Prove me wrong.

Like what?

So dependency is the standard for life?

That is inconsistent.

"A human outside the womb is viable. It doesn't need another human to stay alive."

So, your definition of human value is whether or not the human is able to stay alive without help.

In other words, the degree of dependancy.

You can't do that. Say that: "Your value is dependant on this, but, but, also this, sometimes, but no, but yes."

Either that is the standard, or it is not, or, there are other things that you need to make the standard for human value.

No, you are being INconsistent. Not consistent.

I know. That's the point. That is your little game. You don't change anything about your "definition," so when the time comes, you can pull a fast one.

Its like me saying chocolate ice cream is made with chocolate, but extra chocolatey ice cream is not made with chocolate

As part of your definition.

"You just accused me of not changing the definition I'm using, and now you're saying I'm being inconsistent. Which is it?"

Your definition is: "as long as the (x) is independent, it is human and has value.

"I didn't dodge it, I pointed out that it was a bad example because a person in a coma is not physically attached to another human being in order to remain alive."

But that is not your standard!!! GOSH!!! Stop being inconsistent!

This is the standard for life that you gave me: "Human value (in my opinion) is determined by a number of things like viability, utility, and ability to feel pain"

I brought that ideology to its real-life standard, and it justified the murder of a person in a coma.

"Except you don't have a say over what happens to that person. A pregnant woman does have the final say over what happens to her pregnancy in her body."

You completely dodged my argument!

I gave you a real-life example of your ideology, and you don't like it. So what is your new standard for life (your original one obviously doesn't work for you, so make a new one. Tweak it)?

What about a born human that is in Acoma, can't feel pain, and obviously can utilize anything because he or she is in Acoma? Can I just kill that person?

Why not? It meets your standard for life.

"Human value (in my opinion) is determined by a number of things like viability, utility, and ability to feel pain"

"What about a born human that is in Acoma, can't feel pain, and obviously can utilize anything because he or she is in Acoma? "

See, my example, which happens all the time in real life, does not meet your standard for life. So, technically, I can just kill that person.

What about a born human that is in Acoma, can't feel pain, and obviously can utilize anything because he or she is in Acoma? Can I just kill that person?

So which is it?

Human value is based on function, or it is not. Or, there a few more things you should add. Please give me a clear definition.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html Ok, so are you a scientist? No. Do you have a degree in some sort of branch in science? Highly doubt it? So your standard isn’t the scientific standard, just as my standard isn’t the scientific standard. SCIENCE, not me, demonstrate human life begins at conception.

Sorry on the typo

You know your standard is not the scientific standard? Right?

UUGGG. I don't know why you don't get this...

I asked you to give me your standard for life, and you said: "Human value (in my opinion) is determined by a number of things like viability, utility, and ability to feel pain."

So, I applied that to real life. Your comment: "A person in a coma has already been born so it's not the same as a fetus."

That comment is not consistent with your definition of human value. Here is the thing, the definition is not compatible with your comment, otherwise, it becomes a logical fallacy.

“ Human value (in my opinion) is determined by a number of things like viability, utility, and ability to feel pain”

Again, facts don’t care about your opinions or feelings

What if I said my head is actually not a head, but its actually a butt

That’s just my OPINION. NOT A FACT. Opinions are not facts. Do you understand, or did you get a brain fart along the way?

https://www.learnliberty.org/videos/subjective-vs-objective-value-economist-and-philo/

Human rights aren’t human rights if ALL people can’t have them.

"A person in a coma is viable (they are surviving outside the womb)"

They actually are not surviving. Outside of the womb, yes, but THAT IS NOT YOUR DEFINITION.

Someone in a coma has to have life support, and various other things, so they, in a sense, are in a womb of their own.

You don't need another human to stay alive huh? How long do you think you'd last without all the food that farmers, aka other humans, provide?

Not everyone can do that you know
What difference does it make if they require physical attachment to stay alive as opposed to someone who also needs support staying alive, but not physical attachment?
And ever heard of prematures?
And what about people hooked up to machines in hospitals? Are their lives suddenly dispensable because they need to be physically attached to a machine to survive? Even temporarily?

What about people with dementia and mental illnesses? Let’s look at your reasoning. Human is dependent on other human to stay alive, therefore, that human has no value and is not entitled to being cared for, physically attached or not.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/conjoined-twins-warning-graphic-images/9/. These are conjoined twins. In the most severe cases, they cannot be separated, although it can be done in other less severe cases. If the twins were to be separated in severe cases, they would both die because one lung in is in one twin while another is in the other. They are physically attached to each other to survive. Are you saying these twins don’t have value and can be killed without consequence?

This is an example of a severe case. Their names are Abby and Brittany

And yet it still exists. Just because its rare doesn’t mean I can’t acknowledge it. And you didn’t answer my question, are you saying since they depend on each other PHYSICALLY for survival, that they have no value?

So for those who can't, is it alright that we kill them if we so choose because they cannot survive without the support of other humans?

That child is not obligated to die because it will inconvenience someone. If you don't want to have the kid, and you don't want to use your body to take care of it for 9 months, don't do the thing that results in having a kid. Yes, I do understand that rape happens, and that's a different story. But most abortions are out of a desire for convenience, not because someone was raped. And yes, rape is a terrible thing and it's not the woman's choice if she gets pregnant from it, but that is still a human life, just as valuable as that woman's life is.

They can survive without attachment to another body, yet babies at that term in the pregnancy still get aborted. Care to explain that?

Also, they can let the baby survive and put it up for adoption if its so “INCONVENIENT” for them!

yes, true, but I'm going from a purely scientific perspective on that for this

Exactly!

Lol bad editing

haha

Would that make a 2-year-old on a ton of pain killers fair game? And babies can feel pain in the womb, I can't remember at how many weeks off the top of my head, yet they still get killed.

Right! And then killing the results! Cause you didn't expect the biological process to do what it does?

It literally is by definition

Why should her rights come first? Who decides who's rights come first? Is her right to convenience more important than the baby's right to life?

Ohhh, so what's the other part of it?

Uhh, what's the biological purpose of sex? Oh right! To reproduce! aka: have kids

But, you did. You said a woman is allowed to have an abortion for convenience.

What happens to the human life she is carrying?

People also have sex for affection and love. So add that to the purpose of sex

They still need help from their parents, just like a baby in the womb.

So who decides the definition? We certainly can't have everyone deciding their own definitions of personhood and going around killing people they don't deem as people.

Well they're not exactly viable without their parents....and if they can't feel pain, well, they just failed the Octavia test of worthiness to live.

Yet they are still killed

Why isn't the baby a person? They possess the human DNA, which does make them a human. That's science you know.

Therein lies the problem

But I thought you said that they have to be able to support themselves to have basic rights?

Then don't do the thing that you do to have kids. Simple as that.

Yes, let's murder people for our convenience. The world is a better place for it.

No, it's still a human life, and it has just as much value as she does.

So why is it ok to kill them simply because they're on the other side of the womb?

A baby joey. Kangas are marsupials, meaning they develop OUTSIDE THE WOMB! That sure does look like a living thing! Nah, its just a worm with no brain and eyes that somehow managed to get out of the pouch and make it to her moms breasts to drink milk!

Yes I do realize that.

"No I can't. I don't have no standard at all. I just don't have a standard that's complete"

You just contradicted yourself.

Say "no it can't" but at the same time leaving an open door by saying that it is not complete.

You have to have a complete standard for how you treat your dog, or you will end up mistreating it, by accident or on purpose.

You have to have a complete standard for human life, both in the womb and outside of the womb.

If somebody is in a coma and they have filled out a living will or their family determines that they should be taken off life support, then yes that's fine.

Okay. For one, you are kind of getting off topic.

Let's redirect.

What I mean by "your definition" is not "whatever." I mean "your definition, then apply it to real life scenarios."

You gave me your definition, I then applied it to reality. The consequences to your ideology is that I can kill a person in a coma, because they are not viable.

OH MY GOSH.

STOP PLAYING THIS STUPID GAME!!!!

Are you trying to incite anger?!

I have repeated to you, give me your COMPLETE standard for life!

My standard: All human life is valuable and must be protected from the moment of conception.

Well, that causes serious issues for humanity. If you don't have a complete standard for life, then you can justify the murder and dehumanization of anyone or anything!

I thought you were “pro-science”

Aside from our debate, you have kept things fair, unlike most leftists who just state their opinion and don’t cite articles. So thanks for debating respectfully

Than why don’t you acknowledge human life begins at conception if science and scientists say so?

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2018/12/12/science-conclusive-fetus-baby-iowa-fetal-heartbeat-law-abortion/2286938002/

Mmmm. No. Completely false.

the black abortion rate is the highest
or does that still count as white?

Besides, I don't think it's the Republicans that are killing the babies, so if that's all we cared about, why would we care that liberal voters are killing their babies?

Thank you! These people like playing the race card ALL THE TIME!

Yep, but then they wanna tell you that you're racist for wanting to save black babies, but also that you only want to save rich white babies? The brain power is astounding

Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity cannot
- my teacher

That much is true

What does it matter what color they are? A human life is a human life, and that should be protected. End of story.
The only thing we care about is saving the lives of unborn babies. I don't care to blame anyone.

I'm sorry, what exactly are you trying to say?

lol, why, for wanting to end infanticide?

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Bro NO ARGUMENT! https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2018/12/12/science-conclusive-fetus-baby-iowa-fetal-heartbeat-law-abortion/2286938002/