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 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.





Fetal personhood is a religious view...

Debate Information

...and, as such, cannot ground secular law against abortion. To do so would enshrine one religious view over others which hold contrary views or emphasis. 
OakTownAPlaffelvohfen
A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    On what grounds are babies, teenagers, adults, elderly granted personhood, and how is that not placing your personal view in secular law?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1458 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne
    Geeziz Kerrist.....have you taken to doing night classes in poetry lately? And they gave you a free Thesaurus, right?
    My opinion is that one should look far beyond the madding crowd without attending to wit beyond the pale and submit one's conscious ethereal thoughts into the realm of subversive interactions between the ebbs and flows of existantiality as one perceives the extant reality of such terminable creativism. 
    SkepticalOne
  • @SkepticalOne

    On what grounds are babies, teenagers, adults, elderly granted personhood, and how is that not placing your personal view in secular law?
    Are you suggesting rights are a religious view? 
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -   edited July 31
    @SkepticalOne

    No, I asked the question I wanted an answer to.

    I want to know where this idea of personhood and granting persons rights come from. Are they all not personal views that are placed in secular law?
  • @SkepticalOne

    It was a Federal legal matter regardless of if the public viewed human embryo / human fetus from religion as a person or citizen, the two different aged clinical subjects had been a patient, and the term abortion violated the patients legal right to privacy in 1973, in a criminal way. On the most basic level the embryo given, sold, or traded by a person to a medical faciality as a donation is kept alive by a team of trained scientists and doctors, medically treated, and then released or used as the base for growing medication.

    We are addressing a covert civil war fought by Congress and others over a series of decades in an act of treason against American united states constitution. The focus of this argument is to first establish that the act of treason directed at the United States Constitution by legislators at the federal & states level was totally unnecessary.


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2926 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    @SkepticalOne

    I want to know where this idea of personhood and granting persons rights come from. Are they all not personal views that are placed in secular law?
    The idea of granting rights comes from the necessity of having rules to regulate people's behavior living in groups... Different societies (theocracies, monarchies, democracies, etc) have different systems of rules for that purpose... 

    And sure they are personal views, in absolute monarchies they're the personal opinion of the king... In theocracies they're the personal opinion of a god... In democracies too they're personal views, but only insofar as they're created by persons... In democracies, laws are not the opinion of a single person, they are collectively bargained, like the Constitution, it's a collective work that required compromise... A concept that does not exist in theocracies and absolute monarchies... 
    SkepticalOneOakTownA
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4713 Pts   -  
    While it is true that the most popular arguments in support on fetus being a "person" are religious, it does not imply that every possible argument in support of that is religious. That is, the assumption that religious views cannot ground secular law does not imply that fetus should not be considered a person legally.

    On a more general note, in a sense, any principle that can possibly ground law, secular or not, is going to be somewhat subjective. If law cannot be grounded in anything that is prone to different interpretations, then law cannot be grounded in anything. As an example, consider the matter of repossession of abandoned buildings: if I found a fallen apart building deep in the woods, can I claim it for myself, should I first do everything in my power to make sure that the owner has given up on this building permanently, should the building be transferred to the public ownership and then sold to a private party via an auction? Whichever option you pick based on the principles you are grounding your reasoning in, I can disagree with by starting from a different set of principles - and we will get nowhere.

    What I think law should be grounded on is principles that give individuals as much autonomy as possible, exactly to resolve this issue. If the laws are small in numbers and liberal in nature, then almost all the subjectivity can be outsourced to the individual and their personal decision-making. This would make the law truly fair and universal. Of course, such a law would never restrict abortions in any way whatsoever, and if someone finds abortions to be a crime against nature, god or whatever as per their religion, then they are free to build their own commune and follow their own rules. What they cannot do is force their views on others.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @MichaelElpers

    It seems like you are equating religious views and personal views while simultaneously requiring only the latter to provide justification.

    I doubt I could do a better than Plaffelvohfen has in providing the grounding you seek. I would only add that the grounding opinion in theocracy isn't that of a god, it is the opinion of clerics.
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • raisin98raisin98 7 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Yes? maybe? I don't know

    The religious argument for the life of fetal personhood I think really revolves around what is found in Exodus 21:22-25. There it says (King James Bible): "(22) If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (23) And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, (24) Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." I think the most important part to pay attention to is verse 23, which says "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life". Here the assumption can be made that by men striving (fighting) and accidentally destroying the fetus of a pregnant woman, the fetus would be considered life, due to the destruction of said fetus calling for giving "life for life".

    However, from a medical perspective, there is some form of tangible evidence that I can give indicating that life does begin not immediately at conception, but rather during the course of conception. For context, I asked my mother (who has been a cardiac bedside nurse for 20 years) when she believed life began for a Fetus, and she said around 5 weeks. After doing some of my own personal research, I have found that some sources find that a heartbeat begins at around 3 weeks, while others say longer time periods of up to ten weeks (so far). The only thing that can be bothersome about this point of view though is that my mother is also very religious, so the objectivity or even credibility of her point of view is kind of in the air. 

    Really, it is all up to personal perspective. But from my point of view, allowing abortion to persist as a choice throughout most trimesters of conception can allow those who wish to seek abortions to have abortions, while those who see abortion as immoral can have a personal resolution to avoid abortion if the choice presents itself. 
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    I am equating religious and personal views as a religious view is a personal view.  Both require explaination.

    Plaf stated that rights are necessities for people living in groups but I fail to see how.  Why can't we let groups of people live in anarchy?
    One may say that it's objectively better for humanity and that may be true as a collective, other individuals may think they're better off being survival of the fittest. 
     While i generally attempt to separate a religious view from law, I'm not sure why that viewpoint would be ignored as long as people find the reasoning justifiable.

    I still don't see how personhoods grounding in potrntial law is any different than free speech grounding which also is only given to persons.  Persons is already being defined secular law, so law either already has a religious viewpoint or the concept of persons/personhood can be secular after all.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @MichaelElpers

    Why can't we let groups of people live in anarchy?

    Anarchy is not good for groups. If you want to live with others there needs to be a minimum amount of respect for others and safety. 

    Persons is already being defined secular law, so law either already has a religious viewpoint or the concept of persons/personhood can be secular after all.

    That's a mouthful. Personhood does not require a religious viewpoint. Rights are beneficial to the collective and they need to be attached at some point. Birth is an easy line of demarcation which does not create dueling rights. 

    If your view of personhood is purely derived from your religious texts, you've provide no justification that a secular and pluralistic society should find meaningful. It can be disputed by someone else with another religious text or a different interpretation of the same text. If one religious interpretation is allowed, it is at the expense of all others. Religious privilege is not a solution. 


    PlaffelvohfenOakTownA
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    "Personhood does not require a religious viewpoint"

    The title of the argument is : "Fetal personhood is a religious view"

    I'm not sure how you can argue fetal personhood requires religion but personhood no where else does.

    That depends on how you want to live in a group.  Some that would naturally rise to the top would be fine having power and disrespecting lower groups.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2926 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    Plaf stated that rights are necessities for people living in groups but I fail to see how.  

    Seriously? You actually fail to see how rules are necessary to group cohesion???  My first thought was "He's being disingenuous again, by feigning ignorance"... But after considering the matter, I realized that, this inability to see what most people would, could actually explain a lot... 

    Why can't we let groups of people live in anarchy?

    Who says we can't? We absolutely can, and we did try it a few times since we discovered fire, but people rarely choose to, for obvious reasons like wanting nice things...

    While i generally attempt to separate a religious view from law

    Sorry but you're not very good at it...

    I'm not sure why that viewpoint would be ignored as long as people find the reasoning justifiable

    Religious views are not ignored, they are just not given precedence, deference or special treatment over any other subjective philosophical positions, as is appropriate in democratic societies... Not being offered deference is not being ignored...  

    so law either already has a religious viewpoint or the concept of persons/personhood can be secular after all.

    The concept of persons/personhood is secular, it doesn't need to correspond to any religious views points...  Not sure I follow... 

    DeeOakTownA
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2926 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    @SkepticalOne

    "Personhood does not require a religious viewpoint"
    The title of the argument is : "Fetal personhood is a religious view"
    I'm not sure how you can argue fetal personhood requires religion but personhood no where else does.
    Exactly!!!  Fetal Personhood... Not "personhood"... Moving the goalposts yet again.........   

    The "religious" part of the concept of personhood is the part unnecessarily expanded before birth... The concept of personhood works quite fine without that expansion in utero and without any mystical groundings... 
    DeeOakTownA
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @MichaelElpers

    I'm not sure how you can argue fetal personhood requires religion but personhood no where else does.

    I've explained how rights necessarily must be attached at some point and birth is an easy, practical line with no need for a religious appeal. Fetal personhood...not so much.


    PlaffelvohfenOakTownA
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -   edited August 5
    @Plaffelvohfen @SkepticalOne

    I'm sorry but your argument that personhood as you see it is a secular view but fetal personhood must be religious is ridiculous.

    There are plenty of individuals who would argue babies don't have the intelligence to be declared persons which would disagree with your viewpoint.  How is someone setting personhood at a heartbeat or when they become an actual human being (at conception) religious... it's not.

    Practicality isn't a great measure of why someone should be a person.  Otherwise let's get rid of nursing homes.
    OakTownAPlaffelvohfen
  • @MichaelElpers

    There are plenty of individuals who would argue babies don't have the intelligence to be declared persons

    There are also plenty of people with a similarly dubious opinion regarding fetal personhood.

    How is someone setting personhood at a heartbeat or when they become an actual human being (at conception) religious... it's not.

    Fetal personhood is predominately a Catholic and Christian viewpoint. Do you deny this?

    DeePlaffelvohfenOakTownA
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @SkepticalOne

    Fetal personhood is predominately a Catholic and Christian viewpoint. Do you deny this? 

    I would question if it as predominantly Catholic Christians viewpoint as human embryos and sperm are treated as a medical patient, each are individually given specific scientific analysis though not blood work to make medical determinations for treatments.

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2926 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    @Plaffelvohfen @SkepticalOne

    I'm sorry but your argument that personhood as you see it is a secular view but fetal personhood must be religious is ridiculous.
    Practically all religions, value the life of the unborn and accept the idea of in utero personhood at some point or another... Can you find me single religion that actually rejects the idea?
    It's not that it must, it's that it primarily is... And remember, we're talking about personhood as a "Legal matter", not as a "Moral matter", please stay focused...
    There are plenty of individuals who would argue babies don't have the intelligence to be declared persons which would disagree with your viewpoint.  How is someone setting personhood at a heartbeat or when they become an actual human being (at conception) religious... it's not.
    Again, the issue here, is personhood as a "legal matter", as a moral matter personhood is subjective and you can believe whatever you want it's irrelevant... Legal and moral, you have a really hard time keeping those 2 concept separated, this struggle is a sign of theocratic tendencies, cognitively speaking, you think in theocratic terms... It's not a blame, just an observation... 
    Practicality isn't a great measure of why someone should be a person. Otherwise let's get rid of nursing homes.
    As a legal matter, in democratic systems, pragmatism is the only way to go... Birth as the grounding anchor for the concept of personhood in jurisprudence (as "a legal matter"), is the position that accommodates the greatest number of philosophical positions... The purpose of the law, in non theocratic systems, is to provide a framework and system of rules to help resolve disputes between individuals, to help preserve the freedom and moral agency of individuals...  The purpose of the Law is not to define morality, as you and other theocrats would use it to...

    Birth as the anchor, protects minorities (you should like that no?)... It protects first and foremost the life, of the young, the old, the sick, the crippled, the comatose, the poor, the rich, the geniuses, the morons, the albinos,  etc... Secondly, as an equally important legal matter, it preserves a lot more freedom and moral agency than your position...  
    SkepticalOneDeeOakTownA
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 4788 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    The whole personhood debate is merely a deflection  so opponents of abortion can brand the procedure as “killing”
    A pregnant woman is basically saying she no longer desires to give of her body to sustain the life of a fetus 
    Can you point out one example in American law where certain people are required by law to sustain the lives of other people?
    To be consistent with your views should you be forced legally to donate your organs or bone marrow to save the lives of your children?

    You have extremely conflicting views regards human life and the preciousness of such as during the worst of the Covid epidemic you thought it an outrage that people should be forced to mask up to save the lives of others yet you think women should be forced to give birth against their will and the law forced on them by government who you criticised for any efforts towards mask mandates . Patently obvious there are double standards going on here 

     
    PlaffelvohfenOakTownA
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    There are plenty of religions that support abortion rights.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-stand-on-abortion/

    The way the OP is stated is that fetal personhood is a religious view...that it is a must. There are plenty of secular reasons one may think a fetus deserves to be a person.  That's my main problem with the argument.

    I never brought in legal vs moral matters.  You are the one separating your belief into legal view and fetal personhood into moral view.  Where's the separation coming from? There's no reason a heartbeat can't be a legal view or just saying human beings is the legal view.

    Your definition of law is confusing.  You say it has nothing to do with morality but it is used to protect the moral agency of individuals.  Moral agency is dealing with morality. 

    Yeah birth protects a lot of people.  But I think we can include all human beings, I'm not sure how that position preserves less freedom and moral agency.  That is just your opinion.

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    This debate was about whether fetal personhood must be a religious view.  I'm addressing that.

    We've had these discussions before.

    The main difference between covid and pregnancy is the mother to protect herself is directly killing a human individual.

    But likewise I think it's funny you don't see the double standard in saying mothers get a choice to kill their offspring but people should be forced to be vaccinated.
    PlaffelvohfenOakTownA
  • SonofasonSonofason 408 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    No, I asked the question I wanted an answer to.

    I want to know where this idea of personhood and granting persons rights come from. Are they all not personal views that are placed in secular law?
    Indeed. Thou shalt not kill is a religious view...See 10 commandments.  Shall we permit murder as well?
    PlaffelvohfenOakTownA
  • @Dee
    Can you point out one example in American law where certain people are required by law to sustain the lives of other people?

              Yes, I can, it doesn’t matter as you have already said several times about not caring. Anyway. The American United States Constitution Preamble describes a general welfare of the people as a link to established justice. That and the true self-evident reason behind speaking-out / speaking-up, breaking a silence held publicly, the search for the more perfect union with established justice.


    A pregnant woman is basically saying she no longer desires to give of her body to sustain the life of a fetus. 

              You are not making a complete connection with truth as a witness in detail... We are to establish a whole truth that is self-evident to explain a united state of law between all woman looking for a point of established justice between all women as its primary goal, by all women in a link to established justice we are referring to both criminal and innocent women of crime. As it is these two groups of women who will face justice.

              One of the more serious issues with the imperfect legal connection you are making is that a woman is rewarded to lie, and just claim rape when in fact the rape is a much more serious act of attempted murder, rape just being the lesser evil ??? an accusation available to help ensure a prosecution instead of expose truths, sometime the sort of crime really matters in issues that evolved down the stream of justice long term.. if there is a fear of pregnancy, or even a rejection after intimacies the desire to hurt and fight back can be great. This brings about ideas of body control / body autonomy as claimed and its loss as a constitutional point of topic to be set in a united state between all women. Body autonomy is not a truth anyone has due to health, death and illness this fact makes a united state with as self-evident truth impossible to make.  A woman who does not always have the complete say in what criminal charges a state can file to address her body autonomy, this is/ should set by the person who is accused of crime and their past judicial history.  For all we know the argument of abortion with its illegal invasion of judicial privacy and now Federal illegal loss of patient privacy. Does is some way give more religious women a weapon to force the outcome of marriage in a relationship, or to make public claims that she was raped to personally harm others. The argument in United States Constitution is to one make a clear determination when a sexual assault does become an attempted murder. Two break bonds to reward and promote perjury before the court as it is the hardest and most expensive crime to establish.

              Now for person-hood deflection, for all we know the argument of abortion with its illegal invasion of judicial privacy and now Federal illegal loss of patient privacy. Does is some way give more religious women a weapon to force the outcome of marriage in a relationship, or to make public claims that she was raped to personally harm others. The argument in United States Constitution is to one make a clear determination when a sexual assault does become an attempted murder. Two break bonds to reward and promote perjury before the court as it is the hardest and most expensive crime to establish.

             My own argument now against female-specific amputation to take the place of abortion in legislation is does this phrase in violate Federal Laws of medical patient privacy equal or less than abortion?


  • @Sonofason

    The idea that killing members of the group is wrong pre-exists and stands apart from religious views. 
    PlaffelvohfenOakTownA
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @MichaelElpers

    The main difference between covid and pregnancy is the mother to protect herself is directly killing a human individual. 

             And. The course of action of the United States constitution as the guide to an ultimate state of the union with established justice is to ensure no-one is exposed to danger without legal consequences. This includes those people who see fit to have a women put herself at risk of death to force an immigration as the immigration is of a desired limited commodity. Baby. Without sharing the dangers of applying that risk equally to all those who create it. As it is already a state of the union between a mother exposed to criminal accusation and charges, like with any false claim of rape there needs to be a reason of balance to give cause to show self-restraint in making accusations that female specific amputation is by fact murder. After, without self-incrimination as the key point of evidence against a woman.

    As it is simply a debate and not a matter of connection to establishing perfect justice a guideline for the more perfect state of the Union is not required. It is simple just a field test in the in the general welfare of Constitutional Right. 


  • SonofasonSonofason 408 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason

    The idea that killing members of the group is wrong pre-exists and stands apart from religious views. 
    The idea that killing infants is wrong pre-exists and stands apart from religious views.
    PlaffelvohfenOakTownA
  • DeeDee 4788 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers



    But likewise I think it's funny you don't see the double standard in saying mothers get a choice to kill their offspring but people should be forced to be vaccinated.

    I never mentioned forced vaccinations so why are you being so dishonest ?

    Here is what I actually said ….during the worst of the Covid epidemic you thought it an outrage that people should be forced to mask up …..

    Here are the two questions you refused to answer and instead constructed a pretty obvious strawman 

    1: Can you point out one example in American law where certain people are required by law to sustain the lives of other people?

    2:To be consistent with your views should you be forced legally to donate your organs or bone marrow to save the lives of your children?
    OakTownAPlaffelvohfen
  • Sonofason said:
    @Sonofason

    The idea that killing members of the group is wrong pre-exists and stands apart from religious views. 
    The idea that killing infants is wrong pre-exists and stands apart from religious views.
    Agreed. Of course, abortion isn't the killing of infants, so I fail to see your point.
    PlaffelvohfenOakTownA
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.

  • Agreed. Of course, abortion isn't the killing of infants, so I fail to see your point.

    The observation is set on the admission of a crime not the fact if the crime being true. I do not like using the word abortion as a witness before the courts as it is an admission, it is a killing of an infant, but it is not an enforced crime as murder or violation of judicial privacy. I do not feel it is an accurate description in truth of what a woman receives as a medical treatment from doctors. Abortion describes a judicial and possibly medical invasion of privacy as it can be interpreted as an admission to murder the difference between it and female specific amputation is a female specific amputation my simply be a medical invasion of privacy

  • The only time I have heard the idea of fetal personhood was as a child and the focus of debate was over what is the nature of the "Original sin." Was it sex... or was it the death caused by not having sex...the original sin. As dumb as it sounds keep in mind we argue on debate when life starts which is the same thing. This means type of argument also means if one side is wrong about the time life starts the implications are much deeper than anticipated by abortion.

    The whole abortion argument of common defense is based on what could be the religious interpretation of the original sin. Sex or the idea of ever couples first babies’ death the one they did not try to make before consummation of a strong relationship.


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2926 Pts   -   edited August 8
    @MichaelElpers

    @Plaffelvohfen

    I never brought in legal vs moral matters.  You are the one separating your belief into legal view and fetal personhood into moral view.  Where's the separation coming from? There's no reason a heartbeat can't be a legal view or just saying human beings is the legal view.
    I understand you have problems grasping why law and morality have no necessary connection and why it's of great importance to distinguish law and morality so that moral criticisms of the law can be clearly made and understood... I can't blame you, you were groomed from the cradle to be a theocrat after all and your understanding of everything about the "Law", (what it is, what are its sources, etc) hasn't been updated since Aquinas, you are just a mere 8 centuries late... Read a bit on Legal realism, Legal positivism, Analytical Jurisprudence, the different legal systems (civil law, common law, customary law, religious law) etc...

    If the subject actually matters to you, and it's not just posturing, read about it...  
    We're in 2022, ignorance is a choice...

    Your definition of law is confusing.  You say it has nothing to do with morality but it is used to protect the moral agency of individuals.  Moral agency is dealing with morality. 
    I never said the Law had "nothing to do" with morality, I said there is no necessary connection between the 2... Do you lack the ability to understand the meaning of "not necessary"?
    This connection you make between legal and moral, a defining trait of a theocrat, is not essential for a law to be a law... Just like it is non essential for a cake to be "chocolate" to be a cake, it can be, but it is not necessary... Do you understand or is that too abstract and confusing?

    Now, Moral agency, is "the ability to make ethical decisions", this is what the Law (in secular democratic systems) should help protect, the ability to decide for oneself, what is right or wrong (not to be conflated with what is legal or illegal)... You wouldn't want me or a Muslim, an Hindu or a Satanist, to define for you (in spite of your opinion), what is moral or immoral, correct? That is what "protecting moral agency" means... To preserve the ability for individuals (like you and me) to make that choice for themselves... 

     I'm not sure how that position preserves less freedom and moral agency.  That is just your opinion.
    No, it's a mathematical evidence... 

    Let's take my position first...
    Abortion is legal, everyone's moral agency is preserved, yours, mine, and everyone in between... You can still abide by your own personal moral code and never have an abortion, you are free to make that choice...

    Now your position...
    Abortion is illegal, moral agency is not preserved for all those who support abortion rights, be they Atheists, Jews, Satanist, Buddhists, Christians, all those religions in the link you provided, their moral agency is not preserved...  And it also cannot be said that even your moral agency is preserved either, only that it happens to correspond... Anyway, as a theocrat, you don't actually exercise moral agency, you just don't, as your morality just happens to be whatever your god (whichever it may be) says it is, there is no choice available to you, you don't chose, you conform or else... 

    Pretty sure you'll once again bring up some irrelevant nonsense and demonstrate your disingenuousness by asking something like "Aren't the serial killer's moral agency suppressed by having laws against murder"?
    Willfully ignoring that the Law's purpose (in secular democratic systems) is also to help protect the freedoms and liberties of individuals... Preserving moral agency AND protecting freedoms are not mutually exclusive...
    But you, like all theocrats, think mostly in binary terms, so it's almost a conditioned reflex to argue ad absurdum, you can't help it... That's why I don't blame you for it... 
    OakTownASkepticalOneDeeJohn_C_87
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -   edited August 8
    @Plaffelvohfen

    I understand the difference and importance between religion and the state.  This is why I dont argue for all actions against my religion to be illegal.  It's also why I never bring up religion, god souls, ect in abortion debates.

    I'm just saying You never showed where I have referenced a theocratic or moral viewpoint.  Someone whose view a person is any human being isn't necessarily theocratic.

    "Aren't the serial killer's moral agency suppressed by having laws against murder"?
    Willfully ignoring that the Law's purpose (in secular democratic systems) is also to help protect the freedoms and liberties of individuals... Preserving moral agency AND protecting freedoms are not mutually exclusive..."

    Yes because that is a completely valid question.  
    If your going to say abortion preserves moral agency because it includes everyone's moral agency/ opinion then nearly all laws limit that.
    What if someone doesn't think stealing is bad or they disagree with property rights all together?

    What about age of consent laws?
    Under your view how is limiting sex, alcohol, ect to certain age groups preserving freedom and providing more moral agency?

    Abortion doesn't increase the freedom of human beings not your definition of persons. Just like if you ignored minorities as persons, slavery would also increase freedom and moral agency of those in your protected class.
    PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOneDeeJohn_C_87OakTownA
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2926 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    Just like if you ignored minorities as persons
    But my position doesn't ignore them, now does it? Birth implicitly protect all those minorities... If you're going to argue against my position, argue against MY position, not against irrelevant hypotheticals that are not my position... Don't you even realize what you're doing? Probably not, Pavlovian reflexes...
    Someone whose view a person is any human being isn't necessarily theocratic.

    As a personal matter? No, I have to agree... In and of itself, the belief that a zygote is a "person" is not, by necessity "religious" (in the strictest sense of the word), I would still call it unjustified and borderline delusional for a non-religious/spiritual adult but it is not impossible... What is theocratic, is legislating the moral choice inherent to abortion, as it is liberticide based on religious grounds instead of on pragmatic reasoning and collective bargaining and therefore unwarranted and unjustified in democratic societies...  Whether one believes the zygote to be a person or not is still irrelevant, the theocrat aims at the choice itself, whether or not anyone would actually make the choice to abort or not is irrelevant to a theocrat, he wants that choice to be unavailable, illegal, punishable by the government, THAT is the essence of the theocrat with regards to moral and legal matters...  

    Abortion doesn't increase the freedom of human beings not your definition of persons.

    My position gives a choice, yours don't...

    Option A = Choice 
    Option B = No choice

    And you seriously believe, that option A is not more freedom giving than B????  I mean, SERIOUSLY????? 

    Yes because that is a completely valid question.  

    No, it's not a valid question, it's fallacious, argument ad absurdum... It only exposes your disingenuousness...

    If your going to say abortion preserves moral agency because it includes everyone's moral agency/ opinion then nearly all laws limit that.

    This makes no sense... None at all... 

    OakTownA
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen
    Let's take my position first...
    Abortion is legal, everyone's moral agency is preserved, yours, mine, and everyone in between... You can still abide by your own personal moral code and never have an abortion, you are free to make that choice...

    Okay your assumption first…

    The crime of abortion is not murder like one group of witness say it is to be. The crime is the way the idea of murder is shared publicly with others by an illegal invasion of judicial privacy. There is rather large difference between the two right? We are not saying all orders given to official stop a birth are truly from the women and not from the doctor as medical advice.

    The argument of fetal personhood is an argument of citizenship of the pre-embryo – embryo are not citizens this is clear, whereas the mother is a citizen of a nation clearly and is subject to certain legal rights. As the non-citizen she the mother is “thee” only ambassador of the one, two or more who are not directly associated to those same rights. To be clear you are saying that abortion is the most perfect state of the union with established justice because it simple describes to give choice, any details of the choices do not matter. Is this what you are really saying? Or is it you do not know or maybe do not understand all a fact as you do not agree with several judicial court findings over a level of loss to legal privacy taking place by addressing the court with the word abortion.

    Abortion violates a large group of people’s right to legal privacy and has done so for some time this is a fact, it is also a crime not enforced by police, F.B.I., or C.I.A. and it is an interpretation of who’s legal jurisdiction it is to enforce which is called into question.

    The words female-specific amputation might violate a patient’s privacy but does not violate a much larger group of people’s legal right to privacy.


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    "Just like if you ignored minorities as persons
    But my position doesn't ignore them, now does it?"

    It would be nice if you include the entire context of that argument.  My argument is that when you exclude a group of individuals from persons it is easy to claim you are giving more freedom. However if you are wrongly doing so (in this case fetus), like we did with slaves, then you are actually removing freedom.

    "Whether one believes the zygote to be a person or not is still irrelevant, the theocrat aims at the choice itself, whether or not anyone would actually make the choice to abort"

    No it's not irrelevant.  Law removes the ability to directly kill innocent persons.
    ...
    If I replaced zygote with baby your argument completely falls apart.
    "Whether someone believes the baby to be a person or not is irrelevant.  You aim at the choice itself, whether or not anyone would actually make the choice to kill their baby."

    "My position gives a choice, yours don't...

    Option A = Choice 
    Option B = No choice

    And you seriously believe, that option A is not more freedom giving than B???? I mean, SERIOUSLY?????"

    If it's that simple again we would allow, stealing, murder, there would be no age of consent.  
    In stealing for example, outlawing it preserves freedom to own property but it removes the freedom to steal.
    Again your decision on abortion only allows more freedom as you've removed the victimized party in abortion from all consideration. If the fetus is a person, you aren't protecting their freedom at all.

    Asking if more choice equates always equates to more freedom and using examples of murder, rape, and stealing is not absurd, it's the next logical step in reasoning.
    PlaffelvohfenJohn_C_87OakTownA
  • @MichaelElpers
    No it's not irrelevant.  Law removes the ability to directly kill innocent persons.
    You make a strong argument for the one side....

    Presumed innocent, the zygote is only presumed to be innocent. Presumed innocent, the zygote is only presumed to be innocent. There are two issues of constitutional importance by the states of their union with E.J. (Established Justice) 

    One – When a person intervenes with an ambassador during their legal obligations there can be repercussions that are of legal consequence to that intervention. (Abortion is not American it was embraced by some Americans)

    Two- United States Constitution ensures a more perfect state of the union with established justice which means if a person is to believe a termination of birth is a murder, they must also know that forcing a woman into birth when she dies because of that force it is murder as well. The birth nis the murder weapon, do you know and understand ;the connection with the connection to murder made as established justice there? 


  • sorry...I will try to repjhrase this...

    Two- United States Constitution ensures a more perfect state of the union with established justice which means if a person is to believe a termination of birth is a murder in the first place. They must also know that forcing a woman into birth if and/or when she dies during birth, because of that force to give birth, is murder as well. Birth becomes the murder weapon use by another person, do you know and understand the connection made by murder with established justice at this point?


  • The argument is that women had not yet established a more perfect state of the union using a self-evident truth to guide a united states constitutional law.The same goes for a women becoming a President of the United States of America. This negligence comes regardless of any legal advice given meaning only that council could not connect the process with a crime before the crime took place as a whole truth.

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2926 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    You are the epitome of intellectual dishonesty... Congratulations for losing all credibility as an honest debater!  :+1: 
    OakTownADee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Where's the dishonesty?  I'm sorry you don't want follow your statements through their logical conclusions.

    First I addressed the OP that fetal personhood doesn't require a religious view.
    You accused my view of fetal personhood requiring a theocratic view, even though I've never referenced religion, souls, ect a single time.

    You ultimately agreed fetal personhood doesn't require religious context but then stated your view gives more freedom.

    My counter is that is only true if the fetus is indeed not a person, otherwise your removing theirs.
  • OakTownAOakTownA 366 Pts   -  
    "Practically all religions, value the life of the unborn and accept the idea of in utero personhood at some point or another... Can you find me single religion that actually rejects the idea?"
    The Satanic Temple, and some sects of Paganism might, but definitely not the main stream, Judaeo-Christian denominations.

    Okay, back to lurking.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2926 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    • If it's that simple again we would allow, stealing, murder, there would be no age of consent.
    • Asking if more choice equates always equates to more freedom and using examples of murder, rape, and stealing is not absurd, it's the next logical step in reasoning.
    • I'm sorry you don't want follow your statements through their logical conclusions
    It doesn't follow that we would allow any of that... Not even close... You're being intellectually dishonest by intentionally ignoring the other inherent purposes of the Law (maintaining social order, resolving disputes, establishing standards, help preserve moral agency, etc).  You're always doing that, purposefully omitting relevant facts and information when such things may contradict or highlight problems in your hypothesis... The very definition of intellectual dishonesty...

    You're being intellectually dishonest by saying that I don't follow my argument through their logical conclusions, simply because I correctly do not reduce the Law to a single exclusive purpose and actually consider ALL of the Law... And you're doing that on purpose, so that we'll keep going in circle, going from one aspect of the law to another, arguing each aspect of the Law, as if they existed exclusively by themselves in a vacuum, when they demonstrably don't, but you obviously don't care about honesty, it's just posturing...  
    In stealing for example, outlawing it preserves freedom to own property but it removes the freedom to steal

    Oh yeah, because the "Freedom to steal-murder-rape" is actually a thing, right? 

    How could I forget that they are recognized in the US Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the countless other legal defining documents throughout human history, everyone is out there protesting that these freedoms are being infringed upon...  

    How silly of me...  :smirk:  

    OakTownADee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2926 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA

    I don't know that the Satanic Temple actually rejects the idea of in utero personhood per se, as personhood is irrelevant to them in their official position on abortion, which is the bodily autonomy position (and personhood is irrelevant to that position)... But yeah, some Pagan sect might...  ;)  
    OakTownA
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    My arguments were based on the definitions you previously established.
    Establishing social order, establishing standards, ect wasn't presented previously by you.

    You were also then the person that declared simply you allow more freedom by providing more choice.

    Quote:

    "My position gives a choice, yours don't...

    Option A = Choice 
    Option B = No choice

    And you seriously believe, that option A is not more freedom giving than B???? I mean, SERIOUSLY?????""

    I can't be held accountable for referring to definitions and arguments made by you, that you didn't take the time fully explain.

    There are plenty of societies that turned complete blind eyes to rape and stealing from individuals they believe to be beneath then.
    Regardless, my argumentation still stands. If your going to present freedom merely as a creation of more choice, then I should question why you agree with these common limitations.

    If you think there is more to deciding freedoms than that you should explain.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4713 Pts   -  
    Plaffelvohfen said:

    Oh yeah, because the "Freedom to steal-murder-rape" is actually a thing, right? 

    How could I forget that they are recognized in the US Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the countless other legal defining documents throughout human history, everyone is out there protesting that these freedoms are being infringed upon...  

    How silly of me...  :smirk:  

    This is a fallacious argument: the fact that something is not recognized by certain official bodies does not imply that it is "not a thing". There was a time when no government on planet Earth had a problem with the concept of "freedom to own another person"; nowadays no government recognizes such freedom. Does it mean that it was a thing in the past and now it is not? And does it mean that in the past it was a metaphysically coherent concept, but in the present it is not? That is obviously preposterous.

    Michael is absolutely right: prohibiting someone from stealing, murdering and raping restricts their freedom; it is technically and factually true. Anything that limits what you can do restricts your freedom, by definition. The question relevant to the discussion is not what set of laws maximizes some sort of a generalized integral over all people's freedoms, but what set of laws corresponds to the spirit of the system and promotes the freedoms that are aligned with it. The freedom to own slaves is arguably not in the spirit of the Common Law, for instance, while the freedom to own a patch of land is.

    Is the freedom to undergo abortion in the spirit of the Common Law? In my view, absolutely yes. But that is not at all the argument you are making; you instead are appealing to the currently existing law which, itself, is to be questioned with respect to its alignment with that spirit. You cannot say that something is okay because the law says that it is okay, or that something is wrong because the law says that it is wrong; it works only the other way around - understanding what is okay leads one to make claims about what laws should or should not exist.
    DeePlaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2926 Pts   -   edited August 10
    @MayCaesar
    MayCaesar said:

    This is a fallacious argument: the fact that something is not recognized by certain official bodies does not imply that it is "not a thing".
    It does imply that it's not a thing in Jurisprudence, which is a fact... 
    There was a time when no government on planet Earth had a problem with the concept of "freedom to own another person"; nowadays no government recognizes such freedom.
    Does it mean that it was a thing in the past and now it is not?

    Again, as a matter of Jurisprudence, it absolutely does mean that... 

     And does it mean that in the past it was a metaphysically coherent concept, but in the present it is not? That is obviously preposterous

    As a general metaphysical matter, obviously preposterous I agree...

    Michael is absolutely right: prohibiting someone from stealing, murdering and raping restricts their freedom; it is technically and factually true.  Anything that limits what you can do restricts your freedom, by definition.

    Yes, absolutely true!!! But then, it's also factually irrelevant because the Law is ontologically liberticide...  That's the whole point of the thing, you do get that right? The only relevant question, with regards to Jurisprudence, is not IF we should restrict freedoms, but which and by how much... If you want to argue about the purported necessity of the Law in our societies fine, but that would be a completely different debate...
    This one being about the concept of personhood in Jurisprudence as it relates to abortion...

    The question relevant to the discussion is not what set of laws maximizes some sort of a generalized integral over all people's freedoms, but what set of laws corresponds to the spirit of the system and promotes the freedoms that are aligned with it

    Exactly!! Why do you think I kept specifying "in secular democratic systems" all this time, it's in nearly all the comments I've made in this discussion... I have to keep specifying it every time for this very purpose, to put my argument in context otherwise my opponent moves the goalposts outside that context...

    You cannot say that something is okay because the law says that it is okay, or that something is wrong because the law says that it is wrong; it works only the other way around - understanding what is okay leads one to make claims about what laws should or should not exist.

    Are you conflating legal and moral? Because it certainly reads like it... The law does not (and certainly should not) say if anything is "ok" or "wrong", "good" or "bad", that's the theocratic mindset, conflating Morality and Legality... All the Law says, and should say, is if something is legal or illegal... Whether a law is good or bad (worthy to be followed or not) is up to the individual, always was and always will be, that is what allowed peasants to overthrow their kings... In democratic systems, the collective bargaining process (elected representative) functions as an upstream filter (obviously not foolproof, because humans...) for the socially unacceptable (bad) laws... 

    Michael is still a disingenuous theocrat... Not a blame, just an observation...

    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "

  • How could I forget that they are recognized in the US Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the countless other legal defining documents throughout human history, everyone is out there protesting that these freedoms are being infringed upon... 

    How could I forget that they are recognized in the US Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the countless other legal defining documents throughout human history, everyone is out there protesting that these freedoms are being infringed upon...  As point of fact on record the United States Constitution described steal-murder-rape as liberties not freedoms, or rights people have. Those people who exorcise liberty as a freedom and right must be able to back that claim with proof that no cost is taking place, to themselves or costs imposed onto others.

    Body autonomy is a Human Right and not a Constitutional Right only because of facts in the matter, a women like men do not have control of their own body they are at the whim of nature. Asking the legislation of law to provide a greater condition that does not exist nature is not a right; it is not even a wrong it becomes an improbability. Our Independence form European law states clearly the America's have assumed certain rights as law of nature. Among them LIFE, LIBERTY, AND A PUIRSUIT OF HAPIENESS. Freedom is only a liberty under a set condition.

    To be clear on what is missing as a female United States Constitutional right. A criminal charge of murder that takes place when a person, any person, be they religious or not interferes with a women’s address to termination of an immigration by creation of life, and as a result of that interference a harm or death is to befall her. Human rights standards have always been lower than consitutional standards in the establishment of legal rights, it is why abortion includes a self-incriminaiton that was found WONG and ILLEGAL in America well before Roe vs Wade.

    All MichaelElpers is doing is providing witness account as to why After Roe Vs Wade took place the C.I.A. had an obligation to pursue legal recourse in the Texas State and Federal Courts. This to  force the address and correction of a grievance which implicates a possible malpractice of law


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -   edited August 11
    @Plaffelvohfen

    "The only relevant question, with regards to Jurisprudence, is not IF we should restrict freedoms, but which and by how much"

    Oh good. I agree.  With that in mind, I'm not sure why this line of argumentation that providing a choice in abortion automatically corresponds  to a positive was sound argumentation.
    "My position gives a choice, yours don't...
    Option A = Choice 
    Option B = No choice
    And you seriously believe, that option A is not more freedom giving than B???? I mean, SERIOUSLY?????""

    "Michael is still a disingenuous theocrat... Not a blame, just an observation..."

    Yet you can provide no evidence of me referencing religion for my argumentation.  Generally a requirement for a theocrat.

    If I was a true theocrat I'd want law to restrict anything sinful and require things I consider good.
    Do I want a ban on contraception? No
    Do I want gay marriage bans? No
    Do I want other religions other than mine restricted? No

    The OP stated fetal personhood is a religious view, and that wasn't supported.
    If we are going to consider all developmental levels of human beings after birth persons, regardless of impairments, I'm not sure why including early developments of a human being is such a leap.  Birth is not some magical event that changes a human beings identity or ability to reason.  On a philophical level or scientific level nothing about that human being really changes other than they are physically disconnected from their mother.  If the fetus should be ignored I'm not sure why a infant or baby shouldn't also be ignored.

    Now some may still argue that regardless of whether theyre a person or not abortion should still be allowed.  That is not what was being addressed in this debate.
    Must fetal personhood be a religious view...no.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2926 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    The OP stated fetal personhood is a religious view, and that wasn't supported.

    And I agreed, but the OP also clearly placed the debate in a jurisprudential context which you keep getting out of...
    I understand that, having been groomed to be a theocrat, it makes distinguishing Law from Morality really difficult for you, and for that, I feel sorry for you... 

    But still, the motivation to legislate abortion is fundamentally a theocratic impulse... It's a will to legislate morality, nothing more... 

    Tell me, what are the actual problems that the American society is facing, that can only be solved by legislating abortion?? 
    What are the tangible benefits of legislating abortion?? What are the tangible repercussions of not legislating abortion?? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
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