Any human person can state the zygote is when they were formed. 

    "Bruh, we just talked about In Vitro fertilization, this is objectively false."

    What was false?  What in
     Said was the egg and sperm cannot produce human function on their own.  In vitro, isn't on there own.
    I'll use an example of a cake. To be a cake you need icing and batter.  If you destroy any singular ingredient icing or cake you've not destroyed a cake.  You may have prevented the ability for you to create a cake but you cannot say by destroying icing that you destroyed a cake.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
    The same applies to you and me. All of the cells work together in as a part of 1 organism.
    I agree, so why can't a sperm & egg be considered as a single entity, thus forming continuity for all of humanity?
    You have to keep reading the definition. It talks about the entity maintaining its identity through change. 
    What definition?
    Any human person can state the zygote is when they were formed. 
    This sentence makes no sense, can you please rephrase it?
    What was false?
    " ...a sperm and an egg if left alone would no produce a human."

    A sperm and egg if left alone can produce a human, so the assertion is false.
    I'll use an example of a cake. To be a cake you need icing and batter.  If you destroy any singular ingredient icing or cake you've not destroyed a cake.  You may have prevented the ability for you to create a cake but you cannot say by destroying icing that you destroyed a cake.
    This is irrelevant, because in this example you can just put the ingredients together and they form a new human under their own agency.

    If you just put sperm and egg in the same place, a zygote will form naturally, thats the point. It will not develop into a full person without the mother, but then again neither will a fetus, so if this is your rational for excluding sperm & egg from being human, then that same rational (by your own logic) would also exclude a fetus since it needs human input (from the mother) in order to turn into a human.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 922 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    "This is irrelevant, because in this example you can just put the ingredients together and they form a new human under their own agency."

     The fact that you have to combine them and the combination produces and new entity isn't irrelevant.

    If someone asked you when you were created.  The earliest you could tell them is a zygote.  It would be incorrect to state a sperm or an egg.

    "you just put sperm and egg in the same place, a zygote will form naturally"
    That's not exactly true either, which is why we send millions of sperm to try and attach to an egg.  The fact that you have to specifically put them in the same place, and after combination the entity becomes more than just the sum of its parts matters in distinguishing why a zygote is a person and a sperm isn't.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
     The fact that you have to combine them and the combination produces and new entity isn't irrelevant.
    It is relevant, because there is no need to call them inhuman.
    If someone asked you when you were created.  The earliest you could tell them is a zygote.  It would be incorrect to state a sperm or an egg.
    I agree you would be incorrect to say sperm & egg, but I disagree that this is the earliest you can say they exist, you can go all the way back to the beginning, some 14 billion years ago.
    That's not exactly true either, which is why we send millions of sperm to try and attach to an egg.  The fact that you have to specifically put them in the same place, and after combination the entity becomes more than just the sum of its parts matters in distinguishing why a zygote is a person and a sperm isn't.
    Again I don't see the relevance here.

    Let me just give you the reductio again because this is off track here:

    p1 Sperm and egg naturally combine to produce a zygote.
    p2 Anything that naturally gives rise to a human is a person (your stance)
    => Sperm and egg are persons

    From this logic, these things would still be human even if 99.999% of them never actually become human. Not all fetuses turn into people either, a lot are miscarried. So it would seem to me you need to think of a better reason here.
    SkepticalOne
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Dee

    The great thing about this site is you learn something new every day

    Are you say you have known this for quite some time? Do any doctors have signed medical release forms signed by fetuses who are treated by them? There are in fact medical rely upon forms signed by the women through correct? It can be said almost all Canadians have also understood this united states as common knowledge for some time as a basic principle? What is even more surprising is the Canadian Supreme Court also has known pregnancy abortion violates at minimum the women's constitutional right to patient privacy, the problem is again no action of constitutional preservation ever took place after the official findings had been made.

    R. v. Morgentaler - SCC Cases (lexum.com)

     "Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference
    with a woman's body and thus an infringement of security of the person."

    the hope or ambition of achieving something is in fact privacy in regards to things that take place as a medical treatment.

    The basic principle here is not identified to the Canadian Supreme Court it is by whole truth an underage child and mother's privacy which are infringed.


  • @MichaelElpers
    If someone asked you when you were created.  The earliest you could tell them is a zygote.  It would be incorrect to state a sperm or an egg.
    No, in truth the earliest I was created was as an embryo and the fertilization process like medical treatment saved my life. I am going to address another basic principle. A male doctor would introduce sperm to a female in the same way as a man who is not a medical doctor. Provided the women held the basic principle are men are created equal by their creator. There are signed documentation women provide an additional advantage to a medical doctor, and it is this advantage she gave which infringes on her United States Constitutional right.

    It is my understanding sperm is created on a regular basis in the male body and is returned and discharged if not used in a shorter time than a female embryo, 
    have you seen or heard this information before?
  • Sorry for the typing mistakes, however, what I am saying is a male doctor and any other man both save lives when fertilizing an embryo from women no special dedication and training is needed. Neither a Medical doctor male nor female nor has ever proven otherwise. Here Again, the basic principle of misjudgment is no woman has attempted to create all-women equal by their creator before basic principle and legal precedent.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 922 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    This was my definition.

    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.

    A sperm as an entity does not give rise to human function.  Really I don't think that is so hard to understand.

    Fetuses don't turn into people, they already are people. 

    Let me ask you when you were created? Everyone knows that is at conception.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
    A sperm as an entity does not give rise to human function.  Really I don't think that is so hard to understand.
    A sperm + egg does give rise to human function. Really I don't think that is so hard to understand.

    Put tit this way, let me make a checklist



    There is functionally no reason to think that a zygote is a person, while a sperm + egg are not a person.

    Also, consider this additional possibility: Suppose that some cells are genetically modified and then used to produce a fetus. By this definition, this person would lack a natural essence for the same reason that a toaster does- it has been artificially modified. So by this reasoning, if we used genetic engineering to eliminate some genetic disease, the resulting human would not be a person despite being healthy and otherwise normal.

    Let me ask you when you were created? Everyone knows that is at conception.
    ~14 billion years ago in an event called the big bang.

    If you mean me as a legal person, then it was when my birth certificate was signed.

    If you mean me as who I am today, then arguably that happened this morning when I woke up.

    There really is no reason for me to conclude it was "at conception" any more than any of these other times, that is simply an arbitrary distinction based on
    SkepticalOne
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @MichaelElpers

    Let me ask you when you were created? Everyone knows that is at conception.

    I don’t know that. Youre assuming your conclusion there, my friend.

    Happy_Killbot
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch