• 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!

Forty years ago, I was a good friend. Today I would be a felon.

COTO said:
The fetus has absolutely no control over where it gestates.
Click to expand...

Which is why it is not fit to be a person yet. Even a premie doesn't violate the rights or threaten the well being of any person, but an embryo/fetus can - if the woman didn't consent to pregnancy in advance.
 
COTO said:
Hence a comatose man is no longer a human being?
Click to expand...
Not at all. A comatose man is a person who previously demonstrated human consciousness. A fetus is an entity that has never demonstrated human consciousness. The comatose man has a human EEG and a fetus less than around 30 weeks, I think, doesn't have one.
COTO said:
He lacks conscious awareness, perception, and communication. And unlike a growing baby, he may be extremely likely never to recover them. Is he therefore also unworthy of life?
Click to expand...

The comatose man already demonstrated his humanity, so we ordinarily have reason to treat him as someone who may do so again. The unborn have never demonstrated that humanity, though I myself grasp why viability and the emergence of a human EEG are significant markers.

If you don't get the woman's prior consent to the pregnancy, and she doesn't give it on learning she's pregnant, or if the threat to her health/life is serious enough, you are not worthy of life, because she gives you part of her share in pregnancy - that's what pregnancy is.
 
choiceone said:
Not at all. A comatose man is a person who previously demonstrated human consciousness. A fetus is an entity that has never demonstrated human consciousness. The comatose man has a human EEG and a fetus less than around 30 weeks, I think, doesn't have one.

The comatose man already demonstrated his humanity, so we ordinarily have reason to treat him as someone who may do so again. The unborn have never demonstrated that humanity, though I myself grasp why viability and the emergence of a human EEG are significant markers.
Click to expand...
I hope it's not lost on you how transparently arbitrary your determination here is.

To summarize: What's important is conscious awareness, perception, and communication. Except... OK... a comatose man who has none of these things gets grandfathered in, because he at one time had conscious awareness, perception, and communication, even though he lacks them now. And the fact that a fetus will imminently develop all of these things doesn't count because... well... it just doesn't. But of course a baby who has developed a nervous system after 30 weeks does count as a human being, because despite never having experienced conscious awareness, perception, and communication, his/her having developed a nervous system overrides this fact.

In conclusion, this definitely all makes sense and isn't contrived so that we can insist the killing of unborn babies under 30 weeks old is morally acceptable despite admitting that killing comatose men and unborn babies 30 weeks or older is a terrible moral wrong.

choiceone said:
Which is why it is not fit to be a person yet. Even a premie doesn't violate the rights or threaten the well being of any person, but an embryo/fetus can - if the woman didn't consent to pregnancy in advance.
Click to expand...
Hence, 'A fetus "is not fit to be a person" because it can't control where it gestates.' is your argument?

Where in any extant law--moral, ethical, or civil--does an individual's ability to select his/her location or situation in life determine his/her "fitness to be a person"? (Excepting abortion, of course, since it's what's being debated.)

The answer is: Nowhere. The notion was blessedly thrown out with the idea that people of certain races are unfit for personhood, that people of lesser intelligence are unfit for personhood, that people of lesser status are unfit for personhood, etc.

A moral society does not determine the value of a human life based on its relative fitness, and especially not fitness based on factors completely beyond an individual's ability to control.
 
COTO said:
I hope it's not lost on you how transparently arbitrary your determination here is.

To summarize: What's important is conscious awareness, perception, and communication. Except... OK... a comatose man who has none of these things gets grandfathered in, because he at one time had conscious awareness, perception, and communication, even though he lacks them now. And the fact that a fetus will imminently develop all of these things doesn't count because... well... it just doesn't. But of course a baby who has developed a nervous system after 30 weeks does count as a human being, because despite never having experienced conscious awareness, perception, and communication, his/her having developed a nervous system overrides this fact.

In conclusion, this definitely all makes sense and isn't contrived so that we can insist the killing of unborn babies under 30 weeks old is morally acceptable despite admitting that killing comatose men and unborn babies 30 weeks or older is a terrible moral wrong.


Hence, 'A fetus "is not fit to be a person" because it can't control where it gestates.' is your argument?

Where in any extant law--moral, ethical, or civil--does an individual's ability to select his/her location or situation in life determine his/her "fitness to be a person"? (Excepting abortion, of course, since it's what's being debated.)

The answer is: Nowhere. The notion was blessedly thrown out with the idea that people of certain races are unfit for personhood, that people of lesser intelligence are unfit for personhood, that people of lesser status are unfit for personhood, etc.

A moral society does not determine the value of a human life based on its relative fitness, and especially not fitness based on factors completely beyond an individual's ability to control.
Click to expand...
Don't try to get my sympathy with "the value of a human life," because I don't give a crap about "a human life." I respect the value of a living person, probably whether it's human or not, and if "a human life" doesn't belong to "a living person," it's not of value.

You don't continue to be a person if you are in the process of raping, sexually assaulting, kidnapping, or felony-robbing a person. That is the reason why you have a right to self-defense and/or defense of a third party by lethal means if necessary in NY state against such a crime. The moment you stop doing those crimes, you are a person and you have rights as a person. This is not about certain races or levels of intelligence.

If you want to come into this society through a woman's body, you need to get her consent first. If you don't have it, by your body's being inside her body, it is committing rape, kidnapping, and threats to her health and life. That's it.

I don't care whether you share that morality, ethics or understanding of civility. I care about women not being violated by a bunch of mean, vicious embryo worshippers in our US government and state governments who, when they make anti-abortion laws prior to viability, are nothing more than rape accomplices.
And I share that concern with the many millions of persons in this country who are in the majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom