The debate "Abortion is a crime against your son / daughter" was started by
September 19, 2016, 4:41 pm.
49 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 39 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
fadi posted 5 arguments, Biggns posted 4 arguments, neveralone posted 15 arguments, Frdsdo17 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 22 arguments, historybuff posted 3 arguments, Nemiroff posted 10 arguments, Biggns posted 5 arguments, neveralone posted 4 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.
fadi, MW13, thereal, Apollo, ankii23, cookinglover12, north, neveralone, Frdsdo17, Thejw, Ematio, makson, hollieg, Delta_Force01 and 35 visitors agree.
NationalistGuy, ashutosh, Marvelgirl2002, TheExistentialist, Biggns, RogueAmerican, Nemiroff, DrBanner, tony, Argument_fightme and 29 visitors disagree.
OK that had me wondering for a sec.:-)
it was sarcasm :)
hence the "..."
I was mocking the (imo) misguided zeal of many American Christians
are u say Jesus promotes suffering?
a classic view of worshipping life before birth and abandoning it afterwards. your plan will create untold suffering, which jesus clearly promoted...
It isn't a moral obligation to prevent people from evil beyond your capabilities. If it were illegal, it is decidedly wrong and breaking it should not be facilitated.
well if it was me I would already have said facilities set up and helping them. I don't want to see people killing themselves by trying to have an underground abortion but I also can't allow abortion so I would need these people to see abortion is wrong before I can make it illegal or they will do it anyways.
If you believe abortion is murder, I dont understand postponing anti-abortion until suitable facilities open.
I'm not entirely sure what your trying to say please explain.
If it is in respect to murder then I dony see how you can make allocations for it.
I didnt even see this. You cannot revoke liberty or life to create the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is not a guarantee of happiness, only an equal opportunity to pursue it. Meaning the government cannot strip you of life, liberty, or property in effect without due process.
"We are endowed by our creator woth certain inalienable rights: that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". These rights are preserved by established governments for man as seen by "our". Nobody can touch your life, your liberty, or your property without your consent. That explanation of the bug is not legitimate. Happiness is not a guarantee in life.
I kindof already explained through this debate my reasoning so if u could just read them please. I have many
For what reason
I am against it.
What is is your opinion on abortion.
if ur not willing to see the other side then ur not debating ur arguing and I came to debate.:-)
well I have no issue in that situation. the rest of your debate will have to be with an actual woman. my stake is quite limited in this issue. glad to see another reasonable voice on the app :)
that is why if I could choose I would set up such facilities.but wouldn't outlaw abortion until then. if I did I would be an idiot.
personally I don't believe that a fetus is an individual until the cerebral cortex activates. however as long as the mother is given assistance if needed, or the option to give the child into a facility with adequate care and education, it would only be a boon on society. I am just strongly against the banning of abortion until such facilities/equipments are provided.
it'd sad that they hate/scared of the idea of having a child that they would risk there life to kill him/her.i would start an Ed. system like we do at schools to tell them that this baby deserves to live just like them and the dangers of underground abortions.
I would help the poor depending on why they want the abortion. if because they can't support the baby then have the gov. help out. if don't want the baby before it is born find it a good home if can't put in the foster system which I definitely would get better people and structure for the children there through tax.i think the Ed. system would lower abortions dramatically. and on the rich I would try to find a way to fix that but honestly if they want an abortion it would be extremely hard to stop them because there rich so they would have many ways but I would set up a system just like the suicide help line to talk them down. because pregnant women have tons of hormones going through and that can lead to poor choice making. I know many women personally who have had an abortion and later regretted it what would u do for those women since I told u what I would do.
and what do you say to the fact that women, in every part of the world and throughout history, wherever abortion is banned, who undergo dangerous, sometimes deadly, underground abortions?
and what of the fact that wealthy women can easily hop on a plane and go to an area where it is legal, or have a private physician do an abortion with discretion, while poorer women and screwed and disproportionately suffer under abortion bans?
it should, but right now it doesn't.
and this protection begins at conception, before it is a fetus, when it is just an embryo, or a bundle of undifferentiated stem cells?
I don't think it is like killing urself because ur still alive afterwards but it is killing the baby or if u prefer fetus which I believe as I've said is wrong
is removal of a tumor also killing of oneself? or the amputation of a limb?
I say that abortion is killing yourself.. because the fetus was still a part of your body.. and if you kill it,it's mean you kill your self.. and in every religion,especially Muslim,it was denied!
something like that yes but I am wouldn't use the word inserting. it makes it illogical
on punishment I think the same it should be lessen. I mean obviously I would not try to give a pregnant women who has tons of hormones going through her a trail on conspiracy to murder or any of the others because they think there right just like I think I'm right so really if it was just because I as a person randomly decided that it was wrong and u thought it was right who could say. but I look to the Bible for wisdom which says murder is wrong and by the Merriam Webster dictionary def. which is deliberately killing someone fits with abortion.
Ill respond to each post separately.
First this is criticism for @neveralone not you, but I'll engage it since you have some interesting points
1. Then you must accept the punishment of mothers, doctors fathers, etc.... Correct? No more IVF, no more stem cells, etc... Correct?
2.@neveralone clearly made the case of a soul. A soul is a religious concept. @neveralone clearly argues from a judeo-christian doctrine.
3. Again, no. My conversation with @neveralone is clearly one of Christian principles.
4. Only in morally/legally ambiguous circumstances is that partially the truth. Furthermore, and perhaps I should have explained this better, popular opinion ought to be considered when talking about such topics since we are in democratic Republic. I didn't mean to make it sound like a tyranny of the majority. The courts and the people decide in unison.
Let summarize here and gather some thoughts since I'm engaged with two people who have different arguments and so I wanna make sure I'm getting you right.
When two gametes merge to go from 23 to 46 chromosomes a soul in somehow inserted and thus personhood should be granted to that cell at that moment. Is that about correct?
On to your statement about punishment: you stated that you believe mothers who have abortions should be punished, but less severely than other forms of conspiracy or murder. Correct? How about the doctors performing the abortions? How about IVF doctors who leave left over zygotes out to dry out once a woman has either become pregnant or discontinues fertility treatments?
On 1 for the sake of consistency he claims that you must accept punishments for abortion if you believe abortion is murder. No to mention the argument is illogically made from the perspective that abortion is not murder. Such a view makes the punishment excessive rather thsn viewing it from an anti abortion position.
1)explain to which ur referring to on 1 please.
2)that's why in put was its how it started out but not any more like most things it has evolved which is good. and the religious parts of it were parts everyone now agrees on mostly. but I used that by meaning some would believe that abortion is murder in an fashion which is what i thought we were debating on.
3) what I mean by this is I do not want to ever take the chance of murder which is a possibility because I and many others believe in it. it's like if someone told u to shoot at one of three boxes and that one held a child would u. I wouldn't want to take the chance
4) no I think we all know that some things are immoral and some aren't. we just disagree sometimes but eventually with enough things happing on both sides the truth comes out.
No. The issue lies within the tactic of you straw man descriptions into you argument. If I do claim life begins at the conception, you claim it to be some form of believing in magic: such a claim in this manner is intentionally formulated to place your opposition in an intellectual drought. That is to say you attempt to draw ridiculousness into the opposing argument and continue to discount it as invalid based off of an opinionated charge.
Beginning life at conception follows the implication that we are biologically human: to say our conception is our defining moment. We must obviously undergo change, and that change distinguishes us, but it does not define us. To create such a sweeping definition of life to cognition seeks to define rhetoric into existence--making the forbidden rational. To believe that there is dignity in man is not wrong nor religious although religion may influence the thought.
Abortion has sought to distinguish life from personhood. However, personhood may very well come from life.
1. Yes. That's exactly what it means.
2. There is no religious doctrine being implemented into the government. Any accusation of such is perverting social influence into theocratic legislation. The same argument must stand against criticism universally; that is to say any religious influence must therefore be made unconstitutional on grounds of principle (unless you admit that it is not true). Unconstitutionality trumps popular will. But you must therefore contend with overlaps in religious texts regarding theft, murder, and other crimes. A candid argument must declare these similarities unconstitutional. Even if you apply the establishment clause and free exercise clause, your argument still fails even modern progressive standards: that there must be secular purpose behind the legislation. And that legislation is to preserve life.
3. The entirety of premise 3 is a strawman and again refutes any possible similarities between religious texts and law. You must therefore reject the premise of establishment, or declare similarities unconstitutional under amendment 1.
4. You assume that a representative government is thr foundation of all law; that popular will decides what is appropriate. Such a premise must reconcile itself to popular opinions such as slavery, or else admit that popular will does not dictate human rights.
I meant that a soul in my beliefs is what grants parenthood and only those that are fertilized and have the possibility to grow up.
and by murder being wrong I used Christians as an example because a)I am one and b) it is what are country WAS based on which is what I meant about us and is a debate for another time.
yes they should be punished but not as harshly as u r saying. it should get its own punishment level
true and false. we do have religious freedom but originally it was to protect Christian religion but as christians we are taught free will which is why I'm fine with others believing differently.b it again a debate for an diff time.
and the public opinion is slowly coming toward anti abortion now it's just they don't speak up.
I'm only here to debate. I like arguments, the more interesting the better. I'll argue positions that I don't agree with just because the arguments are more interesting, so I'm not looking to troll you or belittle you, all I care about is your argument.
I'm not sure I understand this: "...if u believe in an soul it's when the zygote is growing and is the only one or two in a twin case that is there.which answers a lot of ur others"
can you please reword this. I'm not sure I would be attacking the strongest version of your argument (making a steel man as opposed to making a strawman) if I were to go after it in the way I think you meant it.
I agree that if abortion were made illegal you couldn't go after those who had had an abortion in the past; it's called a grandfather clause
Whether or not the US is a christian country is absolutely up for debate and I won't accept it as a given. However, for the context of this debate it's meaningless.
Killing was wrong (legally and morally) long before Christianity, so it's not something exclusive to christian morality. Secular ethics arrives at the same conclusion (for the most part), that murder is wrong.
And no, you didn't cover it. The following still stand:
1. Accepting personhood at the zygote level means you have to punish people who violate it (agree or disagree)
2. Accepting religious doctrine for legislative justification is a theocracy and violates our constitution (i.e. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion)
3. You may negate 2 by claiming that all religious doctrine would forever receive equal consideration for legislative justification.....be weary here, it's a trap.
4. A public sense of justice is not satisfied by 1; since we live in a democratic republic, how can you possibly force a view which would violate such a sense for the majority of people (i'll provide sources if you need public opinion polls on whether or not people feel like women should be criminally liable for abortions)
on the note of person hood I would say that if u believe in an soul it's when the zygote is growing and is the only one or two in a twin case that is there.which answers a lot of ur others
if the law was made right now that abortion is illegal I would give immunity to ones who've had one already because it wasn't wrong then.
the USA which is where I'm from is a Christian nation or at least that's how it started. though this is a tough topic ergo the debate so some will disagree.
and on the side note as some may know one of our commandments was not to kill which is what ur doing in the case of abortion.
thank u for at least checking some sources though cause that means ur probably here to actually debate.
did I cover it all this time?(truly not sarcastic just making sure)
Individuals who we grant personhood have the right to life, liberty, and happiness. If we legally protect life over happiness, then the argument could be made that anyone maliciously stepping on a bug is guilty of murder.
Furthermore, if we accept your claim, you still run into the issues outlined below that you have failed to address.
so what ur pretty much saying is u know the (zygote) is alive but shouldn't be legally protected but we have the right to life. and I also know we have the right to pursue happiness so I won't omit it out but abortion is really about which is more important. life or happiness. I would say life.
no one is arguing about when "life" starts. Life starts when the processes of life begin (i.e. maintenance of homeostasis, metabolism, etc...) We all know a single celled bacteria is alive, so are amoebas, plankton, etc.... Simply because something is alive, doesn't make it subject to legal consideration. So, we're arguing about personhood, not life.
If you define personhood as being the product of a soul which enters the zygote at conception, you have to advocate against plan B, you have to advocate against IVF, you have to advocate for the application of justice on behalf of the zygote. Since justice has to be administered by the state consistently, you have to accept some fairly harsh consequences. It means you have to advocate for the arrest of any woman who plans to have an abortion (conspiracy to commit murder), the arrest of any doctor performing an abortion (murder), any father aiding in getting an abortion (conspiracy), the arrest of any IVF doctor who discards extra zygotes after successful implantation (murder), no woman could quit doing IVF if it means their zygotes would be destroyed (abandonment).
That makes it a pretty weak argument since much of this goes against the sensibilities of the greater public at large. Usually an argument from popular opinion is a fallacy, however, since we are in a democratic republic, the populous is allowed to self-govern and therefore popular opinion is a factor. To expand on this point, accepting a soul as a basis for making abortion a criminal act means you are forcing a religious believe to be accepted by government. This sets legal precedence and allows for any religious view to become a valid basis for legislation.
On a side note:
There is even a tradition in Christianity to tie personhood to the cognitive abilities we possess. Boesthius, a roman senator and christian philosopher defined persona as "an individual substance of a rational nature.". This came out of his attempt to describe the holy trinity and remained part of the christian tradition for centuries.
but it does matter because the argument is when life starts and if u believe in a soul then it starts when the egg is fertilized.
Believing it is irrelevant. I don't care about what you believe. It's a debate app, all I care about is what you can argue. It seems you're too emotionally invested in this topic to make rational concessions and arguments.
If you're just going to dig your heels in and proclaim your believes, then this discussion is pretty much resolved in my book. If you can come up with a good argument for your case however, I'll be happy to debate it on it's merit.
You can use faith whenever you like as an argument. In the context in of this debate topic however, it is an extremely weak argument. Since the question revolves around criminality, not morality, it's very difficult to make a case for theology as a basis for being pro. If this was a debate about morality, you could make a strong theological case. You could make the claim that objective morality is superior to subjective morality, that the source of objective morality is God, that a soul is very likely given the theologic traditions, etc.... In the context of this debate however, it's not a strong case since you'd have to advocate for a legal system based on theology.
see that's what u have faith in and we have faith in an soul so if we are going to debate this were both going to have to look at it from each other's side and their faith on whether the baby is alive or not.
Or I believe that a person is a person upon theor conception.
u can't debate on this without putting in faith because some of us believe in an soul which is what gives life meaning.
Thats what I believe. And I believe the actions are messed up, not the implications. Conception means biological.
@biggns you didn't make me angry. I just pointed out that character attacks aren't a valid form of argument and that resorting to them shows a level of immaturity better reserved for Facebook than actual debate. Again, I don't care about your age nor do I care anything about you as a person or your believes. I'm here to debate and the only thing I'll judge you on is the strength of your argument.
@rogueamerican the arguments between me and @biggns don't apply to our conversation. My criticism of your position is a bit different. My claim here is that you can't logically conclude a fetus is worthy of moral consideration before cognitive activity is present. All you have to do is demonstrate a logical path that would show me that there is in fact, a logical structure by which we can transfer moral considerations to fetuses pre-cognition. You haven't been able to do that. I know that you can't make that argument without relying on the magical (this isn't my first rodeo on this subject, so I'm pretty sure you won't invent some new argument that I haven't beat before). You can't define personhood without some function of cognition so you'll always be stuck there without resorting to something fantastical.....unless of course, you're willing to accept some pretty messed up implications if you define personhood by biology alone.
Yes it is but to save my phone from having so many notifications ill just give up. Its not like these debates we are having are changin the world on any way. Most people just come here to argue, im trying to learn how to debate someone.
They are defensible; however, to you my evidence is irrelevant, and to me yours is as well. It's a silly debate to have. The philosophical core of this debate would be better founded as what defines a human.
Im just gonna agree with you guys, im only 14 and this debate has taught me some lessons about it. My opinion was wrong and you guys proved it. I wanna say thank you for teaching me how to debate somebody. In all honesty thank you!
Oh bro i was trying to make you angry. In other words i was messing with you. I know that you didnt plagirize. Sorry for making you believe that. Have a good day though.
I know precisely what you are arguing. That we cannot define personhood until cognitive formation. I argue that life and personhood are one in the same.
Let's get a couple of things straight. Not a single sentence I posted was plagiarized
The ages are easily verifiable through Google, so I saw no need to provide sources. The ideas and sentence structures are my own and for you to suggest otherwise is a cowardly and dishonest attempt to raise your character above mine since you can't articulate an idea. I don't care how old you are, where you come from, what you believe, etc... all I care about is the strength of your argument and the merit of your conclusions. If you're going to get offended every time you debate and resort to character accusations rather than content, you're probably on the wrong app.... Facebook is that way - - - >
On to the opinion thing:
First, I don't think I won. I beat an argument that was poor and couldn't possibly have been defended; that's not a win, it's a logic exercise. I'm looking for good arguments to beat. You need to think it through and get your ideas strung together, then I'll beat that and call that a win.
Opinions, especially for this question are of course unprovable. They have to be defensible however. Your simply could not defend your opinion today. That's all that happened, your opinion isn't wrong because of it. Now, there are factual debates where your opinion can actually shown to be wrong. This, being more of a philosophical topic, is not one of those.
opinions are wrong all the time. some people think climate change is a hoax. some people think it's very real and made by humans. both are opinions, some of them are wrong.
the fact that your argument is irrational and based on emotion makes your opinion unlikely to be right.
If you just read what i wrote below i meant to add that we all have our weaknesses on what we know, lets just say this is my weak point and you should know you are arguing with a 14 year-old boy. Not calling you an Idiot calling myself one.
That is not what im thinking. This is going to sound stupid but if you were me you would understand everything going on in my brain and the conclusions im goin for. Obviously your not me and im not you (who goes online and copies and pastes everything he writes) so we do and think things differently. Now i know your gonna think you won but you didnt i didnt this is just opinions. OPINIONS ARE NEVER WRONG! Everybody has one. Sorry i was on and off there a bit but i mightve proven my point.
my bad on the name. I understand perfectly well that you are against abortion. My critique of your stance is that it is irrational based on the claims you make (i.e. your conclusion cannot be a result of the premise you provided)
I'll break it down and feed you baby bird:
You stated: "Life for a human being doesnt begin unless all major organs are in place"
In other words: a fetus is a non-living entity until viability.
Viability is somewhere around 21-23 weeks (about 10-20% survival rate at that age)
Then you stated: "abortion should only be done when the mother carrying the child was a rape victim or it could possibly kill her" & "I believe that abortion is wrong"
In other words: you are morally opposed to elective abortion
Now, if we accept your definition for what constitutes a living fetus we can conclude the following logical structure
1. We don't have moral considerations for non-living objects/entities like rocks, sand, or water
2. If a fetus is not alive, then it is a non-living object/entity
3. If a fetus is a non-living entity/object, it is not subject to moral consideration.
4. If a fetus is not worthy of moral or legal consideration, then the destruction of a fetus is not worthy of moral or legal consideration
5. If an action is not worthy of moral or legal consideration, then it is irrational to judge said action as morally right or wrong
6. Therefore, it is irrational to be against abortion before viability (21-23 weeks)
You, however, manage to come to the conclusion that "... abortion is wrong". How do you get to this conclusion from the premise you presented? it's simply not logical and therefore it is an invalid argument
oh it's very much alive. it has a metabolism, internal motion, self regulation.... the fact that it is alive is not the question. the question is whether it constitutes a human individual as opposed to a part of a human individual.
First off its Biggns! I believe that abortion is wrong, dont know if you understood that in my claims, also a fetus isnt alive nor is it dead, its still developing once its developed its alive. If you cant understand that talk with your parents. Im just stating both sides of abortion. Anything else to add or are you done?
@Biggins Your position is internally inconsistent. You claim that life starts at viability (since you stated that life begins when organs are fully formed). If life starts at viability, then a fetus which is not viable is not alive. If a fetus is not alive, it is not worthy of moral or legal consideration. If it is not worthy of consideration, then there is no rational path for claiming that abortions, for any reason, should not be permitted.
unfortunately the pro abortion right is not very pro social investing... and our orphanges/foster system is already underfunded. so until funding is increased I am strongly against banning abortions before this nation develops a far more costly mental health epidemic.
Yes it would.
I am not making a call on when it should be done. I am not willing to make that judgement at the moment. however, if abortion is made illegal, we need to dramatically increase funding to orphanages and the foster system or it will be an inhumane disaster.
Yes i do agree on thay last part. Also abortion should only be done when the mother carrying the child was a rape victim or it could possibly kill her. With her permission of course.(unless shes like 10)
also, none of the major organs are of any importance (in my opinion) aside from the brain. they are just machines. the heart, the classic measure of when a fetus can be aborted, is nothing more than a pump. I do not know when we should or should not be able to abort, but I can confidently say that once the cerebral cortex (the outer part of the brain) shows activity, we should not abort except for the most extreme circumstances.
Sorry, i believe that my statement wasn't worded right. But that is the real question.
there is no point at which a fetus is not alive. life is continuous from seed to person. even when they are seperate, the egg and sperm are both alive. the question should be when does it become an individual. the life issue is irrelevant.
Life for a human being doesnt begin unless all major organs are in place , its lungs are fully developed and it can breathe on its own. I do not agree with abortion but life doesnt truly begin in a human until those points are met in a pregnancy.
Either you're not understanding the argument I'm making or your trying to move the goal posts. I'll make this a bit more clear in case it's the first:
I'm not trying to define the beginning of life. Life is simply a definition of biological function (i.e. maintain homeostasis, feed/excrete, etc...) Personhood is a definition of consideration. So I can accept that a fetus is alive. I'm not trying to argue that. I'm arguing that it is not worthy of personhood until 20-21 weeks and therefore not worthy of legal consideration until that point.
to the truth portion of your point.
I'm not seeking truth here, I'm seeking the best argument. Truth isn't gonna come from rhetoric, it comes from science, philosophy, art, etc... These arguments are simply a way to test logical structures and formulate data into ideas which either hold up in the face of adverse data/arguments or not. If they don't then you have to redraw them, but let's not kid ourselves; I'm never going to actually convince you that early term abortions are ok. You're never going to convince me that personhood begins at conception. However, we can use each other to refine, adapt, and strengthen the logical structure of our arguments so that people who can be persuaded see the best arguments from both sides.
Again, every description of humanity you have presented is tied to cognitive functions. I'll show you why 20-21 weeks is the logical time point at which to consider personhood.
1. Personhood is a product of cognitive function
2. The most basic cognitive function is preference
3. At the age of 20-21 weeks a fetus is able to have a preference (i.e. is able to discern pain from non-pain)
4. Any entity capable of having a preference is worthy of consideration
5. Human entities deserve special consideration due to the higher degree of self awareness and therefore preference
6. We don't know how cognitively functional fetuses are at 21 weeks (as far as the higher cognitive functions go)
7. Because human entities are worthy of higher consideration, we must protect them to a higher degree than non-human entities
8. Therefore, we ought to grant personhood to any human entity capable of displaying preference
9. Therefore, the human fetus ought to be granted personhood at 20-21 weeks.
10. Any entity not capable of having a preference is not worthy of consideration
11. A fetus prior to the age of 20-21 weeks is not able to have a preference
12. Therefore, a fetus prior to 20-21 weeks is not worthy of personhood.
Now, you keep going back to a propensity argument which is a bit confusing. I'm not sure if you're just using the wrong word or if you're missing part of your argument.
Propensity is an inclination or natural tendency to behave a certain way. A fetus prior to 20-21 weeks doesn't have any propensity. It has no nature by which to act as it doesn't have the cognitive ability to act at all. It simply has the potential to have the propensity for personhood. You have never shown why a potential for personhood should have the same consideration as a person.
Now to the chronological argument....It makes no sense. What does the process of procreation have to do with the granting of personhood. You need to explain that argument better.
I dont understand the justification of when life begins. There is no possible way to say definitively that a point is the beginning of life. If you were truly candid and seeking truth, you would see that either definition comes from biased roots.
Because we are not ignorant. If we had no idea what conception was or how humanity comes to be, you would be correct. I used love as an example of chronology: descriptions of humanity that make us uniquely humam occur chronologically. At 20-21 weeks, the mental capacity of a child is slim to none. At that point, little differentiates them from animals. Most reactions at that time are motor or responsive. Even though the brain develops in the likes of man, the actual function is for the most part bestial. At 20-21 weeks, babies do not understand intellect, love, or so many of the things we understand to be human traits. They merely have the propensity since they are human, and that propensity begins at conception.
Your believe isn't really relevant to a debate. In a debate, the only thing that matters is that which you can defend rationally. The reason why I put a 20-21 week time frame on personhood is that it is the earliest possible point at which a fetus could develop a preference (i.e. distinguish between pain and joy, know it exists, etc...) Without preference, how can you call something a person. If an entity has no preference of whether or not it is alive, it has no preference of joy vs pain, it in fact can't even experience joy/pain/etc... how can you call that a person? by what logic?
As for your love argument.
Love, by it's very nature is a cognitive function. It must be since it involves a preference. You claim that: 'We also know love beyond cognitive function". I can't accept that unless you demonstrate this point. I don't know of any circumstance where love is not a function of preference and therefore cognition. It may be irrational, it may be self destructive, it may be altruistic etc... but it is always a function of cognition.
Using love as the definition of humanity/personhood is a little silly since some people are physically/cognitively incapable of feeling this emotion and yet we'd still grant them personhood (i.e. sociopaths/psychopaths). Regardless of that fact, you are still stuck at cognition as the defining principle. Love is not supernatural, the fact that two parents loved each other doesn't imbue the offspring with a special ability to love before cognition. Parents who didn't love each other, in fact may have hated each other (as in the case of pregnancy via rape) still produce offspring capable of the cognitive function of love. So where does one insert personhood before cognition. Every time you have tried to point to a special trait of personhood (social order, love, intelligence, our nature to be social) you have described a function of cognition. You have not shown a way to transfer the special consideration our cognitive abilities grant us to our precognitive state. Why is the potential for cognition special, when cognitive functions is what we define humanity by? Why is something that can't function as a person eligible for personhood?
We also know love beyond cognitive function. Why is love not a definition of humanity. Sure other animals feel chemical stimuli, but our relationships are far more sophisticated. Our cognition begets love, and our conception begets cognition. I argue from a chronological standpoint, not magical.
Although cognitive function is valuable, it is reckless to put timeframes on the significance of humanity. I believe that congitive function is important, but not the beginning.
Laws are simply social rules which are enforceable through punishment. Animals may not have a legal system, and it would be unfair to judge them against ours due to the vast difference in brain power, but they do have social order/rules which are enforceable. So you're essentially saying that humans are special because we're smarter and more sophisticated in our approach to justice, morality, etc.... I would agree with that sentiment. That is why the beginnings of cognitive function is the beginnings of personhood.
We are special as individuals because we able to contemplate our own existence. That is again tied to our cognitive ability and once again reinforces the concept of personhood and cognitive awareness.
It's pretty obvious that you would have to concede to personhood starting at cognitive awareness if you didn't have a bias towards magical thinking (i.e. a soul). Since you have to rely on an unprovable premise to finish your argument (i.e. to go from the value of a self aware mind to an intrinsic value of the biology before said mind) I think we can safely call this debate settled.
Obviously proving criminality is futile--ive already lost that point. But we are special since we are the only ones passong these laws. No other species is so self-regulating, and this capacity elevates all humans above them. Our very essence is greater than animals, and to assume equality based on pure life may have logic, but humans are different. Yes we do have superior cognitive functions, but this makes us special in relation to other species. Amongst ourselves, we are special individually by our existence.
Any social animal is born with the capability to become a member of their society. Wolfs become members of a pack, lions of a pride, hoofed animals of a herd, etc... You're simply displaying species bias. The argument presupposes humans being somehow special, being somehow different. You haven't demonstrated that point so you're trying to sneak it past us by presupposing it.
essentially your argument looks like this:
We are special; a magical entity created us with the nature of being special
Since our nature is to be special, that "specialness" must come from the time of our creation
because zygotes are the earliest form of our nature, they are special
therefore the destruction of a zygote is the destruction of it's "specialness"
It is the destruction of that "specialness" that constitutes murder
Therefore, the destruction of a zygote is murder.
You're running into a few problems here from a logical standpoint. You never showed that we are indeed somehow special. You may believe that we are, you may preach that we are, but you can't presuppose it for the rest of us. You're treating your most basic premise as given fact, but you have no way of supporting the claim. That is why, it is not a valid argument and shouldn't be treated as one for legislative processes. If it can't be treated as a valid argument, and can't be used in the legislative process, then abortion cannot be against the law, and therefore cannot be a crime. This says nothing about whether or not there is a moral argument here, but for the point of the debate, abortion being a crime, your argument simply lacks base.
Thus this argument is irreconcilable.
Why do my views have to be an establishment of religion? The two coincide. My religion preaches that murder is wrong. That theft is wrong. Society also agrees with these concepts. Does that mean my religion has beem established under the rule of law? You only argue based on preference. There is no definitive way to prove whem life begins. Technically in a world of only logic, our arguments are both highly flawed.
but you are missing his point. we don't think that a zygote is a person. because of your religious beliefs you do think it is a person and therefore should be murder.
Hindus think that cows are sacred and should never be harmed. should we pass a law banning the slaughter of cows because if their religious beliefs?
and if not why are your religious views intrinsically more valuable than theirs?
Yes. The propensity of life. Since we are born, we are bestowed with the capabilities of becoming participating members of society. That phenomenon is exclusive to humans since it from where humans come. And yes, I understand the implications of life at conception. I have no qualms with abortion being murder.
Cattle have nothing to do with anything. Im saying that the zygote is human, and anything less than acknowledging its dignity is wrong. The conversation is over valuing human life, not animals.
I'm not sure what propensity of humanity has to do with personhood. Propensity describes our natural tendencies, so essentially you're saying that because we have cognitive and biological similarities when we are born that it automatically means a zygote from two human gamete cells has intrinsic value and is therefore worthy of being considered a person. I have a few questions for you here; where does the worth of a zygote come from? Simply saying that it may one day exhibit human properties does not imbue the zygote with personhood now, so you must be talking about a soul correct?
The US holds legal precedence in pretty high regard in terms of the judicial and legislative system, so accepting personhood at conception would have some nasty implications.
It would mean any form of post zygote birth control is murder. Meaning you are advocating for the elimination of Plan B pills. A zygote can also be the product of rape; but being that it must be considered as a human, abortions in the case of rape can also not be legal. In-vitro fertilization also involves the creation of multiple zygotes to be implanted into a woman. Often times spare zygotes are discarded if the woman becomes pregnant or no longer wishes to continue with the process. So, in-vitro fertilization would have to be drastically altered if we accept your definition of personhood.
Furthermore, zygotes would be entitled to justice should their rights be violated. So any woman, no matter the reason, who was planning/trying to have an abortion performed would be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. Any person helping her get an abortion, such as the father, would also be guilty of conspiracy. Any doctor who performed an abortion would be guilty of murder. Any in-vitro clinic which disposed of extra zygotes would be guilty of mass murder.
Furthermore, if a religious group came along and said: every animal has a soul and therefore is worthy of personhood, should we accept that as a legal basis to jail people for eating hamburger? How do you decide which supernatural system of ideas should influence our legal system and which shouldn't? There is no coherent way of using religion as a basis for legislation without promoting one and discriminating against another. This furthers the idea that secular arguments are the only consistent on coherent basis for the legislative process.
"what were the aims of presenting this piece of information. If the scope of the comment was to not disparage religious interaction in the government, what was it."
You tried to misrepresent my argument by claiming that I was infringing on free speech. I was clarifying that your right to speak in public has nothing to do with whether or not we should have a secular base for our legislative process. The legislative process, the process by which we create legislation and check it's constitutionality, ought not to be influenced by arguments based in the supernatural or the fantastical. This is simply a matter of consistency and logic. Even you should be for this in a country where it is illegal for the government to establish/favor one religion or another. If Christian theology is allowed to be the basis for legislative arguments, then by the rule of law, so must Islam and other religions. Reasoned, measured, informed, arguments along with legal precedence which require little to no assumptions ought to be the standard for our legislative system to avoid conflicting mythologies from oppressing one another. That is not the same as saying you can't have freedom of speech. There is nothing here that would prevent you from saying anything you believe in.
"Science cannot prove when life begins, but we can only define. Defining it at cognitive development contains no more scientific backing than a thought experiment. It is unprovable on all ends."
We actually have legal precedence for personhood being tied to cognitive abilities in the medical and legal systems. Science cannot prove that this is the definition of personhood, but it can inform us when personhood begins if we base our definition of it on legal precedence. Furthermore, in the absence of a soul/essence/spirit/etc... how would you define personhood and by what rational?
"... to oppose the action of the speech is to oppose free speech"
Again, I said nothing about your ability to speak or to petition the government, I clearly stated that the legislative process ought to be based on secular arguments not fantastical claims. You're trying to muddy the waters here by conflating the two. You can stand at whichever public corner you want and scream your head off, you can hold a rally, etc... That's all well and good, however, when it comes time to discuss legislation on the floors of congress and in the courts, fantastical thinking should not trump reason/logic.
"I'm saying that a religious belief should not be the basis of our legislative process. That is vastly different than your accusation of oppressing religion and banning religion from the umbrella of free speech."
Then logic leads to one question: what were the aims of presenting this piece of information. If the scope of the comment was to not disparage religious interaction in the government, what was it. Pushing for a policy is not establishment; nobody is forcing anybody to pursue religion nor prohibit it.
"The problem with your line of reasoning is that it necessarily rests on an un-provable premise, life has intrinsic value imbued at creation"
The folly lies within your insistence that life must begin at cognitive development. This in itself is an assumption. Science cannot prove when life begins, but we can only define. Defining it at cognitive development contains no more scientific backing than a thought experiment. It is unprovable on all ends.
"That doesn't mean that we can't defend the right to believe in supernatural ideologies, it simply means we must separate our legislative process from them in order to create a government for all."
Your premise is entirely against free speech. You claim that if religion has a particular moral principle, that society cannot accept it. This is entirely false, and there were never clear intentions of it. You say that by religious groups influencing abortion, we must oppose it. But to oppose the action of the speech is to oppose free speech.
From where does the propensity of humanity begin? Conception is the only viable option for its occurrence. Could i not argue that the mind is simply a byproduct of conception. Surely every man was conceived, and later gained aspects that are a part of us. We inevitably gained our current functions as a result of our conception, and the biological and chemical processes that designated our development were rooted in the conception. Everything we have is from the conception unless obtained by physical interactions, experiences, or mutation.
"This places your argument in the realm of the fantastical, the magical, and the supernatural"
To assume an argument's irrelevance based upon some roots within religion is filled with pomposity. Just as you claimed that I rode a high horse because I believe in a dignity of life. Today's standards mean nothing to me, and a candid observation shows that relying upon popular belief is in itself logical fallacy.
No one is talking about cultural relativism. That theory is defined by not being able to judge a society by our moral code, but rather that we must judge individual actions within their societal norms at that time.
Religion has nothing to do with that and neither does the critique of person-hood presented against you here. You're just introducing Red Herrings.
No one is advocating for you not to be able to express or practice your religious believes. The argument is simply that it shouldn't influence the legislative process if the argument for a certain idea is based solely on magical thinking.
Let's examine laws against murder to illustrate a cohesive way to form a law against it. We can look at it from a religious perspective and say that the act of murder is wrong because Book "x" tells us it is. However, not all acts of killing a person are murder. So we look for inclusionary provisions as well as exclusionary provisions. So, it's not murder if it's self defense, it's not murder if it's during times of war, in order to protect another life, etc.... (whatever exclusionary provisions you want to provide here). The problem with a religious basis for this law lies within the parameters that we use to define murder. If we accept that the Bible says murder is wrong and that is why we deem it wrong, we must also accept the exclusionary provisions it dictates. So it's not murder if you kill someone of a different faith since the bible says so, it's not murder to kill someone who works on the Sabbath because the bible says so, etc.... If we use the Koran we'll get different exclusionary provisions still. If we look at if from a secular perspective however, we can say that murder is wrong for a variety of reasons (social contract theory, nihilism, objective morality, utilitarianism, humanism, etc....). All of these secular schools of thought will bring you to the conclusion that murder is wrong. However, none of them will produce erroneous exclusionary provisions which discriminate against another school of thought. That is why secular legislation is necessary in a society that values equal protection under the law.
I'm not saying that religion can't be practiced, I'm not saying you don't have the right to free speech. That is a misrepresentation of my argument and you know it.
I'm saying that a religious belief should not be the basis of our legislative process. That is vastly different than your accusation of oppressing religion and banning religion from the umbrella of free speech.
Unfortunately I have to unpack a little more of your misrepresentation; I never presented anything like "omnipotent secularism". I stated that a secular legislative government runs the risk of offending the religious, but a government based on theological legislation oppresses everyone not under the banner of that religious persuasion.
Now that we have that out of the way, let's move on to your argument:
You accept that there is rational for life at consciousness, so I won't argue that point again. I will however argue that, your position of life at conception, is irrelevant. The fact remains that you must invoke magical thinking to defend this point. You must accept, and indeed argue for a soul/essence/spirit/etc... to give value to life before consciousness. This places your argument in the realm of the fantastical, the magical, and the supernatural. If we are to have a consistent and coherent form of legislative processes then we can't allow for such thinking to determine that process. Supernatural ideologies have no cohesive philosophy and are mutually exclusive. This means that legislative processes must discriminate against one supernatural ideology in order to accept another. Secular legislation doesn't have that problem. It simply dismisses all claims placed before it which are based on magical thinking. That doesn't mean that we can't defend the right to believe in supernatural ideologies, it simply means we must separate our legislative process from them in order to create a government for all.
And both from a religious persepective are morally numb. The nazis looked at Jews as the inferior race, and killed 6 million. Your position looks upon these babies as nonhuman, and killed 50 million.
No. You are saying that religious groups cannot interact with the state. The Nazi exanple is valid in showing that a religious group should be allowed to interfere within these issues. In the religious mind, 50 million babies have been killed.
trying to compare abortion to the Nazis is despicable. it isn't remotely the same thing. you are trying to force the issue onto an emotional tangent to distract from your weak position.
the Nazis targeted groups of people. they persecuted and murdered them as a group. abortions are a woman terminating cells inside her own body. there is absolutely no justifiable comparison between the two.
The Nazis believed what they were doing was for the benefit of Europe and the world. Were outsiders morally obliged to let them continue, or were they to intervene. Accepting cultural relativism is dangerous
I am not offended, and above all religion was only to be protected by he government. Establishment is the death of all religions, and prevention is the other end of the spectrum. Both lead to the same.
I am not on a moral high horse; however, the idea of a omnipotent secularism is upon an intellectual high horse. To discredit and remove any input of religion into government is oppression as religion should have a voice. You have altered the view and now consider free speech to be theocracy.
Now onto my point. Yes, there is reason behind life beginning at consciousness; however, there is too reason in life at conception. I see life at the creation of a human, but you deny this and say that isn't what makes us human. Im not blind in my opinions--I doubt them aswell. But to insist that life begins at conception is just as hopeful to say life begins at the first cognitive state. Both have valid ties, and neither are provable because they are definitional. But if I err, a woman's body is infringed upon, but if you do, it woild be murder.
No one is saying that you can't value life at conception. However, from a pure rational standpoint, it's a poor base for a legal and rational argument.
You're essentially saying: "I am offended by abortions due to a religious belief, therefore, all of society must cater to my sensibility".
I understand that you are arguing for life at conception, however, the basis of that argument must be based on magical thinking. I don't mean to belittle you with that term, but it serves to separate logical premises from supernatural ones. The problem with your line of reasoning is that it necessarily rests on an un-provable premise, life has intrinsic value imbued at creation. If I argued that my "God" advocates against sugar, would it be fair to force everyone to abstain from sugar? The basis of the arguments are the same. A supernatural entity commands "x", therefore, everyone ought to do/abstain from "x". There is no need to engage in such nonsensical governance. There is simply no data to support the premise of the argument (i.e. Entity "y" commands "x").
If you accept that a command from a religious entity is a valid way of producing a legal system, then you are no different than those advocating for Sharia law. You simply stand on a high horse because you ignore other aspects of your religion which would make you look immoral by today's standards. If you are going to be consistent about your religious believes (and how they interact with government), you must advocate for all religions to be equal in their role of the legislative process or you must advocate for the whole of your religion to be responsible for the legislative process. Either way, the product is a system of government which would be oppressive to those who do not share your view.
The other option is a secular government; legislation based on reason. A secular government does not oppress the religious, it simply offends them. I would say being offended is better than being oppressed and thus I can't accept a legislative argument based on religious principals alone.
we're not talking about how someone thinks. we're talking about whether they have a functioning brain. that is very different.
as long as you keep your defininition of when a person is created to only your own life then I don't care. my only objection is when you move from running your life by religion to trying to run other people's lives by your religion.
Its coincidental. I believe life begins at conception. Humanity alone is dignity. The autistic are just as human as the mentally handicapped who are just as human as you or I. I dont care about cognitive state. Humans are humans.
My belief that by our creation we have dignity is imposing on others. That it is a dangerous idea? It is dangerous to define when a person is a person, and what a person deserves.
yes. of course you are. you are using your religion to decide that a cluster of unaware cells is a person and therefore terminating those cells is killing. that is entirely a religious imposition on your part.
and it is not a god given right to control your children. it is a a right to control your own body though. and you can't use your religion to take that right away from women.
God commands that thou shall not kill. Am i enforcing my religion upon you to uphold that?
So it is our god-given right to control our children; to define life and the parameters to end it? If we are created with rights, we cannot justify the removal nor the distribution of these rights. By their very definition, they are endowed by our creator. The US was founded by this principle: God made man divine, and man does not define itself.
basic human rights don't require a mass vote. they are basic human rights that you can't deny even if you had a majority, which you don't.
What democratic or republican institution chose that?
and much of the country disagrees with you. you don't get to force your views on the rest of the country.
My religious beliefs dictate that they are killing a child. Stripping him/her of their life.
you are restricting what women can do based on your religious beliefs.
Im not placing my religion upon you, nor making you practice it.
we all live in a world ruled by law, not by religion. you want to use your religion to create laws. that is a very big problem.
Welcome to rule of law nemiroff
we aren't ignoring you. no one is asking you to get an abortion. we just won't allow you to force your views on others. that is tyranny.
You claim that humanity values life based upon cognitive capability. That is a powerful movement and idea within society; however, such a view ignores the portion of society that values life at conception.
There are a few ways to argue against this claim.
First, there is the most obvious; early term abortions are perfectly legal and therefore not a crime. It's as simple as that. Criminal activity has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with legal compliance. So in the strictest interpretation of this claim, the conclusion must be that it is false.
I'm guessing that the OP meant to convey something along the lines of "Abortion is immoral/amoral/in violation of human rights/etc..."
Keeping in that spirit, I maintain the position that early term abortions are not immoral and are actually amoral (meaning an abortion is not a moral judgement).
As the discussion between Historybuff and RogueAmerican shows the debate really centers around person-hood/humanity. I would assert that humans are not entitled to moral consideration in and of themselves. It is person-hood that requires moral consideration. There is precedence for this line of reasoning in our modern health care and how we choose end of life care. We have the technology to extend the human life almost indefinitely (bypass machines, vents, etc...) but we withhold these measures from patients who are not going to recover their cognitive functions. This means we link person-hood and therefore humanity with cognitive functions rather than the physical shell. At it's most basic, person-hood is a function of self interest, the ability to suffer, and consciousness (i.e. to be aware of pain, life, and one's place in the world).
This means person-hood requires a certain level of cognitive function. A human being does not meet any of these requirements until 20-21 weeks into gestation (when the brain begins to function).
A fetus, not being a person until 20-21 weeks of gestation, is therefore not subject to moral consideration. This makes abortions in the early stages an amoral choice.
The idea that human life, and indeed, the potential for human life is subject to moral standards must rest on something beyond person-hood. It must necessarily rely on a concept of essence (a soul, spirit, etc...). This essence must be present at the time of conception, and in fact must be present eternally or is dependent on it's creation through supernatural means. This means one must engage in magical thinking in order to defend a moral dilemma of abortion. Magical thinking, by definition, is the negation of logic and therefore not a sound line of argument.
it is absolutely significant. it is the first stage in the creation of a new person. however it is not a person yet. and therefore terminating the first stage cannot be seen as the termination of a person.
Only because you believe conception is insignificant
except that the propensity to grow is not indicative of a person. it is a random attribute of a living thing. so it is completely irrelevant.
The logic is one sided. Logic could presume that life begins as soon as a propensity to grow begins.
the idea of what a person is is a philosophical question. that doesn't mean it isn't based on facts or logic.
I have a brain. You have a brain. Its designated as the beginning of life because we with our brains, decided that seems logical. It is purely a philosophic perspective, not a factual statement.
people with mental defects still have a working brain. it just works differently.
So you arent a person if you have severe mental defects? From birth or trauma?
how did you come to that conclusion? you don't think a person needs brain?
there is proof, I'm telling you about it. you choose to ignore it because it disagrees with what your religion tells you you have to think.
There is no proof for either.
that is the point at which they have a brain. that is the point at which they are capable of thinking or feeling or any of things that we would ascribe to a person.
is there any proof that a cluster of cells with no organs of any kind is a person? (ie the first stage of development)
And is there proof that a person begins at that point?
because the brain is where everything comes from. every thought, every emotion. everything that makes us a person comes from our brain. without one you are just a bunch of organs.
and a human body without a brain is not a person. it is a body. without a brain there is no person, just a collection of organs.
What is the difference, one is the foundation to human creation, the other thought.
*a person has a brain. not had.
a person had a brain. that isn't arbitrary. that is a very logical reason.
your position is the arbitrary one. the second a sperm touched an egg it's a person. that is completely arbitrary.
Only because you have an arbitrary definition of what a person is to consider it common sense to have an abortion
but in the case of a fetus doing nothing hurts someone, the woman. it isn't just some benign act of letting nature take it's course. you are giving a cluster of cells rights that supercede a woman's right to her own body.
Who am I to say yes or no. I know that i cam give them life support to keep them somewhat functioning, or I can let nature take its course and let them die.
Fine the definition of a person is still arbitrary. Its the same argument.
so brain dead body on life support is a person?
a person is any group of cells that will become a person or are already one
how many times must we go over this. I am not debating with you about when life begins. I'm talking about when a person comes into existence. and a person cannot exist without a brain.
Youve formed your premise upon your premise. Life begins with cognitive brain function if life is defined by cognitive brain function.
again, I am not debating when life begins. I'm arguing when a person exists. and a person cannot exist without a functioning brain.
What proof do you have to explain it. Gravitational law has an obvious proof: what is the proof of life?
I'm not discussing when life begins. those cells are clearly alive, just like a cancerous tumor. I'm discussing when those living cells become a distinct person. and to do that we use science.
You cannot prove a moment that life begins. You can only define an arbitrary parameter.
no. it is firmly rooted in scientific fact. there is nothing arbitrary about it.
And as I have claimed is an entirely arbitrary definition of life.
we aren't discussing what will happen if left to nature. if left to nature a cancerous tumor will kill you. you have the right to control your body and have a doctor remove it.
a woman has the right to have a fetus removed. it is s medical procedure on their own body. the only way it becomes a problem is if it is harming another person, which as I have explained, a fetus does not meet the requirements for.
It is relevant. Left to its natural occurence, a baby will live and grow. A braindead person will die left to nature's course.
neither can function on their own. both would die if not having all their biological functions done by an outside source. wether or not the thing keeping them alive is natural is completely irrelevant.
You alter a biologic process to abort. Braindead people must be on artificial life support. It is highly relevant.
who said it was unnatural? that isn't really relevant. the fact is they aren't capable of life.
The womb isnt an unnatural protection
a baby needs to be at least 23 weeks, and even then only had a 20% chance of survival.
this is generally when abortion becomes illegal. so of you are aborting a fetus then there is no chance it could survive outside the womb.
a fetus would die. I don't think there is any medical intervention that could prevent it. by the time a fetus would survive on its own it is long past the point where an abortion is legal.
Would a fetus survive outside of medical assistance in comparison to someone brain dead. A fetus would live on naturally, and the brain dead one would die without intervention.
no. it is very well rooted in logic. a human has to have a functioning brain in order to be a human. if someone is brain dead they they are dead, even if they have functional cells.
a fetus has functioning cells but they do not have a functioning brain yet. therefore it isn't a person.
a woman has no right to end the life of her unborn offspring
You've taken stance with your original argument. It is a woman's choice as long as you define life to fit it--it's entirely arbitrary.
you're right. it is just a direct attack on a woman's right to control her own body. a fundamental human right. that is extremely serious.
But the claim that allowed abortions to be allowed is opening a realm of opportunity. Keeping life at conception isnt risking the alteration of life.
since it is a very real issue as a society we must decide. and we have decided. that's why abortion is legal.
Who am I to question when life begins, much less decide when it may be destroyed?
your position is just as assertive, if not more so. you assert that the second conception occurs that a tiny cluster of cells is a human being. despite those cells not having any of the requirements to exist independently. that is a big assertion.
Precisely I did. But your position is more of an assertive one: to decide there is no life. Assuming life begins at conception is the conservative definition--to not interfere with the natural occurrence of development. Yours is the more radical: to assume life isn't existent and destroy it.
so you arbitrarily decide that conception is the point a person exists. that is rediculous. at the point of conception there is no brain, no organs. it isn't a person. it is literally a cluster of cells. and a small cluster at that.
I choose to look at it the way science does. if it isn't self aware, if it can't feel pain or know that it exists, then it isn't a person.
abortion is a personal choise
Although from a religious sense I'd say it's immoral, no it isnt mass murder. There hasnt been a conception.
sperm has the potential to become a person too. does that make every sperm a person? it also has human DNA. so every time a guy masterbates it's mass murder.
Cancer isnt a child. Calling it a "fetus" has the aim of justification. You cant prove life, but only define it. This definition seeks to justify abortion.
it has no potential to become a person but stem cells will eventually become a human
a cancerous tumor has human DNA. is it a person?
no it has human dna in it so it is a human
when I became conscious, I became a person. a fetus is not conscious.
well if someone kills you then he is doing nothing wrong because you are a bunch of cells right ?
no. a fetus is a fetus. it is a cluster of cells. given enough time it becomes a person. if it is terminated before that point then a person never existed.
and since I think Christianity is completely rediculous, all religious arguments are a complete waste of time.
Calling it a fetius is disowning God's child. The topic is big because innocent beings are being killed. The breath of God is in them, and in us. Let me ask you this? You were a fetius at one point, so we're you never a human being even when you were in your mother's womb?
a fetus is not a person. if you abort that fetus then you never had a son or daughter. therefore your topic is rediculous.