Felicity

DITTO!
Your debate partner has not come to that conclusion yet. If you are going to make the claim that abortion kills a human being, you need to objectively demonstrate how the Zygote/Embryo/Fetus (ZEF) is a human being (with special emphasis on the “being” part). As the majority on the prochoice side see it, the ZEF is merely the products of conception with no more intrinsic “humanity” than a nail clipping or a cancer mass. What that biological product might become has no relation at all to what it is at the time of an abortion. That is why I stated that a woman has the right to abort for ANY reason up to 20 weeks. I said 20 weeks due to the viability issue Jerry clearly explains above (see sources)—I was giving a little room for error on the side of caution to appease those with concern that calculations may be variable.

And, as I said, please provide objective evidence of a “victim” in the case of what is expelled in an abortion occurring at or prior to 20 weeks. The products of conception have no actual life—merely potential life at that point. Ergo...until viability, abortion IS a “private matter” protected in the United States by the 4th amendment and the 9th amendment.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th amendment supports the validity of the Roe vs. Wade decision which retained the right of a woman to have an abortion.



See request for more information concerning the objective evidence of a victim above.

There’s that emotional appeal....and an assertion that claims the products of conception are something more than “potential” life. You call it “children” here.

A pregnant woman is different in that the ZEF in her womb (up to the point of viability) is not a human being like the child in the back yard, it is a “potential” human being at the most, and as such, has no legal claim or interest in the actions of the woman who may want to exercise her constitutional rights.


Here you cite viability. You are not receiving any contrary argument from Team Pro-Choice concerning the viability issue. We are arguing that prior to viability, there is no basis for the Pro-life position. Are you conceding that pre-viability Roe and the Constitution is valid?


“people”?—pre-viability, you have presented no basis for the claim that the products of conception can be considered “persons.”

__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die. ~*Leonardo Da Vinci*~

Jerry

1069’s been having wet dreams about me again

__________________
Lerxst was right
......Lerxst is always right
!Lerxst in 2012!

Jerry

This assumes that the unborn has "personhood" status.

Persuint to:
...the unborn does not have "personhood" status.
Therefore it is not "a human being"; therefore there is no "murder" in killing it.

Jerry

You like that post don't you 1069.....yeah....you wana quote it...or use it as your own...don't you....yes....

1069 proffers intellectually intimidating men, which is why she's been fantasizing about me in lingerie.

Women's lingerie? Hay, don't judge her, she's just getting her freak on is all.
It's all good.

1069

Alright, alright, Jerry... chill out and let's not derail the thread, here. It was merely a mild joke at your expense, not some lethal blow to your manhood.
I don't even know you, really, dude. Just calm yourself. Everything's okay.

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."

Felicity

I kinda got the impression he likes it... So 1069...let's back to the facts..Bring on the definition of personhood that includes pe-viable human matter.

Jerry

Hay, I'll take any "blow" to my manhood you can give sweetie.

Best 3 seconds of my day

Jerry

HAY!
Stay outa my head!

Erm, yeah, back to the show....

1069

Individual human life begins at conception and does not end until natural death. At the moment of conception, when sperm and ovum cease to exist as individual entities, a new being with its own genetic code comes into existence. Just like you or I, all that is needed for its development is nutrients, and an environment conducive to its survival.

Some prochoicers argue that "personhood" is contingent upon cognitive functioning, the ability to think and rationalize; this argument fails to address the fact that cognitive ability and the capacity for higher intellectual functioning are not present in born infants either, and are not attained until sometime well after birth. If "personhood" is based on a human's level of cognition or cognizance, then why isn't infanticide okay? Why isn't it legal to kill children for at least the first year or two after birth?

Other, more moderate prochoicers argue that sentience- the ability to feel, but not necessarily to think- is a criteria for personhood. These prochoicers claim that a preborn child is not a person from the moment of conception, but does attain personhood at some point well before birth; most commonly, when brain waves are detectable. Therefore, they support early abortions but oppose late-term ones.
The problem with this "sentience" criterion for personhood is the same as the more extremist "rationality" or "cognizance" criterion, however; it does not address the fact that even born people can sometimes lack these qualities (while in a temporary coma, for instance, or while under anesthesia), yet they are still afforded "personhood" status at these times. It's not likely that the prochoicers who promote these ideas would consider relegating their loved ones to "non-personhood" status simply because they are undergoing surgery and are rendered temporarily both non-cognizant and non-sentient by anesthesia. Who would argue that they are not still persons under these circumstances, and should therefore no longer be afforded the rights and protections inherent in personhood?
That is the problem with the argument that fetuses are members of the species homo sapiens, and in that sense are human, but are not truly persons until they fulfill a particular set of personhood criteria.
It sets the stage for a potentially terrible devaluation of human life.
But this dreadful logic, even a person who is drugged against their will or merely deeply asleep (and thus no longer cognizant or capable of rational thought) is relegated to "nonpersonhood". Anyone can do anything they like to others at such times. Why not? They aren't "people", right?
By this logic, why should Rohypnol rapes even be illegal? After all, the "victim" was not cognizant- and therefore, not a "person"- at the time the crime was committed.
Obviously, determining personhood on the basis of functioning is simply inadequate.

Even Justice Harry Blackmun, one of the Supreme Court Judges who decided Roe-v-Wade, admits the impossibility of determining precisely when "personhood" begins; instead, he sidesteps the issue by claiming it doesn't really matter, and implies that deciding when when one's own child is a "person" and ought not to be brutally murdered should be a matter left up to the individual. Because there is disagreement on the issue, it is an unimportant one, he claims, and "need not be resolved" in order for women to have the legal right to kill their children:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."

This is the sort of logic the Roe decision is based on; surely, in more enlightened future times, it will be revisited.

Felicity

When the gametes of a male and a female human meet, I agree that a new organism is conceived—however, to understand the distinction between human “life” and human “being,” one must be able to identify those qualities that discern what we call a human being from something not a human being or something merely of human origin such as the nail clipping or the cancerous tumor I mentioned before. What is it that makes a human being different from a cow, for example? Or for that matter, since you seem to be focused on a unique human genetic code, what is it that makes a human being different from a cancerous tumor? Or a zygote different from a cancerous tumor? What is it that make that human genetic code in a zygote a “being” rather than merely biological matter like a tumor?

This is faulty in two ways. 1) nutrients and the appropriate environment in no way guarantee the survival of the ZEF to viability and therefore your point is a false dichotomy, and 2) According to the US Constitution, a person cannot be held in servitude against her will. To have a woman be required to maintain an unwanted physical condition against her will is forcing her into servitude.

You tell me! Some pro-choicers believe exactly that. Take Peter Singer for example. Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still, some people define the minimum requirements of cognitive functioning enough to consider personhood achieved. For example, the ability to feel pain and minimally complete physical neurological development are the markers for some. When the minimal neural functioning that allows for that level of cognition are present, other things come into play concerning the moral choice of abortion.

Some pro-choicers (like Singer) have no qualms concerning the morality of the destruction of human life even to some months after birth for exactly the reason you present. Are you, by chance, a closet pro-choicer?


This is the position I am more or less suggesting. However—there is one difference—I am asserting that once this level of cognizance is achieved, the human becomes a “being” and that is the point that the personhood becomes inalienable and is something that the “person” has until death. Thus, a person in a coma, or asleep, or under anesthesia, is still a person since he or she is still alive. However--abortion can still be legal throughout a woman's pregnancy for other "medical" reasons including her "mental health" as determined by the 4th amendment and the 14th amentdment.


It’s not currently active functioning that determines personhood, it is the onset of functioning that determines the “birth” (so to speak) of personhood—and then from that point on until death, a person is a person.


He says “life”—which is a vague term. We are talking “being” and “personhood.” Those are still somewhat vague, but they are more specific than "life.". I’d like you to tell us what it is that makes a human a “being” or a “person” as I asked above.

As for that “this point in the development of man's knowledge”—that was 1973, it’s been 33 years. Do you think there has been some advancement in “medicine, philosophy, and theology” that can point to a particular stage of development where neural functioning begins in an organized “human” manner? I think so—and it’s around 20 weeks after conception.

Even so...after 20 weeks there are valid arguments as to a woman's right to procure an abortion (but we're not at that point in the debate yet).