The Great Big Abortion Debate (READ THE FIRST POST!)

[Eterna]

I find it ironic how many Pro lifers are for Capital Punishment.

 

[Malanu]

I find it ironic how many Pro lifers are for Capital Punishment.

Why? A innocent growing child is much more deserving of life than a convicted mass murderer.

 

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

Why? A innocent growing child is much more deserving of life than a convicted mass murderer.

The concept of 'Deserve' is subjective, if the law clearly states all human beings have the right to live, then who are we to judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die?

 

[Malanu]

The concept of 'Deserve' is subjective, if the law clearly states all human beings have the right to live, then who are we to judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die?

I am a former Infantry Marine. My job was to shoot those people determined to need dying most expediently. So that very right to life is... subjective.

 

[CSolarstorm]

The concept of 'Deserve' is subjective, if the law clearly states all human beings have the right to live, then who are we to judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die?

I think this is a misguided defense - the law doesn't state that crime prosecution doesn't exist. In fact, right to a trial is also a recognized right, which implies that we can deny others of their rights, if they committed a crime, and we gave them a fair trial to confirm their guilt. And capital punishment is the oldest understood punishment for crime there is, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

To me, currently the whole idea that a woman must go through with their labor often takes the form of treating their decision to have sex as a crime, like 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime' only 'if you didn't want to have a baby, you shouldn't have had sex'. This sentiment pops up way too often.

 

[Eterna]

I am a former Infantry Marine. My job was to shoot those people determined to need dying most expediently. So that very right to life is... subjective.

Nope, not really.

 

[mattj]

Nope, way to completely miss the point.

Your simplistic mentality called for the fact your belief that abortion should not be legalized because it violates the right to live, yet justify the death penalty because it kills the criminal disregarding that they too are human and entitled to the right to live (corresponding evidence is in later responses). Point is, even if we were to share the same belief that abortion does in fact violate the core rights to a life (since the fetus is human according to your source), the other documents state that ALL human beings have a right to a life, and that they are not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishments.

???

I missed the point?

You said that all documents claim that capital punishment is illegal. I quoted a supreme court ruling and the US constitution that quite clearly supports capital punishment word for word (ignoring the obvious testimony of history itself). How was that missing the point? It seems you missed the point. You made the claim that all documents condemned capital punishment and I provided two documents that support it. Do you not see the point? Not all rights documents condemn capital punishment. I have no clue why you think all rights documents condemn capital punishment. They don't.

Haha, I have never in any of my responses regarded nor condemned a fetus as a parasite (the worst I have said FYI is that the fetus is a part of a mother). That’s YOUR misconception of me, and quite frankly you need to source it then to prove me wrong. It’s disgustingly hypocritical that you maintain the right to life as justifiable for fetuses but conveniently forget that criminals also hold the same rights thanks to the fifth amendment and due process.

And just where did I claim that criminals don't have the right to due process? Due process means Miranda Rights and a trial and that kind of thing. Can you show us where I claimed that criminals don't deserve those rights?

Because appeals always solve problems and you conveniently disregard that the criminal justice system does have its flaws (otherwise, we’d be living in a utopia ). Otherwise, explain to me why there are wrongful convictions (I can bring up numbers of these frequencies of wrongful convictions if you’d like). How can you even say that? Say someone’s odds are baseless and then not provide anything to back up your claim.

Way to move the goalpost. You claimed that innocent people getting condemned to death was a problem. I pointed out there are appeals. No one cares to take the argument any farther.

Here’s what I have to back up my claims. 140 people have been found innocent facing death row where USA have killed approximately 1303 people in death row since 1976. Do the math, 140/1303, which is 11%, which is close to 1 in 7 being 14% therefore showing that the estimation wasn’t baseless. Now I will admit that I should’ve revised and said that 1 person per 7 executed inmates is innocent, and that is fact.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-year

Your list includes everyone who was pardoned. In Illinois for example, the governor pardoned everyone on Death Row regardless of whether or not they were innocent because he didn't believe in the death penalty. They're still in jail, just off of death row.

You’re in dream land, explain why 17 States in the USA and Canada have abolished the Death Penalty? Because 1) You’re wasting taxpayer dollars by killing people as opposed to jailing them for life 2) There’s that sliver of a chance that an innocent person is killed (if you know anything about law metaphors, you would know that it violates the proverb ‘it’s Better to let a guilty person free than to imprison an innocent person’), 3) It’s not even close to being a deterrent, otherwise explain why crime rates in Texas are still high while crime rates in death penalty-free cities continue to be a fraction of the death penalty countries? There are many other points against the dp that I can make because of inefficiency and conflicts with society and law.

Okay. So apparently you don't get it. This is not the death penalty thread and no one could care any less about why you don't support the death penalty, me the least of which. Your anti-death penalty rants are white noise. To bring you back to reality, the point is that numerous rights documents and countries and states and territories, etc, etc, etc do support the death penalty for guilty people. Can you refute this? Obviously not. End of discussion.

And wait, I thought you didn’t care about Canadian Law? Let's not be Hypocritical Harry now shall we? So what gives you the authority to make a completely baseless point that the death penalty doesn’t violate Canadian Law and Human Rights when it has been condemned and prohibited from its laws for 40+ years?

Ahem? When did I make the claim that the death penalty doesn't violate Canadian law? Again, could you show us?

Owning guns has absolutely nothing to do with discussion of the ‘right to live’ given that they are different rights, and yes I am familiar with the rights that criminals do give up. However, you fail to take into account what the Fifth Amendment says:

Ahahaha! I'm sorry man, but this is just too good! The fact that criminals give up the right to own guns in the US has e v e r y t h i n g to do with this discussion. In case you've forgotten, you made the claim that criminals shouldn't have to give up the right to life. I made the point that they already give up other rights, such as the right to own guns, and here you've said "nuh uh! that doesn't have anything to do with this convo!" Come on now. Really? Of course it has everything to do with this convo. I'll ask you again, as you've tried to side step the issue, if criminals commonly lose other rights why would you think they absolutely couldn't forfeit the right to life upon being convicted of an appropriately serious crime?

Due process meaning the State must recognize these rights in the face of law. So the right to life is in fact different from other rights.

That is not what "due process" means. "Due process" means Miranda Rights, a trial, that kind of stuff. Rights=/=a process, lol.

I think it’s sadder that you can’t stay consistent with the idea that all humans have the right to live. In which legal documents have shown that the criminal’s right to life is not nullified unlike other rights.

When have I not been consistent about all humans having the right to live? I never said any of them had the right to live indefinitely. Did you just assume that? You know what they say about assuming things

I find it ironic how many Pro lifers are for Capital Punishment.

I find it ironic how many people like you stroll into threads without reading what has been said, literally a handful of posts before. I've already shown how reasonable the pro-life and pro-capital punishment positions can be together. Innocent babies deserve to live. Murderers don't. You know what doesn't make any sense? Killing innocent babies and defending murderers. That seems ironic to me.

The concept of 'Deserve' is subjective, if the law clearly states all human beings have the right to live, then who are we to judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die?

All laws do not clearly state that all human beings have the right to live indefinitely and without qualification. My law doesn't. No one gives a hoot if your law does.

 

[Kaiserin]

An article came to my attention today that I'm curious to hear everyone else's opinions about. A Kansas doctor has had her license revoked and is under fire for not forcing a ten-year-old to carry her child to term.

She's apparently getting flack for a few other cases she handled as well, but this is the one that's getting a lot of attention from the internet. The ten-year-old in question was a victim of incestuous rape by her uncle... the article mentions she's "mentally ill" as well, but I'm not sure what the specifics are on that. From the sound of it, it may just be PTSD due to the abuse. It also mentions that she made the decision even with the knowledge of what happened to her colleague, Dr. George Tiller, who was murdered because he performed (late-term, apparently) abortions at a clinic.

I do wonder sometimes if the amount of women who are put at risk and occasionally killed from complications, and even those handful who have been assaulted or murdered over performing abortions or supporting clinics that do, is worth the amount of babies carried to term that are supposedly saved by the pro-life movement.

 

[Eterna]

An article came to my attention today that I'm curious to hear everyone else's opinions about. A Kansas doctor has had her license revoked and is under fire for not forcing a ten-year-old to carry her child to term.

She's apparently getting flack for a few other cases she handled as well, but this is the one that's getting a lot of attention from the internet. The ten-year-old in question was a victim of incestuous rape by her uncle... the article mentions she's "mentally ill" as well, but I'm not sure what the specifics are on that. From the sound of it, it may just be PTSD due to the abuse. It also mentions that she made the decision even with the knowledge of what happened to her colleague, Dr. George Tiller, who was murdered because he performed (late-term, apparently) abortions at a clinic.

I do wonder sometimes if the amount of women who are put at risk and occasionally killed from complications, and even those handful who have been assaulted or murdered over performing abortions or supporting clinics that do, is worth the amount of babies carried to term that are supposedly saved by the pro-life movement.

So, a group of people are trying to force a 10 year old girl to give birth to a baby that was conceived while she was raped by her uncle?? WHAT?! Do they not realize that a girl at that age would likely have a slew of complications during labour and birth? How being pregnant can affect a 10 year olds body?

What would they say if both the mother and infant died during the birth? It's completely ridiculous and is taking this pro life stance too far.

 

[Iceberg]

The torture tool for rape would be the rapist, as for his child, this would be limited to 9 months. Granted, it is not the same as rape followed by pregnancy, but what I am trying to say is that rape is not necessarily the most psychologically damaging thing that can happen to a person. Torture jumped to my mind as the 1st thing, but many other things that lead to shock, and PTSD, like rape, is what I'm thinking of. To boil it down, what I'm trying to say is that while men cannot experience standard man-on-woman rape on the receiving end, men CAN experience excruciating physical/mental pain, which may give them some degree to empathise. However, I will admit that only victims of rape can actually properly empathise with this.

I see where you are coming from with the torture analogy. But rape has one more important thing that brings it above every other traumatic event. Assuming you are a normal person, you don't spend a lot of time doing torture, so you won't have a very direct thing to make you remember it. Same for if you saw someone murdered. However, sex is a very frequent activity among healthy adults. If you were raped, every time you have sex you would be reminded of the rape incident. Even though sex may not be violent like rape, it involves the same type of activities that I will refrain from writing. You admitted that only a rape victim can truly understand this pain. So I'll leave this at that.

Whatever definition of 'alive' you are using is different from many others. I'm assuming it's from the $150 textbook you mentioned a while back (on that point, it's not always easy to find scientific papers directly, hence me using a source which cited papers on Wikipedia (which I don't like using unless there's nothing else I can find), reluctantly, a while back). My definition is different, and once again, it creates an impasse in this debate. Arms/legs grow from the organism, yet unborn children implant for a while, but they do not grow directly from their mother, even though they become dependent on the mother for all the nutrients/oxygen. This difference is why I do not see 'Being connected physically and relying completely on an organism' as necessarily being part of it, IMO. The mother may provide the nutrients, but it is the baby that does the growing with those nutrients.

Arguably, it is the mother that provides the nutrients, but the arm that does the growing. Since arms and unborn babies aren't sentient, have some vital signs, and can't exist without the mother, they are pretty similar. However, as you said this is purely opinion. I think that is the problem with abortion debates, a good chunk of either sides arguments are opinion and philosophy. Because of that, I think the best solution would be to let people decide if they want abortion. Pro-lifers think it's immoral, cool, they don't have to get abortions. Pro-choicers think abortion is fine because the unborn baby isn't a person, cool, they can get abortions. I don't see why someone's opinion should dictate someone else's life.

Whenever you say something like 'X is Y', and that statement is not generally accepted as the truth, it's generally taken as stating opinion as fact. What you're going to need to do is state what statements of mine you see as opinions, quote them, and what proof you want to back them up. If I can't back them up, then all I can do is add 'IMO'. This is practically unavoidable on both sides, especially in debates like this where people define stuff differently, so you're going to need to stop me when there appears to be a difference in definition or something like that, and find out what I mean by it.

I see where you're coming from. I never meant to state my opinions as facts. Sorry if you understood it that way. I'm not ignorant enough to consider my word the law.

I think our varying definitions of life/personhood are the issue right here. I think personhood starts at conception, or at the very least know there is a probability greater than 0, that personhood begins at conception, therefore aborting at or beyond that point is killing a person, or has a probability greater than 0 of killing a person. The latter style of argument uses risk analysis, the former uses opinion. The opinions on both sides aren't pure opinions, but have some basis in science. The problem is, there is no definitive right answer, hence the risk analysis I mentioned before.

Since you think sentient thought doesn't start at birth, or that a person is a person for a different reason, I am interested to know what you think does separate a person from a non-person. And please refrain from saying unborn babies have the ability to become a person, because 1) you have then conceded that unborn babies are not currently a person and 2) to be devils advocate, any animal has the possibility of evolving over millions of years into a person-level creature.

Gothitelle K stated recently that she is a girl and pro-life, however, so I'm afraid that it proves the opinion is false. As for the bold thing, it was doing it on large parts of, or entire sentences, that made it seem like shouting, not on, say, 2-3 words at a time. Even caps lock on a single word can be used for emphasis instead of shouting.

54% of men were pro-life, and 49% of women were pro-life

It would be interesting to know what percent of those women had their views swayed by men/family or were religiously motivated. Allow me to elaborate, my mother was pro-choice and was going to abort my older sister. However, her family said they would basically ignore her existence if she aborted the unborn baby. I contend that scenarios like this might persuade some women to be pro-life. However, there obviously are some women that are pro-life.

I can see that you want to focus on a concrete someone-who-is-most-definitely-a-person point-of-view, but what happens if your point-of-view is wrong. That's a big part of my risk analysis argument (the entire thing is very long, hence why I posted a link to it earlier, rather than an impossible copy&paste job). I have to consider what happens if any point of view is wrong, both life starting at conception, and life starting at birth, as well as any point in between.

I read your risk analysis post and it was rather well written. However, although I can see your point, it still wavers on opinion. The opinion at hand is that an unborn baby is a living human at any point, whereas some people contend it is after birth. I still believe the rights of a concrete person are more important than the rights of what may or may not be a person, depending on who you ask. I can completely see where you're coming from.

I'm afraid people can't even agree on that last sentence, and I can't say any proposed solution is paved with sunshine and rainbows, I'm aware of that in my risk analysis that I did. IMHO, I have to stick to preserving life as much as possible first when measuring risk, so the numbers I use in my analyses earlier in this thread reflect that, but I also try to model other risks such as all the stuff that goes wrong when assigning personhood too early and needlessly forcing babies to be carried to term (I should point out these are all hypothetical scenarios). When I go through it all, I end up with conception as being the best choice, and that is the ultimate reason I am pro-life. I can post a link to it again if you want, but it is *EXTREMELY* long.[/QUOTE]

Again I see your point, but I feel you cannot fully comprehend the full issue. It is not fault on your part, just that you are not a woman. You don't know how much work it is to give birth/be pregnant, and even afterwards raise a child (even if you have children, let's be honest and admit that in the vast majority of scenarios it is the mother doing most of the work). Your life and every freedom/choice you could have had would be completely gone, may that be for the 18 years needed to raise a child you tried to prevent, or the 9 months to give birth. If you were a student, any hopes you had at finishing your degree, especially an advanced degree, would pretty much be gone. That is why I am pro-choice. As a woman, I wouldn't want to sacrifice my dreams for something I didn't want.

the only question I had was stated above, what do you think separates a person from a non-person?

This is off-topic, but I must say I enjoy debating with you. Firstly unlike others you don't respond with stupid insults nor wave away my arguments with comments such as "what is this I don't even" - mattj, and leave it at that, or call me a bigot when I am in-fact not racist or intolerant of others opinions. You actually respond with a structured point, which I admire.

Proved a point? Your'e saying you support date rape and the harvesting of children's organs? Really?

You said I support that. I don't see how either of those things relate to being a vegetable, especially harvesting organs. Date rape is completely different because it was some who forced the temporary sedation of the woman.

That probably is a pretty good summary of my position. A woman's right to bodily integrity is less important than an innocent, unborn human's right to live. I have no problem admitting that.

It is your opinion that it is a human. Lots of people, such as the Harvard research summary I posted in a previous post, do not believe so. Nobody can argue that a woman is alive and deserves full rights.

I thought about replying to the rest of your post, but the rest of it was just petty comments and not actual points.

 

[Scriptor Scorpio]

I've noticed people not responding that much to my points or opinions. Can anybody tell me why that is?

I realise I haven't quoted many people, since honestly I got a headache trying to read those multiquote posts, that's just me being me.

I also live in a drastically different timezone so I cannot possibly participate in this volleying of remarks, opinions and commentaries on remarks and opinions, limiting me to one longer, perhaps more tiresome post a day. No double posting and all that, you see.

Since quoting the first post would give everyone a headache or make them just flat-out ignore the requote, I won't. Though I urge everyone commenting after me to read it very carefully, because if I do have to find myself plowing through this tidal wave of posts, going against the first post, every time I try to make a contributing post, I will start multiquoting and dissect every single sentence someone posts that do not conform to this thread's rules.

I am talking about first and foremost the crummy arguments that pro-life and pro-choice use while they have already been dismantled before you even began to post in this topic. How a fetus is not alive and the personhood argument, for example. If I read the first post correctly, these arguments do not belong here. So maybe, after 88 extremely long pages, we start over, state every viable argument we each have to explain the detailed opinion we have, individually. Then, through careful analysis of every argument, we figure out the best possible answer to our question: when is abortion justified?

As I've said before, I can't multiquote everybody all the time because there's just too many and even gathering them in subgroups, then giving a short answer would be a work for giant centipedes or whatever.

So if I post my answers next time about certain types of arguments and you feel they don't fit in with my answers to proving they are irrelevant or wrong, go right ahead. But don't expect me to pass up the chance to pick it out and extensively prove it's flawed and thus just thickens this ridiculously large thread. If they don't comply with the rules of this thread or they are irrelevant in finding an answer to the question of justified abortion, you're not listening to anyone under any circumstance, correct?

Logical fallacy: 'if you prove me wrong, you're not right'. It is however correct to say, I'm still wrong in that case and need to gather other arguments. But if I prove you're wrong and you have no better option to save face than to ignore my arguments you cannot disprove... Well then, we're not really debating anymore, are we?

Sincerely,
Scriptor Scorpio.

 

[CSolarstorm]

@Scripter Scorpio - It could mean one of two things: 1) they're still writing their responses to you on Word, or 2) nobody can find a problem with your post.

@Iceberg - I think that's probably the case, Iceberg. From the very generalized studies I have taken in collge, it's my understanding that historically a sizable percentage of women have enforced the same standards that depower them because women are not always a cohesive group apart from men. These beliefs definately do come with an unacceptable kind of family pressure; I don't know if this is comparable, but the racist elements in my distant family were so strong that they were willing to neglect and harass my sick cousin just because she had a multiracial baby. My immediate family is pro-choice, and I am in a legal sense. The only reason I looked up those stats is because I don't like bad information tainting a good argument.

 

[mattj]

You said I support that. I don't see how either of those things relate to being a vegetable, especially harvesting organs. Date rape is completely different because it was some who forced the temporary sedation of the woman.

Date rape and organ harvesting relate because in both cases the "victim" is completely unconscious. Concerning their consciousness there is literally no difference.

It is your opinion that it is a human. Lots of people, such as the Harvard research summary I posted in a previous post, do not believe so. Nobody can argue that a woman is alive and deserves full rights.

It is not my opinion that an unborn human child is human. That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read. Of course unborn human children are human. They are not eagles. They are not trees. They are human because they have human DNA. You can't be serious.

I thought about replying to the rest of your post, but the rest of it was just petty comments and not actual points.

lol
if you don't mind conceding that you have no response, I'm fine with that
calling my responses petty doesn't get you off the hook though
i've brought rebuttals and thus far you cannot answer them
gg

 

[GhostAnime]

May I ask what date rape has to do with abortion?

 

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

???

I missed the point?

You said that all documents claim that capital punishment is illegal. I quoted a supreme court ruling and the US constitution that quite clearly supports capital punishment word for word (ignoring the obvious testimony of history itself). How was that missing the point? It seems you missed the point. You made the claim that all documents condemned capital punishment and I provided two documents that support it. Do you not see the point? Not all rights documents condemn capital punishment. I have no clue why you think all rights documents condemn capital punishment. They don't.

Learn to read. ‘Right to a Life’ that includes ALL people, on top of only 1 constitutional document saying ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’ The point was more on right to a life rather than DP.

Way to move the goalpost. You claimed that innocent people getting condemned to death was a problem. I pointed out there are appeals. No one cares to take the argument any farther.

Oh but ‘innocent’ babies condemned to death is a big problem here…

Your list includes everyone who was pardoned. In Illinois for example, the governor pardoned everyone on Death Row regardless of whether or not they were innocent because he didn't believe in the death penalty. They're still in jail, just off of death row.

Seriously? Reread the list, only 7 cases out of 140 were pardoned.

Okay. So apparently you don't get it. This is not the death penalty thread and no one could care any less about why you don't support the death penalty, me the least of which. Your anti-death penalty rants are white noise. To bring you back to reality, the point is that numerous rights documents and countries and states and territories, etc, etc, etc do support the death penalty for guilty people. Can you refute this? Obviously not. End of discussion.

Way to conveniently gloss over the fact that SEVENTEEN states do not have the DP, thus becoming illegal to their laws.

Ahem? When did I make the claim that the death penalty doesn't violate Canadian law? Again, could you show us?

Here.

The death penalty is most definitely not in clear violation of Canadian and American Human Rights.

Ahahaha! I'm sorry man, but this is just too good! The fact that criminals give up the right to own guns in the US has e v e r y t h i n g to do with this discussion. In case you've forgotten, you made the claim that criminals shouldn't have to give up the right to life. I made the point that they already give up other rights, such as the right to own guns, and here you've said "nuh uh! that doesn't have anything to do with this convo!" Come on now. Really? Of course it has everything to do with this convo. I'll ask you again, as you've tried to side step the issue, if criminals commonly lose other rights why would you think they absolutely couldn't forfeit the right to life upon being convicted of an appropriately serious crime?

Because the right to a gun is the same as the right to a life lolwat. Because being a criminal does not automatically mean your life is to be forfeited (again as I’ve said, sure certain acts are inconceivable).

When have I not been consistent about all humans having the right to live? I never said any of them had the right to live indefinitely. Did you just assume that? You know what they say about assuming things

Just now, claiming criminals should die but not fetuses, at the very same time that you said you support state-sanctioned killing but not in cases of abortion.

 

[Eterna]

May I ask what date rape has to do with abortion?

Usually women don't want to have children that are the product of rape, it's for that reason that abortion should exist. It really isn't fair of us to allow a Woman to keep a reminder of that traumatic experience.

 

[Deku_Link]

Right to life > all other rights. It's that simple.

I agree. Now hand over your kidney, I'll die in a week without it.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Learn to read. ‘Right to a Life’ that includes ALL people, on top of only 1 constitutional document saying ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’ The point was more on right to a life rather than DP.

I'm for legal pro-choice and I don't even understand this argument. ALL of the rights are for all people; they are inalienable. Respectively, when you commit a crime, you have the right to a trial, and then you forfeit those rights if you are guilty. The same documents that guarantee those rights follow the context that there are circumstances where you commit a crime and lose them. There is no indication in them that the right to life is held in higher regard than the right to not be imprisoned, for istance. Being killed isn't speifically cruel and unusual, either. It was a common punishment back when these rights were first conceptualized. Furthermore, your argument seems like you're more and more against abortion and pro-life - be careful that you don't go SO far to prove a contradiction that you end up arguing for the thing you're arguing against!

Way to conveniently gloss over the fact that SEVENTEEN states do not have the DP, thus becoming illegal to their laws.

That's roughly a third of them; what's your point? The third that doesn't have the death penalty doesn't establish the universal illegality of it, especially not compared to the other two thirds.

Because the right to a gun is the same as the right to a life lolwat. Because being a criminal does not automatically mean your life is to be forfeited (again as I’ve said, sure certain acts are inconceivable).

He was saying that criminals lose many rights, so it isn't unusual that they'd lose the right to life as well. It had nothing to do with saying guns are as important as living, so that's a cheap shot. Where are you getting this hiarchy of rights from; what's telling you that one right is more important that another? You haven't established that it doesn't mean your life is forfeited while it is already practices under the impression it does; you haven't satisfied the burden of proof, and present realities contradict your claims.

 

[Iceberg]

Date rape and organ harvesting relate because in both cases the "victim" is completely unconscious. Concerning their consciousness there is literally no difference.

Consciousness isn't the point, it is the context at which they are unconscious.

It is not my opinion that an unborn human child is human. That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read. Of course unborn human children are human. They are not eagles. They are not trees. They are human because they have human DNA. You can't be serious.lol

What I meant was that you believe they are living humans and deserve rights. Others do not.

if you don't mind conceding that you have no response, I'm fine with that
calling my responses petty doesn't get you off the hook though
i've brought rebuttals and thus far you cannot answer them
gg

There is no way to reply to a comment such as "lol" or "what is this I don't even", both of which you have stated before. The aforementioned comments show how you either a) completely ignored your opponent's argument or b) couldn't think of a response so you resulted to nonsensical responses.

May I ask what date rape has to do with abortion?

mattj thinks that if you agree with abortion being legal you also agree date rape should be legal, since in both cases the person in question is unconscious.

Usually women don't want to have children that are the product of rape, it's for that reason that abortion should exist. It really isn't fair of us to allow a Woman to keep a reminder of that traumatic experience.

Glad to see someone with a heart. Even if she gives it up for adoption, she still had to labor for the child for a grueling nine months. Not to mention all the scars that pregnancy leaves; physical and mental.

I agree. Now hand over your kidney, I'll die in a week without it.

This made me laugh, in a good way, because that is exactly what JDavidC is suggesting. That we force someone to do something to their body that they don't want to, all for the sake of someone else. I couldn't have thought of a better way to put it.

 

[JDavidC]

the only question I had was stated above, what do you think separates a person from a non-person?

This won't be an easy question to answer, and the answer may not be satisfactory, but here goes anyway. Needless to say, the following is opinion.

To start off with, an organism with just human DNA is a person, but that's too shallow by itself. We need something(s) in common with unborn and born humans.

- Organized growth/adaptation. A person must be capable of this to be a person. Some part of the person must be capable of carrying out this organisation, even if that part modifies itself during growth. Even a zygote satisfies this, growth begins before it even implants in the uterus (and before any direct connection to another organism, the mother, is formed). Born people also satisfy this, the part of the person in control of the growth by this point is naturally, the human brain; or perhaps more specifically, the subconscious part of the human brain. I would argue that there is an equivalent version of the familiar brain, that has yet to grow itself and the rest of the body, in a zygote.
- Data that allows for development/maintenance of a conscious brain with sentient thought that differentiates humans from animals. Here is where the DNA comes in. Development and maintenance are both continuous processes at any point if I'm not mistaken.
- Fusing with other life-forms should not be required to develop further, connecting with them (e.g. implantation is different). i.e. Separate sperm and egg cells, even those with human DNA, are not people, they don't possess the unconscious brain that is needed to qualify as a human person, and to grow into what is definitely a human person. When a pair of each fuse, that is when things change, and an unconscious intelligence of some form starts the growth process for the new organism.

I will grant that the conscious brain that is used with the subconscious is a difference between an embryo/foetus and a born person, but without the subconscious brain with the DNA that controls everything, the conscious brain would not be possible. I should point out that there is a similarity between not having a conscious brain, but having a subconscious one capable of developing maintaining it, and having both the conscious and subconscious brains. In both cases, there will be times of unconsciousness with no dreaming. During these times, sentience is effectively disabled, just as it is not yet present with unborn children (at least to a certain stage). I don't require a conscious brain capable of sentient thought in my definition of a person, but I *DO* require an intelligence/subconscious brain capable of both growing and maintaining a conscious brain that is SOMETIMES capable of sentient thought (i.e. when the organism with the brain is conscious).

In a nutshell, an organism with a brain, of sorts, that may not be conscious, but has a subconscious capable of developing a body, and developing a sentient conscious part of the brain (which is only sentient while the organism is conscious, but is otherwise dormant), along with maintenance, including shutting down and restarting the conscious brain. Also, the subconscious brain itself should be capable of handling complex tasks, such as helping a conscious brain with figuring out problems, including those that require a sentient conscious brain, not to mention growth and maintenance of the human body, with appropriate responses to stimuli, and so on. Finally, if the organism has to fuse with others to grow further to meet these criteria (sperm/egg cells), then they are not yet people, but potential parts of people, in my opinion.

Obviously with certain disorders (anencephaly being a most terrible one), it's quite the grey area, but for me, the subconscious part of the brain is still there, but it hit an unfortunate obstacle it could not overcome (failure to close neural tube in brain stem IIRC).

There you have it, that's my opinion of what a person is. The key difference is I focus on the subconscious/unconscious brain or 'brain', that is already there even when you have a zygote (single fertilised egg cell), the earliest stage of embryo.