It was recently pointed out to me on another site which I hadn't considered before that what constitutes as being the definition of human life and/or when human life begins is often conflated with the moral acceptability of abortion. If abortion is murder because it is taking away a life then so is the Death Penalty, War heroes that fought for our nations are actually murderers, Euthanasia is murder, masturbation is murder, and so forth.
In fact, some might even consider that they're doing an unborn a favor by aborting if they are of the view that life in this world is nothing more than a
meaningless phase in this universe that just brings about nothing more than an endless amount of needless suffering according to their own moral stances.
In
summary, I will conclude that the idea of life or the talk about when human life begins is irrelevant to the abortion debate for two reasons.
For one, there is no point at which life can be said to have begun
anyway; it's much more of a continuous process than anything else (AKA
the metabolic stance in Bioethics,
http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf).
And that is let alone the actual definition as to what actually constitutes as being life. And secondly, it is nothing more than a
conflation of morality and life. Thus, this leads us to another problem which is the subject of morality. With regard to the abortion debate what needs to be considered are if the reasons given are valid and strong enough to warrant if abortion is necessary or unnecessary in any given circumstance. And the idea that abortion is generally unacceptable because it is to do with taking away life or the potential for life is not good enough. And if you are of this notion then you will also need to be consistent and hold the exact same view about the Death penalty, Euthanasia, War, Sexual intercourse, and so on.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
For example, I just ate a few protein bars. There is a chance that, if I instead had sent them over to a charity organisation, which, in turn, had sent them over to Africa, then it would find its way into the hands of a starving pregnant mother, and that mother might just be saved solely because of these protein bars, proceeding to give birth to a child.
Does it mean that eating these protein bars may constitute a violation? I do not think so.
In order for something to be a valid crime, there has to be a well determined victim, and that victim has to be around to be able to be a victim. An unborn child is not a victim, as it is not there in this world. A hypothetical pregnant African woman is not a victim, because there is no clear way to demonstrate otherwise. Presumption of innocence is a thing, and, unless a clear damage to an existing living breathing human can be demonstrated, the person cannot be considered guilty of harming them.
As for your last paragraph, I am not sure if it holds objectively, since some people do see human life as valuable in itself. I personally do not; to me a human life is just an abstract concept, and what really matters is what impact that human life has on the world - however, a sentient human being is valuable in itself, although I have always struggled justifying it logically. But, in general, anything can be considered valuable in itself by a certain reasoning.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human life    good chance   Presumption of innocence   hypothetical pregnant African woman  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: exact thing    lot   different wording    
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: huge can of worms    good chance   actions   principle  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
As for this bit, I am very much in agreement. I didn't say it holds objectively and I am also of the position that I am not sure this holds objectively either.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human life    abstract concept   last paragraph   sentient human being  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
First abortion is not a question of murder or not murder. Abortion in relationship to the united state made as a union with women, pregnancy, and the law is a described murder. The action of describing the murder invades a person’s privacy. What is being asked is if the woman is guilty of the murder she told, ask and/or insist on confessing.
In the United States of America, a constitutional union of grievance both with men and women can be made on that fact.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: united state    First abortion   question of murder   constitutional union of grievance  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: united state    First abortion   constitutional union of grievance   United States of America  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
The Death penalty, is self inflicted by the criminal or the offender, who committed their anti Family, Community, and anti Humanity crimes.
So when people want to defend people, who committed a crime that took an innocent persons life, then the Death penalty is appropriate.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, then you're not pro-life are you?
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
The loss of privacy was not rhetoric, not in 1973 and not now. It's not about murder it is about women failing to create all women as equal to negate prejudice between them. Just tired of waiting.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: loss of privacy    women   murder   prejudice  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: female rights    sort of cognitive bias   group females   female points of view  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Female United States Constitutional right. All women are created equal by their creator. Men are not the creator in this argument of debate the creator is some form of pregnancy that is the creator of all women. Without prejudice we to create a more perfect union between all women as a united state in this connection made with pregnancy and the woman who may take part in many possible ways they can use pregnancy.
Prejudice is not limited to sexual discrimination between men and woman it includes discrimination between a woman with other women.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: possible ways    form of pregnancy   sexual discrimination   perfect union  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
Are you maybe trying to tell me how to think, because your line of thought seems to imply that?
"So, then you're not pro-life are you?"
I ask because your question is a loaded, or a biased oriented question, it would appear?
I'm pro Life, but I will not be a supporter of any criminal or offender, who is incarcerated for acting in an anti Family capacity, because of their committed crimes of infringing on an innocent person's life, or Right to live, by having a criminal or offender, violating their Right to live, via their committed crimes?
I would be very curious to see how the family of a victim, might respond to your, (" So, then you're not pro life are you?" Question.) as you ask them in person, if the criminal who took their family members life, were given the Death penalty, outside of any courtroom, after asking the family, if they disagreed with the criminals Death penalty verdict?
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
You cannot justify being prolife in the abortion case and then say you are fine with the taking away of life in the death penalty or any other cases that involve taking away a life. Because then it is no longer a case of being pro-life.
Your post pretty much proves my point about morality conflation regarding the abortion debate.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: death penalty    pro life   abortion case   logical inconsistency  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
You just proved that your opinion, is self served, by using "ME" to push your individual rhetoric, right?
"@TKDB if you support the death penalty then you cannot be pro life as that is a logical inconsistency.
You cannot justify being prolife in the abortion case and then say you are fine with the taking away of life in the death penalty or any other cases that involve taking away a life. Because then it is no longer a case of being pro-life.
Your post pretty much proves my point about morality conflation regarding the abortion debate."
@ZeusAres42
I will always place Adoption, Kids, Family, Community, and Humanity above your apparent pro criminal, pro offender, and your anti Death Penalty attitudes?
@ZeusAres42
Because there isn't a rapist, shooter, or killer, who is incarcerated in jail, that can claim that they are pro life, can they?
But you'll judge my argument, and you'll give those criminals, and offenders, an apparent pass?
Because going after my argument, is easier than asking a prisoner who is in jail for rape, murder, and their other crimes right?
"You cannot justify being prolife in the abortion case and then say you are fine with the taking away of life in the death penalty or any other cases that involve taking away a life. Because then it is no longer a case of being pro-life."
IE the gun violence crimes, abortion, rape, murder, sexual assaults, drive by shootings, domestic violence, and so on.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.7  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Capital Punishment is not really the same as the death penalty. As the fact is everyone might justify the admission of taking a life. No-one justices the loss of privacy by forcing people to make the admission to take life by use of capital punishment. There is a trial process abortion is a tribunal process.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.76  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: death penalty    pro life   Capital Punishment   abortion case  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: death penalty    pro life   life   support  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
Are trying to tell me how to think?
"@TKDB it really is quite simple. If you are against abortion because you support life then you cannot say that you support the death penalty as that is the very act of taking away a life also. If you say you are pro life except in cases of the death penalty this is nothing more than a fallacy of special pleading. You're either pro Life which means support for all life or you're not."
Because an abortion, is no different from the Death Penalty, is it?
But here you are, trying to tell people, that their thinking is a fallacy, because they're not seeing things according to the words coming out of your own mouth right?
How does a fetus deserve to be aborted because two consensual adults were too lazy to use contraceptives, before being intimate?
Is an incarcerated prisoners life, more important than an unborn babies life is, ZeusAres42, because that question should be easy to answer right?
@ZeusAres42
Rape is a fallacy, isn't it?
Sexual assault is a fallacy, isn't it?
Abortion is a fallacy, isn't it?
@ZeusAres42
Are you pro incarcerated prisoner?
Are you pro Abortion?
Are you pro family, or are you pro criminal, and pro offender?
(Because if you're pro criminal, and offender, then how can you be pro family at the same time?)
@ZeusAres42
Because if you're pro incarcerated prisoner, and pro criminal, and pro offender, while being pro Abortion at the same time, then the rhetoric that you've been shoveling in my direction, makes sense.
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
Wow. You got all that just by me saying you cannot be pro-life and support the death penalty at the same time? Really? Wow!
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra