Mentork-vs-Jerry: Abortion

Jerry · Sep 12, 2008

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?

ROE v. WADE, Section 9a:
"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

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.

Mentork · Sep 12, 2008

Jerry said:
To answer this I first consider: Does it matter?

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.

Amendment V of the United States constitution said:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury

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

Amendment VI of the United States constitution said:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation

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.

the bible said:
Thou shall not murder

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 · Sep 12, 2008

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

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.

Mentork said:
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?

The 14th Amendment addresses 2 distinct types of individuals: "persons" and then "Citizens";

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Enemy combatants are "persons" under the UCMJ;

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.
(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

Detainees at Guantanamoas are "persons" who are additionally "enemy combatants", just as you are a "person" who is additionally a "citizen".

Court rules for Guantanamo inmate - Los Angeles Times
The order came just 11 days after the Supreme Court ruled that the 270 or so detainees at Guantanamo have a constitutional right of habeas corpus, which allows them to challenge their detention in federal courts. That ruling marked the third time since 2004 that the nation’s highest court has limited the government’s power to use the military to detain and prosecute foreign nationals at Guantanamo.

The appeals court specified that Parhat could “seek release immediately” through a writ of habeas corpus in light of the Supreme Court’s June 12 decision.

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

This gross violation of Basic Human Rights must end.

Mentork · Sep 12, 2008

Jerry said:
Detainees at Guantanamoas are "persons" who are additionally "enemy combatants", just as you are a "person" who is additionally a "citizen".

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

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.

Amendment II of The United States Constitution said:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

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

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

Jerry said:
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".

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.

Jerry said:
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.

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.

Jerry said:
1. You will note that the legal definition of "person" contains no reference of brain activity.

Nether does it contain reference to DNA or Organisms.

Jerry said:
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.

I fearsomely disagree.

merriam-webster said:
Secular

1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal b: not overtly or specifically religious.

merriam-webster said:
Humanist

3: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values

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

Jerry said:
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.

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.

merriam-webster said:
Religion

1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

merriam-webster said:
philosophy

4 a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group

merriam-webster said:
Humanism
3: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values

I think it is clear witch group humanism falls under.

Jerry · Sep 12, 2008

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

A prisoner is still a "person" under the law;

: a person deprived of liberty and kept under involuntary restraint, confinement, or custody
esp
: one under arrest, awaiting trial, on trial, or serving a prison sentence

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.

Mentork said:
Nether does it contain reference to DNA or Organisms.

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.

Mentork said:
Furthermore, humanism is a philosophy, not a religion.

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

Mentork · Sep 13, 2008

Jerry said:
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.

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

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

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 · Sep 13, 2008

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

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?

Mentork said:
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%?

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 · Sep 13, 2008

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

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".

Jerry said:
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.

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 · Sep 13, 2008

Mentork said:
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".

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

We can measure both.

Mentork · Sep 13, 2008

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?

Jerry · Sep 13, 2008

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

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Roe v. Wade that a woman had the right to choose abortion to end a pregnancy through the first trimester (three months) of gestation. In the latter stages of pregnancy, danger to the life of the mother could still justify a legal abortion.

I stand with Roe -V-Wade:
I would tolerate elective abortion-on-demand through the first 12 weeks, and only permit an abortion in the 2nd. and 3rd. trimester if the mother's life were in danger.

I usually give ground in compromise by giving PC the rape and insect exceptions, even though those exceptions are logically inconsistent with my premise.

Does this sound like a suitable compromise that you would sign onto?

Mentork · Sep 13, 2008

Jerry said:
I would tolerate elective abortion-on-demand through the first 12 weeks, and only permit an abortion in the 2nd. and 3rd. trimester if the mother's life were in danger.

Does this sound like a suitable compromise that you would sign onto?

*signs bill into law*

jujuman13 · Oct 6, 2008

Jerry quote
(I usually give ground in compromise by giving PC the rape and insect exceptions, even though those exceptions are logically inconsistent with my premise.

Does this sound like a suitable compromise that you would sign onto?)

Perhaps you meant INCEST as opposed to INSECT?
Other than this I would have thanked you for a good post.

Jerry · Oct 13, 2008

jujuman13 said:
Jerry quote
(I usually give ground in compromise by giving PC the rape and insect exceptions, even though those exceptions are logically inconsistent with my premise.

Does this sound like a suitable compromise that you would sign onto?)

Perhaps you meant INCEST as opposed to INSECT?
Other than this I would have thanked you for a good post.

Wow, you'de toss out the whole issue due to a single typo.

Macintosh · Oct 29, 2008

Well done, Jerry. Although, I wouldn't tolerate abortion - period.

Mentork-vs-Jerry: Abortion

Active member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency