• 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!

Is It Morally Acceptable To Kill A Clone?

D_NATURED said:
Calling a fetus a child is like calling a block of steel a Cadillac. It takes a lot of very Jesus-y imagination to redefine the terms so ignorantly.
Click to expand...

Then you will need to explain the dictionary.

Child | Define Child at Dictionary.com

4. a human fetus.
Click to expand...

Child | Definition of Child by Merriam-Webster

1 a : an unborn or recently born person
Click to expand...

Child - definition of child by The Free Dictionary

2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus
Click to expand...

Need more?
 
Henrin said:
Then you will need to explain the dictionary.

Child | Define Child at Dictionary.com



Child | Definition of Child by Merriam-Webster



Child - definition of child by The Free Dictionary



Need more?
Click to expand...

Yes.

For legal terms you need to use the legal dictionary.

Blacks law dictionary is the one used by lawyers, judges and the Supreme Court Justices.
From Blacks law:

What is CHILD?
This word has two meanings in law: (1) In the law of the domestic relations, and as to descent and distribution, it is used strictly as the correlative of "parent," and means a son or daughter considered as in relation with the father or mother. (2) In the law of negligence, and in laws for the protection of children, etc., it is used as the CHILD 197 CHIROGRAPH opposite of "adult," and means the young of the human species, (generally under the age of puberty,) without any reference to parentage and without distinction of sex. Miller v. Finegan, 26 Fla. 29, 7 South. 140, 6 L. R. A. 813.
Click to expand...

What is CHILD? definition of CHILD (Black's Law Dictionary)

Law Dictionary: What is CHILD? definition of CHILD (Black's Law Dictionary)
 
Henrin said:
I can't help but find it interesting that peoples morality seems to depend on the word person. A word that I might that has no objective basis whatsoever.

I also can't help but find it interesting that in the abortion debate people find it morally acceptable to kill a human being at a certain stage of development.

Well, as long as it doesn't know that I killed it, it's fine. What in the actual **** is that train of thought?
Click to expand...

Who says the law has to have a solely objective basis? Science is about facts, it applies no value.

Value is subjective and we our laws are created based on subjective and objective criteria.

So who says that Homo sapiens at every stage of development has the same value? (Some) People. Not science.

How we value the unborn is subjective.
 
Henrin said:
It's a question of morality, not a question of law. When I'm asking you a question on your own morality I'm not looking for some legalize about what you think is a person or not. I don't care about legal terms or legality that speak towards how the state views the topic. What I want is what your conscience tells you about the subject and your reasoning for feeling that way. That's really all I want from you, and telling me some pointless drivel about legalize is frankly doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

So why is it 'moral' to believe the unborn has more value than a woman? They cannot be treated equally, so one must accord value more to one or the other. Who says it's moral to believe the unborn is more valuable than a woman?

(I'm not saying the unborn has no value, I'm saying that one must be viewed as having more value than the other. Who says which is 'moral?)
 
soot said:
If you don't care that you're killing a unique human being via abortion then you don't care.
.
Click to expand...

You just wrote it here. "Unique"

A clone is not unique. It can still be a completely independent lifeform, but it is not genetically unique.

Of course it is unique emotionally and mentally, much of that is formed by experience. (there are alot of cloned animals on the planet)
 
Henrin said:
You do realize that the vast majority of things that are made illegal are no one's business, right?



Nope, using the word child towards the unborn is accurate. Why do pro-choice people always need to be reminded of definitions?
Click to expand...

No, it must be qualified with 'unborn', as in 'unborn child' to be accurate.

Silly of you to forget that, you've been reminded before. I guess you were claiming that pro-choice people prefer accuracy in discussion? LOL
 
Lursa said:
No, it must be qualified with 'unborn', as in 'unborn child' to be accurate.

Silly of you to forget that, you've been reminded before. I guess you were claiming that pro-choice people prefer accuracy in discussion? LOL
Click to expand...

I already showed that claim to be wrong.
 
LowDown said:
It depends on where you draw the line between "blob of tissue" and "human being". When does an embryo become a person with rights? I know of no satisfactory answer to that question. The line as been drawn at various places, i.e., conception, beginning of 2nd trimester, beginning of viability, at birth, at leaving the hospital (Hillary's preference), and even at puberty in some societies. In most cases it just depends on convenience. Personally, I think the line should be drawn at "attains the ability to solve algebraic equations".

Obviously, if it's a human being then it can't be destroyed.
Click to expand...

Have you considered this as a legitimate benchmark?
Lursa said:
The unborn have no rights that that can be exercised independently, none. Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.
Click to expand...
 
Henrin said:
I wasn't talking about law.
Click to expand...

Obviously, the dictionary reflects the opinions of those it serves. If people use a dumb word enough, it will be added to the book and become "legitimate". When I say you're redefining terms, I mean that you are taking a word and applying it in a context where the differences between an actual child and your use of the word to describe a fetus doesn't fit.

Obviously, the law can't use YOUR definition. For instance, if the law required children to ride in a car seat, by your definition pregnant women would have to drive with their belly resting on and strapped into a device of some type. That would be dumb. Or, if a pregnant women wanted to enter a casino or something where "children" aren't allowed, the bouncer would have to say "Hey, lady, we don't allow children in here".

Hopefully, you see the distinction and admit that you are deliberately clouding the actual facts by using such a term to describe a fetus. Please don't play dumb.
 
D_NATURED said:
Obviously, the dictionary reflects the opinions of those it serves. If people use a dumb word enough, it will be added to the book and become "legitimate". When I say you're redefining terms, I mean that you are taking a word and applying it in a context where the differences between an actual child and your use of the word to describe a fetus doesn't fit.

Obviously, the law can't use YOUR definition. For instance, if the law required children to ride in a car seat, by your definition pregnant women would have to drive with their belly resting on and strapped into a device of some type. That would be dumb. Or, if a pregnant women wanted to enter a casino or something where "children" aren't allowed, the bouncer would have to say "Hey, lady, we don't allow children in here".
Click to expand...

State child passenger safety laws deal with situations that are relevant to the child at certain points in their life. Booster seats laws for example always deal with the height and weight of the child. A child that doesn't even need their own seat obviously wouldn't need any kind of special equipment to be in the car.

Hopefully, you see the distinction and admit that you are deliberately clouding the actual facts by using such a term to describe a fetus. Please don't play dumb.
Click to expand...

Do you? You're claiming that children of all ages are treated the same, but in reality they're not.
 
Henrin said:
State child passenger safety laws deal with situations that are relevant to the child at certain points in their life. Booster seats laws for example always deal with the height and weight of the child. A child that doesn't even need their own seat obviously wouldn't need any kind of special equipment to be in the car.



Do you? You're claiming that children of all ages are treated the same, but in reality they're not.
Click to expand...

Children are supposed to be strapped in car seats until 10 years old unless their height or weight exceeds the limits.


They even designed car seats to fit birth to ten years old
4 to 120 pounds.

4-in-1 seat grows with your child, so you can enjoy 10 years of use, from 4 - 120 lbs.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Interesting statement, but I wouldnt explore it here.

Elsewhere?
Click to expand...
Kids without parents ,lunatic guys having more than one clone ....
 
Henrin said:
State child passenger safety laws deal with situations that are relevant to the child at certain points in their life. ...A child that doesn't even need their own seat obviously wouldn't need any kind of special equipment to be in the car.
Click to expand...
A child under 2 can sit on moms or dads ( or another adults ) lap in a plane.
They do not need their own seat.
 
minnie616 said:
Children are supposed to be strapped in car seats until 10 years old unless their height or weight exceeds the limits.


They even designed car seats to fit birth to ten years old
4 to 120 pounds.
Click to expand...

It is up to twelve years old actually. I think at a certain point it becomes obvious that either the state is pushing this issue to the point of absurdity or that car companies completely fail to make their car work for the family.
 
The law should be applied narrowly in civil matters so as not to infringe upon personal freedoms. Best practice is not held to the same standard.

So while children should be strapped into car seats, we grant parents the autonomy to decide at what point a toddler or child no longer needs their seat, prior to adulthood.

As far as the thread is concerned, it is not legal to kill a clone. On the other hand, cloned bodies do not strictly have birth parents. I think an intermediate question should be posed: should a clone with any level of constitutional protection and sufficient intelligence and autonomy be permitted to exercise the legal right of emancipation?
 
Lursa said:
Have you considered this as a legitimate benchmark?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but dependency doesn't end with birth. Children remain dependent for a long time.
 
minnie616 said:
Not biologically dependent.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you have something specific in mind when you say "biologically dependent". So what does it mean? Is a child biologically dependent if she is unable to feed or care for herself and must rely on a caregiver such as the mother? Is she biologically dependent if she's breast feeding? If not then why not?

If it means that a person is biologically dependent if he must rely on others for his food and shelter then I know of a lot of adults like that.
 
sangha said:
Actually, the DNA argument is of no real relevance whatsoever. It is used, as you point out yourself, as an argument that the ZEF is an entity distinct from the mother. However, as the clone and the identical twin examples demonstrate, unique DNA has never been a way to distinguish one entity from another. Neither the legality nor the morality of abortion has anything to do with DNA.

PS - all of the cells of our body do not have the same DNA.
Click to expand...
As is the norm with your posts, you attempt to use language to skew the argument away from the truth of the matter.

What is usually being argued from this side is that the DNA of the child is distinctly different from the mother, or the father, and thus is a separate individual, not just a part of the mother as she is only the vessel encapsulating a different fellow human being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom