Jerry

You will walk away from this debate clearer and more informed on why you believe the way you do
****

Are the unborn "persons"?
To answer this I first consider: Does it matter?

We now know that establishing "personhood" does matter. It is in fact critical.

But isn't "person" a simply subjective term? What new information can science and reason offer so that we can update the antiquated legal theory of Roe-v-Wade?

"Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
This makes her a "parent", spicificly, a “mother”.

My Claim:
"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".

Therefore, when we apply more recent science and reason to Law, we observe through objective measure that the unborn are in fact disserving of “personhood” under the law. Consequently, RvW Section 9a kicks in and bans all abortions where the mother's life is not in jeopardy.

__________________
Content Advisory: My opinion is given for entertainment purposes only. Past performance does not guarantee future success. Your results may vary.

Mentork

Although i disagree that whether or not something matters is a reason to disregard learning about it. I agree that the definition of a person, does matter.

Before responding to my opponent's claim, i will make my own.

Logic, the ability to learn, emotions, empathy, and wisdom is what makes us a "person", not our Chemical makeup.

Jerry's Claim:

"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Person"

My disagreement is of course, that an organism composed of human DNA is automatically a "person".

The obvious thing for me to do, is give an example of a organism composed of human DNA that is not a person.

Because my opponent likes to use law, that is what i will do.

My example would be those humans held at Guantanamo bay, they, certainly are organisms composed of human DNA, however, they are not seen as persons but as "enemy combatants", Why?

While i admit the amendment follows "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war", we have not officially declared war on anyone.

Another example


Again, the humans held at Guantanamo bay are not given these rights given to all persons, and yet, they are are organisms composed of human DNA.

A third and final example.

Now the definition of murder as i understand it to be is

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person"

And yet, many Christians would gladly execute a human who has raped and murdered children, is that disobeying there god?

No, because anyone who rapes and murders children, while an organisum composed of human DNA, is certainly not a "person".

Jerry

The 'brain activity' argument is irrelevant for 3 reasons:

1. You will note that the legal definition of "person" contains no reference of brain activity. The reason being that the 'brain activity' argument is a Secular Humanist perversion of "Cogito, ergo sum", is purely theological in nature and therefore has no place in Posative Law.

2. Main stream Pro-Choice makes no argument that as soon as brain activity is evident in the ZEF, that the ZEF is then a "person" under the law, and therefore Roe-v-Wade Section 9a makes all elective abortion "murder" under the law.

3. As demonstrated by Obama, it can not only have brain activity, but be born and surviving completely outside-of and detached-from the mother and still not be seen as a "person".

Therefore, we can conclude that the 'brain activity' argument is disingenuous if not a violation of the 1st amendment. Pro-Choice is assuming the false premise that they would ban abortion were there religious requirement of brain activity present.

The 14th Amendment addresses 2 distinct types of individuals: "persons" and then "Citizens";
Enemy combatants are "persons" under the UCMJ;
Detainees at Guantanamoas are "persons" who are additionally "enemy combatants", just as you are a "person" who is additionally a "citizen".

As you can plainly see, only the unborn are not "persons" under the law.

This gross violation of Basic Human Rights must end.

Mentork

Not true, although i did not know about the supreme Cort ruling, i can name many more examples in witch our government does not treat humans as "persons".

For instance, Prisoners are allowed almost no rights, even those clearly given to all "persons" under the constitution, an example.

Notice it says "people", not "citizens", yet felons are denied this right.


I am not here to defend or support Mr.Obama's views on abortion, i am here to defend and support my views. I view the child as alive if it has brain activity.


I am making the argument that as soon as brain activity is evident in the unborn baby, that it becomes a person. Once more, i am not here to defend or support anyone else's views, especially that of mainstream Pro Choice, I am here to defend my views.


Nether does it contain reference to DNA or Organisms.

I fearsomely disagree.
I could argue that all just laws are "secular" and "humanist".

I guess i must state it again, I would ban abortions where brain activity present. I don't care what mainstream pro choice says, I am not mainstream pro choice.

Furthermore, humanism is a philosophy, not a religion.

I think it is clear witch group humanism falls under.

Jerry

A prisoner is still a "person" under the law;
The 14th amendment allows any "person" to be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property through Due Process.

The Unborn never see their day in court.


Both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice do agree and concur that what is aborted is a developing human. If you are now presenting the argument that not all "persons" are human, and can provide examples, I'm ready to see that argument.

Please provide the humanist origin of the 'brain activity' argument with a link to your source.

Mentork

I am not presenting that argument, i am simply stating that the legal definition of "persons" contains no reference to DNA.



To what end?

This is not the humanist origin of the "brain activity" argument.

This is Mentork's "brain activity argument." I will not allow you to debate humanism, you are in here with me.

Now you say that anything with human DNA is a person right?

Well, what if i linked together the DNA of a human and a cow, and grew the result in a test tube?

Would the result be a "person"? It would certainly be a "organism" composed of human DNA"

Now you could say that the result is not human because it is not completely made up of human DNA... But then where do you draw the line? A chimpanzee has about 98% of our DNA, is that enough to be a "person"? If not, then where do you draw the line? Would a human born with 50 mutations still be a "person"? How about 100?

What percent of a humans DNA, exactly does your DNA have to be in order to be a "person"? 99.5%?, 99.6%?

Give me a number.

Jerry

It's times like this where I have to remind myself that this is not a True Debate, and the sound defeat of your every point is not my goal.

You and I are here for a valid but different reason.

I'll accept your claim that you came to the 'brain activity' argument independently.

At exactly what point in the pregnancy would you draw the line?

You raise some sound ethical questions in the way of cloning, but we're debating abortion; so unless you're ready to give documented examples of women carrying cross-species ZEFs, your questions do not apply here.

Mentork

I am still open to that, however, electrical activity sounds like a good idea. It's nice and solid, you can look and say "yes there is brain activity, there is physical proof".



There are genetic mutations in each and every single one of us.
My question is how many mutations does one have to have in order to not be a "person" anymore.

Jerry

So just any electrical brain activity, or would you require a functional neural cortex attached to a thalamus?

We can measure both.

Mentork

Like I said, I am still open, but if you asked me right now I would say any electrical brain activity.

Have you given up on defending your argument?

How many genetic mutations must one have in order to not be a "person" anymore?