• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abortion 201

Wan said:
I am not necessarily arguing that zefs should have personhood rights. But the fact corporations are given rights but not actual humans (aka the unborn) bothers me.
Click to expand...

I do not think you can ever compare the rights of a company to that of a person. The rights of companies in elections is a decision of the supreme court that the US politicians should remedy, but still, companies have always had rights. IMHO. It does not mean that something that not yet exists legally under civil laws should be given rights.

Wan said:
As far as I know, nobody is saying we should confer the entire suit of rights on the unborn. But the unborn is a live human. And the deliberate killing of a live human is murder. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

I am not of the opinion that a ZEF is a human being, close to the date of birth I agree the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus should be seen as about equal unless when it comes to saving a woman's life or in case of severe and life ending deformities of the fetus. But I do not think of a 3 week gestated embryo is a human being nor do I see it alive as in criminal law/civil law a human being is.

To me (and again, a very personal point of view) brain birth is much more important than zygote stages, embryo stages or even number of weeks gestating of the fetus stage. If a person dies at brain death, a "human" starts with the approximate stage in which a substantial number of higher brain functions start developing. Some call it brain birth and I personally see that as a significant moment in the developmental stage of the fetus. Just like I feel it is a hugely significant (if not only significant moment) in the process of dying. The moment your higher brain functions totally stop.
 
Peter King said:
I do not think you can ever compare the rights of a company to that of a person. The rights of companies in elections is a decision of the supreme court that the US politicians should remedy, but still, companies have always had rights. IMHO. It does not mean that something that not yet exists legally under civil laws should be given rights.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

What part of "I am not necessarily arguing that zefs should have personhood rights" do you not understand? Why do you talk like I want to give rights to the unborn?
I am not of the opinion that a ZEF is a human being, close to the date of birth I agree the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus should be seen as about equal unless when it comes to saving a woman's life or in case of severe and life ending deformities of the fetus. But I do not think of a 3 week gestated embryo is a human being nor do I see it alive as in criminal law/civil law a human being is.
Click to expand...
Except I never said the zef is a "human being". I said it's a live human. Do you agree with this?
 
Wan said:
*sigh*

What part of "I am not necessarily arguing that zefs should have personhood rights" do you not understand? Why do you talk like I want to give rights to the unborn?

Except I never said the zef is a "human being". I said it's a live human. Do you agree with this?
Click to expand...

Nope, it is not a live human, it does not have the properties of a live human.
 
Peter King said:
Nope, it is not a live human, it does not have the properties of a live human.
Click to expand...

It is. The unborn is an organism that 1. contains human DNA and 2. is alive. An organism that satisfies both of these conditions is a live human.

If you disagree with the above then give me your definition of what a live human is. Note "live human" and "person" are different.
 
Wan said:
It is. The unborn is an organism that 1. contains human DNA and 2. is alive. An organism that satisfies both of these conditions is a live human.

If you disagree with the above then give me your definition of what a live human is. Note "live human" and "person" are different.
Click to expand...

Except it is not a human, nor is it really alive. Without the umbilical cord there would not be a live at all. It can be expelled from the womb at any moment, by natural and unnatural causes and it does not have the properties of a human.

I already stated at brain birth humanity starts, at brain death it ends.
 
Peter King said:
Except it is not a human,
Click to expand...
How is an entity that contains human DNA not human?

nor is it really alive.
Click to expand...
The fetus takes nutrients from the mother and grows bigger everyday. A dead fetus can't do this. Therefore, it's alive.

Without the umbilical cord there would not be a live at all.
Click to expand...
The fact the unborn is dependent on the mother to live does not change the fact it is still a live human. A comatose person cannot live without the support of machines but he/she is still a live human.

It can be expelled from the womb at any moment, by natural and unnatural causes and it does not have the properties of a human.
Click to expand...
None of this changes the fact that the unborn is a live human.
I already stated at brain birth humanity starts, at brain death it ends.
Click to expand...
Does this mean we should start killing people who are brain-dead?
 
Wan said:
I am not the one who thinks people need to provide sources, links..etc in a logical progression. Allow me to quote you:


Either you dont know that we are arguing in a logical progression or that you think it's necessary to "support one's claims" in a logical progression.
Click to expand...

If you want the logical progession to mean anything then yeah you must
This is very basic logic
 
Wan said:
I am not necessarily arguing that zefs should have personhood rights. But the fact corporations are given rights but not actual humans (aka the unborn) bothers me.
Click to expand...

A corporation is considered a judicial person.

The legal designation does not give a business the same rights as a natural person.
Corporate personhood protects corporations from unfair treatment by the government.


There are Constitutional persons , judicial persons, natural persons, artificial persons, etc.

Because corporations are among the most well-known juridical persons, (114) an analogy to corporate personality should be instructive. The law has long afforded corporations juridical person status. (115) Such awards were often quick and unjustified. Before hearing the parties' arguments in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific RailroadThe Pacific Railroad is a defunct U.S. railroad. It was a predecessor of both the Missouri Pacific Railroad and St. Louis-San Francisco Railway.

The Pacific was chartered by the U.S. state of Missouri on March 3, 1849.
..... Click the link for more information. Co., (116) Chief Justice Waite instructed: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the ... Fourteenth Amendment ... applies to ... corporations. We are all of [the] opinion that it does." (117) Although the earliest courts generally did not explain their reasons for granting juridical personhood to corporations, later courts and scholars did. One of the earliest rationales for granting juridical personhood was the need to protect shareholders as the owners of the company. (118) Although the company, as an artificial entity, had no fights itself, the shareholders had personal property rights in the company that needed protection. (119) In The Railroad Tax Cases, (120) Justice Field observed that "[t]o deprive the corporation of its property, or to burden it, is, in fact, to deprive the corporators of their property or to lessen its value." (121) Courts were, in effect, granting personhood to a non-person entity in order to protect the natural person owners of the non-person entity. This is precisely the picture of the juridical person: an entity that derives its personhood not from the moral status or fights of the entity itself, but from the fights and interests of already existing natural persons. (122)

Fetal personhood can be perceived in much the same way.The fetus, like the corporation, is not entitled to protections because of what it is innately. Instead, the law recognizes that there is a natural person, the mother, who has fundamental interests at stake. Her rights are invested in another entity, the fetus. The law gives that entity juridical personhood to ensure that the fights of the mother may be secured, just as the law gives the corporation juridical personhood to protect the fights of the shareholders. (123)
Click to expand...

The myth of fetal personhood: reconciling Roe and fetal homicide laws. - Free Online Library
 
Last edited:
Wan said:
I am not the one who thinks people need to provide sources, links..etc in a logical progression. Allow me to quote you:


Either you dont know that we are arguing in a logical progression or that you think it's necessary to "support one's claims" in a logical progression.
Click to expand...

Pay no attention to the logically-challenged.
Basic logic is a mystery to them.
Here are two logical progressions for them to choke on.

A>B, B>C, therefore A>C

All A are B
C is A
Therefore, C is B
 
Angel said:
Pay no attention to the logically-challenged.
Here are two logical progressions for them to choke on.

A>B, B>C, therefore A>C

All A are B
C is A
Therefore, C is B
Click to expand...

So you are telling Wan to ignore you. Good advice
 
“Pro choice people cannot think beyond their own perspective!”

*adamantly refuses to consider any argument from a perspective that a fetus is not a human being*
 
Peter King said:
Nope, it is not a live human, it does not have the properties of a live human.
Click to expand...

The fetus is living but since it does not live without being physiologically attached, it is not a living human being.
 
Angel said:
"My personal moral view" is your strawman.
Click to expand...

So then prove otherwise. You cant. You havent.

Prove 'your personal moral view' is universal and self-evident, as you have claimed.

Or admit you cant.

Lursa said:
No...when you claim that 'your personal moral view' is universal and self-evident, you have to support that. You have to show how your personal moral view parallels a universal and self-evident moral belief beyond your own. :doh

Your personal 'logical' progressions fail...because we dont accept your premises just because 'you said so.' The one about self-preservation being a moral disposition or whatever...is wrong. It's like you claiming unicorns exist. They dont...unless you support it.

You have been incapable of even providing definitions of the words you use :doh
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
So then prove otherwise. You cant. You havent.

Prove 'your personal moral view' is universal and self-evident, as you have claimed.

Or admit you cant.
Click to expand...
I've replied to your silly demand for "proof" of self-evident truth a dozen times. Your strategy of repeating it endlessly after its been answered to the satisfaction of any reasonable person demonstrates once again the bad faith of your posts. Find Quag and do your echo-chamber routine. Quit bothering me with know-nothing posts.
 
Angel said:
Pay no attention to the logically-challenged.
Basic logic is a mystery to them.
Here are two logical progressions for them to choke on.

A>B, B>C, therefore A>C

All A are B
C is A
Therefore, C is B
Click to expand...

Careful, this might make their brains explode, which I believe to be a form of animal abuse.
 
year2late said:
The fetus is living but since it does not live without being physiologically attached, it is not a living human being.
Click to expand...

Why is "without being physiologically attached" important? There are many animals like that, they are called parasites. They cannot live on their own, but would you say they are not alive?
 
Wan said:
Why is "without being physiologically attached" important? There are many animals like that, they are called parasites. They cannot live on their own, but would you say they are not alive?
Click to expand...

Try cutting the cord with the fetus left inside before birth.

The fetus would die.
 
minnie616 said:
Try cutting the cord with the fetus left inside before birth.

The fetus would die.
Click to expand...

And your point is? Being completely self-sufficient is never a criterion for being alive.

Also, premature babies would also die if hospital personnel cut off their support system. According to your standard (lol I can't say this with a straight face on), this means the premature babies are not alive either, since they require outside help for their survival, just like the unborn.

Also, answer my question. Are parasites alive or not?
 
Wan said:
And your point is? Being completely self-sufficient is never a criterion for being alive?
Click to expand...

Here are the Criteria:

An individual living creature is called an organism.
There are many characteristics that living organisms share. They all:

respond to their environment
grow and change
reproduce and have offspring
have a complex chemistry
maintain homeostasis
are built of structures called cells
pass their traits onto their offspring
Click to expand...

Characteristics of Life ( Read ) | Biology
| CK-12 Foundation


An embryo or pre viable fetus cannot maintain homeostasis.

The woman’s liver maintains the homeostasis for the fetus until late into the second trimester of pregnancy when the liver of the fetus is formed.

That’s one of the many reasons no 20 week old gestation premies will ever survive outside the womb.
 
Congrats...you have 200 posts, you win a toaster
 
minnie616 said:
Here are the Criteria:



Characteristics of Life ( Read ) | Biology
| CK-12 Foundation


An embryo or pre viable fetus cannot maintain homeostasis.

The woman’s liver maintains the homeostasis for the fetus until late into the second trimester of pregnancy when the liver of the fetus is formed.

That’s one of the many reasons no 20 week old gestation premies will ever survive outside the womb.
Click to expand...

Answer my questions. Are parasites alive or not? Are premature babies alive or not?
 
Wan said:
Why is "without being physiologically attached" important? There are many animals like that, they are called parasites. They cannot live on their own, but would you say they are not alive?
Click to expand...

Because while it is attached to the woman, it is using her bodily resources. Potentially endangering her.

My pregnancy certainly endangered my life. If I did not have excellent resources the outcome would have been much different for me.

It is not up to you or me to decide what another person should risk.
 
year2late said:
Because while it is attached to the woman, it is using her bodily resources. Potentially endangering her.

My pregnancy certainly endangered my life. If I did not have excellent resources the outcome would have been much different for me.

It is not up to you or me to decide what another person should risk.
Click to expand...

I was not specifically talking about whether you have the right to have an abortion. I was asking you why just because an entity depends on another being for survival, that means it's not alive.

Again, my question: are parasites alive or not? Yes or no.
 
Wan said:
I was not specifically talking about whether you have the right to have an abortion. I was asking you why just because an entity depends on another being for survival, that means it's not alive.

Again, my question: are parasites alive or not? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

A fetus is living.

What does a parasite have to do with anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom