We decide who to decide for.

Is an apple seed a sprout? Is a sprout a tree?

No, but they may grow into one.

Just as a fetus is not a baby, a seed is not a sapling.

I will answer your question - no I am not drunk.

Are you illiterate? Are you so helplessly illiterate you cannot comprehend the analogy for the different stages of development?

A seed is not a tree, nor a sap. To be a tree, it must have a trunk, leaves, and branches.

A sapling/sprout is not a tree. It has no trunk, it has no branches, but it does have leaves.

A fetus has not fully developed it's entire anatomy until 40 weeks.

A collection of cells is not human.

It's not even a fetus. This reproductive mass is called an embryo until 10 weeks of age. It is then classified as a fetus.

Oh, I see your argument. Your argument is based on whether life (be it plant or animal) is sentient. Thus, aborting something that is sentient is murder. Let's look closer at the definition of sentience.

Sentience - sentient condition or character; capacity for sensation or feeling.
- dictionary.com

Sentience -
1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
sentient beings
2: AWARE
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling
- Merriam Webster

The prevailing scientific view today is that sentience is generated by specialized neural structures and processes – neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological. In more complex organisms these take the form of the central nervous system. According to the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (publicly proclaimed on 7 July 2012 at the Cambridge University), only those organisms within the animal kingdom that have these neural substrates are sentient.
- Low, Philip (7 July 2012). "The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness" (PDF). FCM Conference. Cambridge University. Retrieved 5 August 2020.

So, the last definition really expands on the dictionary definitions of what sentience is. The CNS does not begin to develop until four weeks.

There is some fringe science that is attempting to correlate positive stimulation and negative stimulation with feeling pain or pleasure as plants respond to positive and negative stimuli - elements that encourage their growth versus elements which can be detrimental to it. Not worth really putting water into if that's your argument on "everything feels pain."

I could go on some red herrings about how pro-lifers as strict as they can be are hypocrites when considering war, neglect of the homeless, xenophobia, etc. In this, they seem to pick and choose when human life is valuable or not. But that's another topic for another conversation.

I have my views, based on science. That is, for me, it isn't "alive" until it can feel pain. It's just a mass of cells. That's where my line is drawn and that is the proverbial mountain I will die on. That being said, this is a country of personal freedom and the right to choose. My views should not be pressed upon another person regardless of how strongly I feel about them. Just because you don't like the termination of a fetus, doesn't legally make it murder. Abortion is legal in this country. You can speculate all you want whether or not that will change. Right now? It's not even though you want it to be.

That's a whole lot of text without much substance...

"If you can't handle the back and forth of a debate on imgflip, my advice to you is very simple: don't engage in them."
-I handle it just fine.
"If so, who cares what other people's beliefs are? No amount of "pressing" will change them."
-I'm glad we agree.
"Can YOUR beliefs not withstand scrutiny and comparison? If not, are those beliefs even worth having in the first place?"
-I do not believe that anyone's beliefs can. I place value in my beliefs. You place value in yours and here we are, pointing at the issues of each other's beliefs. Our statements have been made no mind has been changed. I'm wondering why you're still here trying to shake my beliefs when you've failed. You can go on about your business as I will mine. I respect your perspective. I disagree, but I respect it. You're free to disagree with me, you don't even have to respect it. You just have to deal with it. If that means raging at some stranger on imgflip, by all means, I will oblige until you've ran out of steam. There is nothing you can say or do that will make me feel less of a person, or challenge my beliefs that I had before walking into this conversation.

"No one has censored you, or altered your posts, or deleted them, or done anything to you that would, in any way, put you at a rhetorical disadvantage...except for your own inability to form a coherent and rational argument, and that's entirely on you."
-Remember that article 42A that I posted? Yeah, if you had looked at it you would have seen that it was from Ireland, not the US. Which means you don't check my sources, you don't do your research, you take what you read at face value without any critical thought. You simply attack the position of those who differ from you. And still, _you don't have any sources of your own to back up any claims at all_. If this was a debate, you would have acknowledged your counter-point as an argument as an argument is a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

"Heh. The classics keep coming! The "you're shoving your beliefs down my throat!!!" argument is another very old, very debunked trope. After all...you're doing the same exact thing."
-Actually, I haven't as I've given you an exit, recognizing that we will not come to an agreement on what is wrong or right for the both of us. Instead I chose the "Agree to disagree" route in which we can part ways.

"There doesn't need to be. As I very carefully explained to you before, and which you can't seem able to grasp, so I'll explain it again, basic biology has given us a very clear line on when a person becomes a person: the moment of conception."
-That's not biology, that's conflating biology with philosophy.

"Which claim? I made several." - And all of them have no sources.

"No. You crafted an argument out of thin air, then attributed it to me. That's not "addressing a counterpoint." That's creating a straw man. Deal with it." - No, you made a counterpoint by making a statement regarding sentience, I addressed said counterpoint which debunked what you said. What you're doing is gaslighting. Deal with it.

"Sentience has nothing to do with this argument, because I'm not arguing about sentience. Sentience is not confined to humanity. Sentience is YOUR argument, not mine." Then you shouldn't have argued on what has and what doesn't have sentience. You should have said it is irrelevant which you didn't. You said: "Second, trees and other plant life are not sentient. "Neither is a fetus!!" you may protest. Not true, but irrelevant. No tree or plant, at any point in its life, develops sentience." This argument was used to refute my developmental analogy.

""Liberty -
the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."

...which, of course, never applies to the unborn."

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the fetus' only inherent constitutionally protected right is the right to be born, overturning a High Court ruling that a fetus additionally possessed the children's rights guaranteed by Article 42A of the Constitution.

In this discussion I have already defined what constitutes a fetus. The Supreme Court chooses its verbiage very carefully and did not say that an embryo has the right to be born. As such..

An embryo has no rights.

"Again: the unborn has no choice in the matter. That is the essence of "un-american."

Is this difficult for you to understand...? That the unborn gets NO VOICE in their continued existence, and that violates the very foundation of "individual liberty"...?"

Now, you're using circular logic to a point that I've already disputed. Personhood has not been defined unequivocally.

Look at you, traveling down the debunked tropes of the Abortion movement! Pro-Choice ALWAYS means Pro-Abortion. ALWAYS. Orwellian doublespeak doesn't change that.

Now, you're projecting the accusation of debunked tropes. Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. It means Pro-Choice. That means I respect people who would rather give birth to a rape baby or a stillborn than abort it. Equally, I respect those who would rather not go through that.

"Again, these are the tactics of the intellectually dishonest, who know their arguments are being deconstructed, but can't deal with it, so they sling passive/aggressive jabs like this."

Nothing has been deconstructed. You've only posed your opposing views, then tried to state why mine are wrong without any supporting data or quotes. That's not deconstruction or refutation.

"This statement betrays your ignorance and naivete."

More ad hominem. Okay.

[If you could, you would never lodge the ridiculous claim of "you're trying to force your beliefs down my throat!!!"

That's the complaint of the defeated, the one who cannot handle being challenged, and who resents it.

This is an open forum. You are not limited in any manner that everyone else isn't limited. It is disingenuous...a lie...to claim that someone debating you point for point is trying to "press their beliefs on you."

That is the evidence...and it's sufficient and more...that proves that you cannot "handle it."

We don't agree. Not 5 sentences above this statement, you whined about me trying to "press my beliefs on you." Do you think people are too stupid to read what you said...?]

Let me count 1...2....3 times in one post you mentioned the notion where I suggested you were trying to force your beliefs on me. Really sticking to that one. I would say, yeah you are as you're trying to convince me otherwise of what I believe. Such repetition in such subjects would denote an amount of desperation for a claim not addressed to be easily dismantled with logic. Aaaaand done.

[Third...you're doing the exact same thing. Quit playing the victim. I'm "still here" because YOU are "still here." Don't want to argue?

The answer is simple.

Stop arguing.

I know, I know! MIND BLOWN!

"You can go on about your business as I will mine."

Ok. So what's stopping you?

"I respect your perspective. I disagree, but I respect it. "

No, you really don't.

And that's ok.]

I do respect your perspective man. Be at peace with it. You're making mountains out of mole hills trying to put words in my mouth. Also known as a straw man.

You know, I feel kinda bad for you that your perspective is so narrow that you can't recognize the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice. I feel bad that I offer a situation in which we can agree to disagree and go about our separate ways. Instead, you say "You go first."

Sure man. I'll go first. Go in peace. I'm not desperate to have the last word.

Just because the SCOTUS rules on anything, doesn't make it right...it just makes it "legal."

-You missed the part where I said that this was the Supreme Court in Ireland. Yet, you say "SCOTUS" I was using the Supreme Court of Ireland as a precedence where there was none currently in our country. Unless, you care to cite it?

"Again: in your Leftist, murderous bloodlust, you care about the liberty of everyone...except the unborn.

And that is because you want to justify your evil.

I mean, I would respect you more if you just owned it."

-I will not "own" an ad hominem laden misrepresentation of my character. I could say that you endorse pregnancy rape where ~30,000 pregnancies result from rape each year and that you're a vile monster for forcing a woman to carry the fruit of an abominable act such as rape where you force her to carry it where she had no choice in the matter. But that's a straw man argument, just as your labeling is.

"Pro-Choice means Pro-Abortion, because choosing to keep the child doesn't help your rationalizations. It is Orwellian doublespeak to pretend otherwise.

Who you respect and why is meaningless. What matters is that you have no respect for what the unborn would say, because they can't say it...how convenient for you. That is the crux, here."

-Your perspectives mean diddly to me. I don't know why you're still trying to beat me over the head with this. It's kinda embarrassing to watch now. To say that I am pro-abortion is strawman. You're implying that if a woman has a choice in abortion or keeping the child in which there could be repercussions for her I would always choose abortion. This isn't true, I support her right to make the decision for herself. Your binary account of the situation speaks volumes on your ability to comprehend the differences, subtle as they may be.

I'm still waiting for you to say something actually intelligent and constructive to this discussion. Instead all you've managed to be is contrarian. (see level four of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.) Whereas if I were being stingy of myself have reached level 2: Finds the error in your logic, explained why its mistaken, have cited sources and used quotes.)

I would rather end this discussion as you and I are both getting no where and will continue to get no where for the foreseeable future.

Ah, but it was as it was one of the points in your counter-argument to which you stated:

"No tree or plant, at any point in its life, develops sentience."

By the verbiage you used to illustrate your claim, you state that sentience is part of the criteria for something to be "alive." This argument you have made actually supports my claim that a fetus is not "alive" until the fetus itself reaches sentience.

Having said that... Regarding your claim on what a "person" is...

A person (plural people or persons) is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility. The defining features of personhood and consequently what makes a person count as a person differ widely among cultures and contexts.

Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law, and is closely tied to legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to common worldwide general legal practice, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate, and has been questioned during the abolition of slavery and the fight for women's rights, in debates about abortion, fetal rights, and in animal rights advocacy.

-Richard A. Shweder/Edmund J. Bourne. 1982. Does the Concept of the Person Vary Cross-Culturally?, in: Anthony J. Marsella/Geoffrey M. White (eds), Cultural Conceptions of Mental Health and Therapy, Dordrecht, S. 97-137.

So, the definition of personhood is subjective as it is based on personal values and thus cannot be 100% defined as a universally recognized truth. Whereas there is no debate about what sentience is or what the requirements for it are.

Based upon the loose definition of personhood, and the absolute definition of sentience, I have drawn my logical conclusion on when a fetus is a person. To be a person, you require sentience in some capacity - the ability to feel physically or emotionally at its most core levels. That is the minimum criteria to be a person. Yet, there are other arguments that follow that line of reasoning as animals can also feel pain. They can also reason. So, it's not so simple.

So, I think I can find a way for both of us to end this discussion as it will just keep going around in circles as we have differing views.

Do you have anything to add other than repeating the things you've been saying over and over again? Just because you repeat them doesn't make them any more true.

So, I can see your claims are backed up by... *checks notes* Oh wait, you don't have any sources to augment your claim.

Addressing counter points is part of debate. I addressed your counterpoint on the issue of sentience and you have no response. Deal with it. Sentience has everything to do with this argument.

Since there is no universally adopted truth by all sides of the philosophical, scientific debate and what criteria is required to be a person, I take the route of sentience with regard to abortion.

This country was made on the ideals of liberty. Let's define liberty so it is not a simple buzzword in this conversation:

Liberty -
the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

As such, since there are multiple perspectives on what makes a person a person when it comes to an unborn fetus, I let people make decisions for themselves. If I were to make a decision for them that would be very un-american of me.

You want to be Pro-Life, go for it man. Want to get an abortion? That's your prerogative.

Pro choice does not mean "Pro-Abortion." Pro-Choice means endorsing an individual's right in making the informed decision for themselves regarding whether or not it is right for them.

You won't change my mind about this, and I don't seek to change yours. But you seem hell bent on telling me why I am wrong. You will always fail in this as there is no absolute definition that is universally accepted of when a person achieves personhood.

I am pro-choice and I respect your choice in being pro-life. My issue is that you're trying to press your views onto me. I take issue with anyone pressing their views and beliefs onto me.

Wow, four replies? This meme says it all.
https://imgflip.com/i/4j46c8