logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> When should abortion be legal?, Is there a line in time?
ZeeSaga
post Aug 27 2009, 04:14 AM
Post #1


*****
Anarcho-Pacifist

Sponsor
November 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 235
Member No.: 10,613
Joined: August-6-09

From: Chico, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



This topic will attempt to designate a time that one would legally be allowed to abort a fetus/child based on scientific events and not calendar time or religious theories. I saw an article which I can no longer find that said that abortion should be legal up until the brain is mostly developed in the average child. He proposed that that made sense because then the child would have a consciousness and therefore be human making an abortion essentially murder. First I thought that didn't make sense since not too many people claim to remember anything from before their birth but then again not many people remember much before 2-3 years of age and aborting a 2 year old is obviously out of the question. He gave the rough time of brain development at 6 weeks.
I thought that had made the most sense I have heard ever on the subject but thought I should bring it up for debate to hear other views. I can not think of any other significant events in birth besides conception and actually birth. Conception seems reasonable if scientists can not agree on an age that would define being human because it's always better safe then sorry. Birth seems way too late with the evidence showing premature births are viable. There has to be an event that changes a "fetus" to a "human", so what is it?

When do you think a child/fetus should be protected by law?

Is this really a woman's issue or a science issue or perhaps even a philosophical issue?

What group of people can be trusted to come up with this answer, scientists or politicians?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
21 Pages V  « < 9 10 11 12 13 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (200 - 219)
entspeak
post Sep 24 2009, 08:58 PM
Post #201


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Sep 24 2009, 03:28 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 24 2009, 03:31 PM) *
Okay, but that isn't the example of the abortion exception in the law being ruled unconstitutional. That is an example of the State passing a law that's more restrictive. If you guys are going to create scenarios that might be possible in future... I'll continue to say... "can" is not "is" or "has been." Under the existing law, there is an abortion exception. You are talking about a nonexistent law. Under existing law - not some possible future that hasn't happened yet, who would have standing to attempt to get the abortion exception ruled unconstitutional.


Well, since I can't think of any other way for the abortion exception to be ruled unconstitutional, I figured that a challenge to a new state law must be what Lesly was talking about.

Maybe a state attorney general would be able to challenge an existing law somehow, but I can't think of any examples of this happening. Or if a state amended their constitution's wording to extend rights to the unborn, then their attorney general challenged their existing laws... They all seem like extraordinary scenarios to me. But if I had to guess who might have standing, I'd say an attorney general. (But I'm too busy to look that up.)


A state attorney general's job is as legal counsel to the State - it wouldn't be his/her job to challenge the State. Unless I misunderstood her, Lesley was talking about having the abortion exception ruled unconstitutional... that, to me, was a reference to existing law.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Sep 24 2009, 09:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Sep 25 2009, 09:37 PM
Post #202


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Vermillion,

I've been through all your posts in this thread and I'm not finding any source posted for the "universally accepted biological and medical criteria for life forms."



Also, I think a fuller examination of the "potentiality" argument might be in order, given that you dismissed it when I raised the issue, but have also posted this:
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Sep 16 2009, 03:38 AM) *
... The issue comes down to viability. You see after 23-24 weeks, a foetus is technically viable, meaning it can survive on its own outside the womb. Now, it probably wont survive, but it has the capacity to potentially survive outside the womb. According to long-standing and universally accepted biological criteria, at that point it can be considered a life form as it has gained 'independent survivability', or the ability to potentially survive on its own in an ideal environment.
It seems your idea of "viability" includes "potentiality." No?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Sep 25 2009, 10:31 PM
Post #203


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 25 2009, 04:37 PM) *
It seems your idea of "viability" includes "potentiality." No?


But you shouldn't confuse recognition of the potential ability to survive outside the womb as part of the definition for viability with the potential for one thing to become another. Two different forms of potentiality.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Sep 25 2009, 11:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Sep 26 2009, 12:35 AM
Post #204


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 25 2009, 05:31 PM) *
But you shouldn't confuse recognition of the potential ability to survive outside the womb as part of the definition for viability with the potential for one thing to become another. Two different forms of potentiality.
How do you see that I AM confusing the two?

I'm not talking about a shrimp becoming a human being ... I'm talking about a zygote/embryo/fetus becoming a human being.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Sep 26 2009, 01:31 AM
Post #205


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 25 2009, 07:35 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 25 2009, 05:31 PM) *
But you shouldn't confuse recognition of the potential ability to survive outside the womb as part of the definition for viability with the potential for one thing to become another. Two different forms of potentiality.
How do you see that I AM confusing the two?

I'm not talking about a shrimp becoming a human being ... I'm talking about a zygote/embryo/fetus becoming a human being.


Oh... oh, I thought you were talking about shrimp becoming human... sorry. See, I've been discussing shrimp this entire time. dry.gif

There is a difference between in the context between the potential of a zygote transforming into a human being and the potential of that human being to survive outside the womb. One is the potential for a transformation to occur and the other is a potential for what it has transformed into to survive outside the womb. Having a discussion about one doesn't mean the reasoning for that discussion applies to the other... because they are two different types of potential. You can't use Vermillion's mention of it in another context as though it creates some kind of contradiction in his argument regarding the context you wish to discuss - it doesn't.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Sep 26 2009, 01:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Sep 26 2009, 04:08 AM
Post #206


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 25 2009, 08:31 PM) *
There is a difference between in the context between the potential of a zygote transforming into a human being and the potential of that human being to survive outside the womb.
So, is the question, "What makes a 'human being'?"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Sep 26 2009, 04:34 AM
Post #207


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 25 2009, 11:08 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 25 2009, 08:31 PM) *
There is a difference between in the context between the potential of a zygote transforming into a human being and the potential of that human being to survive outside the womb.
So, is the question, "What makes a 'human being'?"


Well, the exact question is, "What constitutes a person?" What is legal person-hood? Again, I believe a zygote is not a person and a newborn is a person. So, where should the line be drawn? Because pregnancy times vary and fetuses can survive outside the womb as newborns prior to what would be the normal end of a pregnancy, I don't think the line should be drawn at the end of what would be a normal pregnancy. A zygote is not a person, so I wouldn't put the line there, either. Viability makes the most sense - a point in the pregnancy where, typically, a fetus can survive if it is taken out of the womb prematurely... because if it is removed and does survive, then it is a newborn and, therefore, a person.

A fetus, prior to 21 weeks, has no chance of survival with current technology being what it is. At 21 weeks, the chances are slim to none. At 23 weeks, it's 20-30%. At 24 weeks it's 50%. These aren't figures based upon shrimp development, these are figures based upon fetal development... the development of organs that constitute a life form (in this case, a person) and our technological ability to compensate for a lack of development.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Sep 26 2009, 04:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Sep 26 2009, 05:52 AM
Post #208


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,457
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 12:34 AM) *
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 25 2009, 11:08 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 25 2009, 08:31 PM) *
There is a difference between in the context between the potential of a zygote transforming into a human being and the potential of that human being to survive outside the womb.
So, is the question, "What makes a 'human being'?"


Well, the exact question is, "What constitutes a person?" What is legal person-hood?.....


Another way to look at this is, when does a baby become an American citizen, with all the rights that go along with that? And that doesn't happen until birth, and then only under the right circumstances (born on American soil, American parent(s), etc.). So to extend any rights to an unborn baby is to extend rights to someone who might not even be an American citizen when born. Plus, you could have other legal questions if you grant rights before birth - what if American parents are in another country and get an abortion? What laws apply?

The point is that granting rights before birth is, legally, very problematic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Sep 26 2009, 07:28 AM
Post #209


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Sep 26 2009, 12:52 AM) *
Another way to look at this is, when does a baby become an American citizen, with all the rights that go along with that? And that doesn't happen until birth, and then only under the right circumstances (born on American soil, American parent(s), etc.). So to extend any rights to an unborn baby is to extend rights to someone who might not even be an American citizen when born. Plus, you could have other legal questions if you grant rights before birth - what if American parents are in another country and get an abortion? What laws apply?

The point is that granting rights before birth is, legally, very problematic.


Obviously, American abortion laws don't apply in other countries. Many people go to other countries to do things that would be considered illegal here... Amsterdam comes to mind. wink.gif

The 14th Amendment does not allow the States to deny any person - American citizen or no - the right to life.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kevmo
post Sep 26 2009, 07:57 AM
Post #210


****
Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 92
Member No.: 10,598
Joined: July-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 25 2009, 09:08 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 25 2009, 08:31 PM) *
There is a difference between in the context between the potential of a zygote transforming into a human being and the potential of that human being to survive outside the womb.
So, is the question, "What makes a 'human being'?"

The law extends protections to corporations, which are persons formed out of thin air. So it can extend protections to real human life.


QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 23 2009, 10:39 PM) *
You claim that stating a difference between something being alive and being a life form is nitpicking, but it's not. Hair follicles are alive... but they are not life forms. A mole is alive, but it is not a life form. Skin cells are alive, but they are not life forms. These are all examples of living tissue. Because something is alive doesn't mean it is a life form - as that word is defined.

At conception, a zygote is alive, it has human DNA, it is not a person.

At conception, a zygot is alive, it has unique human DNA and the reason why it is not a person, whereas a corporation in the U.S. IS a person, is that the law has not decided to extend rights to it.

My claim stating there's a difference between hair and a growing human life form is perfectly obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by idealogy. Besides, my proposal doesn't extend protections to such lives (not yet, anyways) so it IS nitpicking.

QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Sep 23 2009, 11:23 PM) *
That's just creepy.

Creepy is killing the baby. Just look at the pictures of dead fetuses if you're not convinced. But thanks for addressing my proposal after all this time.

QUOTE(Vermillion @ Sep 24 2009, 02:01 AM) *
Its clear you didnt understand the difference between the two until I went out of my way to educate you on the topic,


It's clear by your condescending tone and nitpicking nonsense that you have no intention of debating nor educating. If you think that's a central issue, then ask whether both you and I agree about extending rights to zygotes when you review my proposal. By all means, don't go out of your way next time. sour.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Sep 26 2009, 08:48 AM
Post #211


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 25 2009, 09:37 PM) *
Vermillion,

I've been through all your posts in this thread and I'm not finding any source posted for the "universally accepted biological and medical criteria for life forms."


I posted one 4 pages back, but I have also pointed out that a simple use of google will give you the same thing. None the less, for your edification:
Homeostasis, Organization, Metabilism, Growth, Adaptation, response to Stimulus, Reproduction*, Independent survivability, Integrity.


QUOTE
]It seems your idea of "viability" includes "potentiality." No?


No, same word entirely different use. Viability means that the fertus has the theoretical ability and capacity to survive independently in an ideal environment. The term theoretical capacity, and earlier when I used potentially survive, is because the majority of premature babies born at that time do NOT survive. Entspeak was being overly generous with survival rates for premature babies.

QUOTE(Kevmo)
It's clear by your condescending tone and nitpicking nonsense that you have no intention of debating nor educating. If you think that's a central issue, then ask whether both you and I agree about extending rights to zygotes when you review my proposal. By all means, don't go out of your way next time.


Its not a condescending tone, its the absolute factual truth. I have had to explain to you what viability means (you thought it was once extended to 6 year olds) I have had to explain to you what a life form is (You clearly demonstrated you didnt understand, and once you had it explained to you you tried to dismiss this critical central issue as irrelevant), you have made assertion after assertion with no foundation, evidence or justification and have routinely ignored salient points, unvarnished evidence and demonstrated facts. I have NEVER engaged in nit-picking in this debate Kevmo. I have never posted nonsense, in fact I have run circles around your fallacious and unsupported, unscientific claims.

And now that you have realised the fallacy of your position and decided to just stop answering direct question or dealing with specific issues or even answering my points, you do not now get to turn around and pretend you have some kind of moral high ground of any kind. You engaged in dishonest tactics and dishonest debate from the get-go, and when the burden of proof against you became to strong, you quit. Entirely your choice of course, but dont now try and pretend it was anything else. If you wish to actually debate, then by all means try and engage in honest debate. If you have NO intention of debating, then snippy, revisionist comments about past arguments serve to help your cause not at all: quite the opposite.


QUOTE(Kevmo)
At conception, a zygot is alive, it has unique human DNA and the reason why it is not a person, whereas a corporation in the U.S. IS a person, is that the law has not decided to extend rights to it.

My claim stating there's a difference between hair and a growing human life form is perfectly obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by idealogy. Besides, my proposal doesn't extend protections to such lives (not yet, anyways) so it IS nitpicking.


As you are well aware by now, this is quite false. The reason a zygote is not a person is due to far more than the fact that the law has not recognised it. There are, as you have had explained to you in excruciating detail, a lengthy series of medical and biological reasons why this is the case. Besides, 'personhood' is somewhat irrelevant here, as you and other pro-lifers have no intention of actually according a zygote personhood, and thus EQUAL protection and rights under the law, such a thing would be impossible. Among other problems it would mean a manslaughter investigation into every single woman among the tens of million every year who miscarried, to see if their actions in any way contributed to the miscarrriage. Even if they did not know they were pregnant. That is just one implication among thousands of others. They would need to be included in census, which means they would need to be named and given 'existence certificates' at conception (cant call them BIRTH certificates). You dont want a zygote given rights as a person, you just want them to have ONE right and choose to ignore all the other ones because they are impractical and impossible to apply. The very position of trying to define a zygote as a person under the law in just one way but not any other is blatantly hypocritical.

And given your until-recent ignorance of what a life form is, and your absolute refusal to engage on the topic once you were educated, I think it is quite misleading to now come back and poretend that entire debate never happened. Biologically, there is a difference between a zygote and hair, because a hair is actually dead cells and not alive at all. That little biology lesson aside, what I presume you MEANT to say is that you think (but are unwilling or unable to actually argue) that there is a vast difference between a spleen and a zygote. Well, apart from its potential, which is essentially irrelevant in law, no there is no difference. Since you refused or were unable to argue that point earlier, coming out now and proclaiming that anyone who disagrees with your already-defeated position is just 'blinded by ideology' is hilariously dishonest, to say the least.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Sep 26 2009, 12:22 PM
Post #212


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 25 2009, 11:34 PM) *
Well, the exact question is, "What constitutes a person?" What is legal person-hood?
OK, "person"; not "human being." (Ummm, what distinction, exactly, are you drawing here??)

QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 25 2009, 11:34 PM) *
Again, I believe a zygote is not a person and a newborn is a person. So, where should the line be drawn? Because pregnancy times vary and fetuses can survive outside the womb as newborns prior to what would be the normal end of a pregnancy, I don't think the line should be drawn at the end of what would be a normal pregnancy. A zygote is not a person, so I wouldn't put the line there, either. Viability makes the most sense - a point in the pregnancy where, typically, a fetus can survive if it is taken out of the womb prematurely... because if it is removed and does survive, then it is a newborn and, therefore, a person.
Would you say that advances in medical technology over the last fifty years (which have changed the point at which a fetus has a realistic chance at survival outside the womb) have changed your definition of a "person"?

I agree a line should be drawn somewhere between conception and birth. I'm not satisfied that we've established (in this thread) where the line should be or what criteria we ought to use to decide where it should be.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE(Vermillion @ Sep 26 2009, 03:48 AM) *
Maybe Maybe Not:
"Vermillion,

I've been through all your posts in this thread and I'm not finding any source posted for the 'universally accepted biological and medical criteria for life forms.'"



I posted one 4 pages back, but I have also pointed out that a simple use of google will give you the same thing. None the less, for your edification:
Homeostasis, Organization, Metabilism, Growth, Adaptation, response to Stimulus, Reproduction*, Independent survivability, Integrity."
Your assertion; your responsibility to support it, not mine to google it.

This post has been edited by Maybe Maybe Not: Sep 26 2009, 12:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Sep 26 2009, 04:49 PM
Post #213


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 26 2009, 07:22 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 25 2009, 11:34 PM) *
Well, the exact question is, "What constitutes a person?" What is legal person-hood?
OK, "person"; not "human being." (Ummm, what distinction, exactly, are you drawing here??)


I'm drawing a distinction in the wording used to legally recognize rights. Is a person a human being? Yes.

QUOTE
Would you say that advances in medical technology over the last fifty years (which have changed the point at which a fetus has a realistic chance at survival outside the womb) have changed your definition of a "person"?

In terms of the context we are discussing here? No. As I stated quite clearly, a newborn is a person. What has changed is when a fetus can survive as a newborn.

QUOTE
I'm not satisfied that we've established (in this thread) where the line should be or what criteria we ought to use to decide where it should be.


What do you want?

QUOTE
QUOTE
Homeostasis, Organization, Metabilism, Growth, Adaptation, response to Stimulus, Reproduction*, Independent survivability, Integrity."
Your assertion; your responsibility to support it, not mine to google it.


This is your response to getting what you asked for? You want the list just so you can ignore it and point out that he shouldn't have mentioned that you can google it? Sure... not your responsibility to google it. But there it is - the criteria you asked for... and you refuse to even respond to it. No wonder you're having a problem being satisfied. What... were you going to wait and ask for this list of criteria again later? Was there a point to your asking for it now?

QUOTE(Vermillion)
I posted one 4 pages back, but I have also pointed out that a simple use of google will give you the same thing.


No... you didn't - not that I could see. I tried to search for it on the site and couldn't find it. I scanned the various pages manually and couldn't find it. You mention a couple of these criteria, but never provided all of them.

QUOTE(Kevmo)
At conception, a zygot is alive, it has unique human DNA and the reason why it is not a person, whereas a corporation in the U.S. IS a person, is that the law has not decided to extend rights to it.


I also don't believe corporations are people. The fact that some court reporter - who had a serious, SERIOUS conflict of interest - injected that into an opinion does not make it so. I find it unfortunate that subsequent courts have given it any credence, but that's a topic for another debate.

QUOTE
My claim stating there's a difference between hair and a growing human life form is perfectly obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by idealogy.


It's a specious argument - a zygote is not a life form.

As for your proposal, this thread is not about your proposal. So, you can stop restricting this entire debate to the limits of your proposal anytime now. When we are talking about the question of what is or isn't a life form... we aren't talking about your proposal. When we are discussing where this line should be drawn, we aren't talking about your proposal. This song ain't about you.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Sep 26 2009, 05:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Sep 26 2009, 05:35 PM
Post #214


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 11:49 AM) *
I'm drawing a distinction in the wording used to legally recognize rights. Is a person a human being? Yes.
A person is a human being. Is a human being a person?

If yes, then the terms are synonymous. If no, what distinguishes them?



QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 11:49 AM) *
Maybe Maybe Not: "Would you say that advances in medical technology over the last fifty years (which have changed the point at which a fetus has a realistic chance at survival outside the womb) have changed your definition of a 'person'?"


In terms of the context we are discussing here? No. As I stated quite clearly, a newborn is a person. What has changed is when a fetus can survive as a newborn.
You assert that the point at which a fetus can survive as a newborn determines when the fetus is a "person." And the point at which a fetus has a realistic chance to survive HAS changed over the past 50 years.

So, how can you say that the definition of "person" doesn't change as the point at which it can realistically be expected to survive changes?





QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 11:49 AM) *
But there it is - the criteria you asked for... and you refuse to even respond to it. No wonder you're having a problem being satisfied. What... were you going to wait and ask for this list of criteria again later? Was there a point to your asking for it now?
There is a difference between listing criteria one asserts are "universally accepted," and proving that these criteria are, indeed, universally accepted. (When I searched for such criteria, I got varying definitions, not identical ones. Vermillion seems to have collected and listed all the criteria from different definitions and presented them as "THE universally accepted" criteria. If you don't believe me, google it.)

This post has been edited by Maybe Maybe Not: Sep 26 2009, 06:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Sep 26 2009, 06:53 PM
Post #215


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 26 2009, 12:35 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 11:49 AM) *
I'm drawing a distinction in the wording used to legally recognize rights. Is a person a human being? Yes.
Is a human being a person?

If yes, then the terms are synonymous. If no, what distinguishes them?


Well, I answer both these questions in the portion of my response that you've quoted above.

This debate is about legal recognition. The Constitution refers to "person", so... when I stated, "The exact question is: 'What constitutes a person,'" that doesn't mean I'm saying there's a difference... I'm clarifying the question, because this debate is about the law and the law makes reference to a human being using the word "person". That was my only point. The Constitution also distinguishes between a citizen and a person - both of which describe a human being (see JfC's argument).

QUOTE
You assert that when a fetus can survive as a newborn determines when the fetus is a "person." And the point at which a fetus has a realistic chance to survive HAS changed over the past 50 years.

So, how can you say that the definition of "person" doesn't change as the point at which it can realistically be expected to survive changes?


Because I believe a newborn is a person. That doesn't change with viability... only the chance of a fetus to survive and be one has changed. If a fetus has a strong likelihood of surviving as a newborn at a particular stage prior to the end of a normal pregnancy, then I think it is reasonable to err on the side of any fetus at that stage of development. But no fetus will survive as a newborn prior to 21 weeks... and at 21 weeks, there is not even close to a strong likelihood that it will. The point is that nobody knows with absolute certainty exactly when a fetus is a human being... it comes down to belief and reasonable scientific assumptions. I can say, scientifically, that a zygote at the point of conception is not a human being. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Obviously, in terms of the law that has to be at legal person-hood. The line at viability makes the most sense - it is a very clear line, because a newborn is definitely, legally, a person. It is an objective line that is neither strictly pro- nor anti-abortion in terms of an agenda, but works to balance both. You're not satisfied with that answer... okay... I'll ask again... what do you want? I'm not pulling this out of my butt.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Sep 26 2009, 07:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Sep 26 2009, 09:25 PM
Post #216


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 01:53 PM) *
The point is that nobody knows with absolute certainty exactly when a fetus is a human being... it comes down to belief and reasonable scientific assumptions.
I agree. That's what it comes down to: Belief ... and reasonable scientific assumptions.

Which has changed more over the past fifty years?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Sep 26 2009, 09:30 PM
Post #217


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 26 2009, 04:25 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 01:53 PM) *
The point is that nobody knows with absolute certainty exactly when a fetus is a human being... it comes down to belief and reasonable scientific assumptions.
I agree. That's what it comes down to: Belief ... and reasonable scientific assumptions.

Which has changed more over the past fifty years?



Again... what do you want? An answer to which has changed more? The science. But the beliefs have always been varied. What do you want me to tell you?

Are you saying no line should be drawn? Should the line be drawn at the point where a fetus is viable without the aid of the technological advances made over the last 50 years? The line at viability grants protection where it definitely should be granted.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Sep 26 2009, 09:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Sep 26 2009, 09:49 PM
Post #218


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 04:30 PM) *
Are you saying no line should be drawn?
No. I've said a line SHOULD be drawn.

Now we're talking about WHERE it should be drawn, and on what basis it should be drawn.



QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 04:30 PM) *
The line at viability grants protection where it definitely should be granted.
Yes. Where "viability" is there should definitely be a line. But "viability" has changed over the years. And it may change again. So is that the best and only criterion by which we should determine the placement of the line?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Sep 26 2009, 10:01 PM
Post #219


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 26 2009, 04:49 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 04:30 PM) *
Are you saying no line should be drawn?
No. I've said a line SHOULD be drawn.

Now we're talking about WHERE it should be drawn, and on what basis it should be drawn.



QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 04:30 PM) *
The line at viability grants protection where it definitely should be granted.
Yes. Where "viability" is there should definitely be a line. But "viability" has changed over the years. And it may change again. So is that the best and only criterion by which we should determine the placement of the line?


Yes. Because science has no clearer answer than that and the beliefs are all varied. It is the most reasonable. Do you have a suggestion for a better point of placement?

The line is based upon the recognized fact that a surviving newborn is a person. Understandably, because technological advancement means that can happen sooner, the line shifts. But, if the line didn't take scientific advancement into consideration, we'd be talking about viability at the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb without the aid of those advancements - much, much later in the pregnancy.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Sep 26 2009, 10:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Sep 26 2009, 11:27 PM
Post #220


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 05:01 PM) *
The line is based upon the recognized fact that a surviving newborn is a person. Understandably, because technological advancement means that can happen sooner, the line shifts.
Our definition of a "person" depends upon the state of technology, rather than upon any innate characteristics of the fetus?


QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 26 2009, 05:01 PM) *
But, if the line didn't take scientific advancement into consideration, we'd be talking about viability at the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb without the aid of those advancements - much, much later in the pregnancy.
Are you saying you have a desired outcome in mind, and that a certain line of logic betrays that outcome and must therefore be false?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

21 Pages V  « < 9 10 11 12 13 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 18th, 2018 - 03:35 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.