Queen's Abortion Debate

Abortion: A Woman's Right or a Moral Wrong?
Debate between Gabrielle Ferri and Sarah Sahagian
Unfortunately, my opponent had her half of the debate removed from youtube. So this is no longer as much of a debate as it is a presentation.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• abortion
• debate
• queen's
• communications

[PhilosophyJunky]

@rsgirl10 I am well aware of what tautology is. This is not tautology.

[rsgirl10]

@PhilosophyJunky

Okay, wow. I'm not making you reply, all you have to do is stop responding, but if you throw a comment out there that I think is flawed, I'm going to say something. Google "tautology", and premise 2 fails.

[PhilosophyJunky]

@rsgirl10 No, I just have a smart phone that notifies me of everything.

[PhilosophyJunky]

@rsgirl10 As i stated in my last message to you, I request that we leave this be. I am a very busy person and this is a very big distraction to me as I feel very passionate about this topic and apologetics in general. To answer you last questions: I do not distinguish between human and person. I don't see a problem with this. I know you stated an argument against it but I do not believe the argument holds for a few reasons. A cancer call is not a whole human organism. Please, let's leave it be.

[rsgirl10]

@PhilosophyJunky

Holy cow, are you always on? Might have to respond tomorrow.

[rsgirl10]

@PhilosophyJunky

I will ask you again to please distinguish human & person in your argument, otherwise I've pointed out yet another way in which it is flawed. Also, what do you think of my cancer cell analogy? I think it’s a pretty good one.

I haven't gotten to the bulk of my argument, & I’m hesitant to until we come to some sort of understanding in what each of us are arguing, simply b'c my argument is quite long. So when you’re up for it, let me know.

[PhilosophyJunky]

@rsgirl10 If you maintain that it is like passing or failing a test, how are you drawing the line between pass and fail? I see no way you could draw this line without picking an arbitrary amount that you cannot even measure.

[PhilosophyJunky]

@rsgirl10 Saying that the definition of what makes people people are the things you associate with people every day is circular logic. You assuming a thing is a person, see what those things have in common, then say that is what makes them people. Things like sentience and emotion are not an all-or-nothing trait. People have varying degrees of these. So if those traits are what make people people, then people with more of those traits would be more valuable.

[rsgirl10]

@PhilosophyJunky

x. I made my definition of person/human to not include sentient, although I think it’s implied, because I find it is too broad of a word.

xi. These things are not arbitrary – I associate them with people everyday. Again, it’s hard to argue a definition. How can I say that your definition of human is wrong unless it is completely absurd (which I’m sure it won’t be – it will probably be a bit different than mine, that’s all)?

[rsgirl10]

@PhilosophyJunky

ix. Person: a person must of the human race, possess the ability to experience different emotions, must be self-aware & must be able to undergo different levels of consciousness. You'll see that neither brain dead people nor z/e/f’s are included in this definition. However, animals other than humans possess all of these things save the first, which in my opinion is the least important. I'd say that if a thing lacked just the first requirement, it should have some rights.