Abortion ought to be legal in the United States.

Okay-- let's see what 5 hours of sleep can afford me in debate... I really liked your rebuttal, you came out strong and made some good points. You claimed that in some areas I misunderstood your definition of Life/Personhood in regards to sentience, etc. But to that I would have to say you misunderstood some of what I said. I too ran out of room and left some holes in my argument, which you have dutifully pointed out. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say that throughout my argument I have double-standards. This confusion was probably caused by me saying A = B where it clearly doesn't. Yeah...that was my short-hand argument. A more clear statement would be a time line with A at the beginning and B at the end. But I do want to make note that in our world the same standard does not apply itself in every context. This is mostly about what I said about Action and Non-Action. "Suppose further that this woman were in the middle of the desert, and thus there were no other humans around to care for her." --Zasch Okay, yes that is non-action (whereas the action is defined as care). But when I was defining action, I was calling it abortion. That is where I was trying to draw the line and in different contexts action and non-action will be perceived as different things. Why that is important to me-- if nature takes human-life, it is a tragedy, but if human takes human-life by active choice, it is unlawful and unethical. I think that should clear up my explanation. "'No state shall deny to any **person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'. Note that it does NOT say any lifeform: it protects only PERSONS." --Zasch When you take what I said verbatim without any interpretation, the 14th Amendment does support you...I guess. But when I was talking about life, I thought it was apparent that I was talking about human-life, which would make the 14th Amendment support me because there is no inequality of human-life under U.S. jurisdiction. And as to not misinterpret inequality...I do mean a persons right to live-- I don't want to leave the door open for other debates. "When a man is murdered, we mourn his loss of liberty, not merely that his 'potential to die'... His liberty comes from the fact that he is a PERSON, not merely that he is alive." --Zasch When I was talking about development, I was not saying the former of your quote, but merely providing logic for personhood (which is your main-point). I completely agree with the latter, and I never explicitly stated that (I reiterate this for clarity). Conception to death is the route all human-life takes. Between that is going from stage to stage until we hit death. That is a very reasonable statement that I doubt you will disagree with. U.S. law protects us so that process is not ended by another human's action as to where that human-life does not consent or U.S. law has not already determined that human-life void (i.e. Death Penalty [though I do whole-heartedly disagree with the Death Penalty]). "You would put forth that the zygote has the potential of developing into a person, and thus it ought to be considered a person. ... We can demonstrate that this "potential" argument is absurd if we simply take it one step further. Sperm, given the right conditions, will also eventually develop into humans." In my first week and a half of classes I have read the Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, and Arthurian Legend. That is English alone and time and thought and ability to sleep are drifting away. I explained that poorly, a time line would have done better. The fact I said potential really meant the ability for A to go to B on a time line. A zygote does retain personhood (unless the women is experimenting with some other species). But I do not call a Zygote a baby, just as I don't call a child an adult. These are stages of development on the time line of life. And because that life is human (unless that Zygote is in Catherine the Great and has horse DNA), it is entitled to protection under U.S. jurisdiction. At least, when considering all human-life equal in that context. "If a mother herself does not take an active interest in providing for her growing child, the child itself will die. Indeed, in the hypothetical where the mother does nothing at all (and, thus, is in a state of perfect inaction), the child itself dies fairly shortly afterwards, indicating that active action is needed in order to *keep* the child, and a form of abortion is the result of *inaction*." --Zasch Again, you are redefining what I have called action. When I defined action, I called it abortion and only in the context for which abortion could happen and in the time frame of the procedure for which an abortion would take place. But I love the point you bring up, I was expecting it. Since that child is human-life and endowed with rights, he is protected under U.S. jurisdiction. The mother actually does commit an action here and would be punished. That action is called negligence. But of course, remember that this action is defined as negligence is this context (because aborting a small child is kind of hard to do :-)). "Animals are sentient, but not protected. Your profile says you aren't a vegetarian. Thus, your position is inconsistent." --Zasch That was pretty funny. But I will agree with you in saying that I am consistent when it is human-life that needs protecting. Your final point is very interesting and I am guessing the most important for your rebuttal. "Clearly neither 'life' nor 'sentience' are the requirement for being considered a person: sapience is." --Zasch "Sapience, usually defined as wisdom since it is the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment." --http://en.wikipedia.org... Taken as said, a dead person is clearly not a person because death hinders the ability to exercise wisdom. But I do not believe that. Why? I will get to that. "A human in a hypothetical supercomputer is still human. Our personhood is what defines us, not our biology" --Zasch He is saying that the mind of a human in a supercomputer despite the lack of the human-body is still a human. Nice imagery, but flawed logic. How does the human get its sapience. Is it magic? Or is this ability to exercise wisdom the result of biology and chemistry. The way you have argued, the human-mind should be able to function without the need for any observable biological or chemical features-- to which I disagree. Even with sapience described as a feature alone needs to come from somewhere. My full-grown human-body is the result of development as dictated by chemistry and biology...my sapience is too. So the notion that biology does not defined personhood is botched logic. A Zygote clearly has SENTIENCE and it is ALIVE. Looking at it from a biological point-of-view, you see a HUMAN-ZYGOTE. I have made clear the PERSONHOOD the zygote retains and under the logic of Zasch, he is entitled to protection under U.S. jurisdiction. I will repeat: "'No state shall deny to any **person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'. Note that it does NOT say any lifeform: it protects only PERSONS." --Zasch ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --I have refuted his examples of the desert, vegetarianism, etc. --I made more clear my potential argument with a time line. I do not call a Zygote a baby, just like I don't call a child an adult. But the right to develop into these is a protected right. --I refuted the notion that I claim 'action' to be defined as only ONE thing. It clearly depends on the context. --I have now given personhood to the Zygote, which is important because Zasch's argument was grounded in the fact that there was no personhood. This is a really good debate. I eagerly wait for your response. I pray there are no typos.