Return to CreateDebate.comseriousbusiness • Join this debate community

Serious Business


Atrag's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Atrag's arguments, looking across every debate.
Atrag(5666) Clarified
1 point

Words have meanings yes. This is what semantics is.

Yes it is molestation of a child if it means bothering a fetus (not necessarily an immoral act) which is what you're saying it is according to the dictionary. I don't see how thats in anyway contencious. You don't mean the sexual abuse of a born child - an immoral act.

1 point

Born children and unborn children (if you choose to use those expressions) are clearly deserving of different rights. It doesn't matter if you can one a child and one a fetus or one a human being and the other one not.

You don't have to ignore the laws. You just have to say that some children (namely unborn children) don't enjoy the same rights as others. I think nearly everyone, including you, would agree with that.

1 point

Can you tell me how its more than semantics? Your only counter to any point seems to be "no that isn't want the dictionary says". If they mention something other than semantics then you tend to ban them.

No its not debateable. What you're asking people is what the dictionary says. People are confused because they don't know which dictionary definition you're referring to. It isn't debateable that a fetus is molested (/bothered) by being destroyed. How can it be? No one is debating that point in this thread with you - its a question of fact.

I'm still confused why semantics interest you so much.

Atrag(5666) Clarified
1 point

Your interest in debating semantics in general. But yes, why does it interest you to debter whether or not a fetus is bothered / molested by being aborted? It doesn't seem a debatable point to me.

1 point

Pretty please tell me why it interests you.

2 points

Well done you can read a dictionary. What a clever boy you are. It is true that to molest means to bother snd feotus is bothered by being aborted. What I can't work out is why this is interesting to you or why you'd think this would be interesting to any of us. Maybe it simply is that you're proud of being able to use the dictionary. How odd that would be.

1 point

A dictionary isn´t the holder of all truth. All your arguments suggest that you just don´t get that - although others have tried to explain it to you. You seem to treat it like Christians treat to bible.

Of course a human being in the fetal stage of life is a human being. The dictionary says so but yet that statement is nothing more than a commentary on the use of language. It doesn´t mean that feotuses are the same as those that are born or that they should be given the same rights. It may well be the case that they should be given the same rights. However, to make a case for this you would need to do much more than look in the dictionary and tell us what a child or a human being is according to it!

1 point

There are many many instances in law and in every day life in which the definition of a child doesn´t include a feotus.

3 points

Yes agree that when life begins there is a right to have it preserved. However this right isn't always an absolute right. Depending on the status of the life e.g. if you say that life begins at conception there are clearly, at least, two statuses of life - before and after birth. The right to life should then be better protected after birth, as is currently the legal situation in all countries I believe. Although if life is said to begin before birth that should be at least some protection of it.

A bit sloppily written sorry.

Atrag(5666) Clarified
1 point

Well I guess there will be another debate to follow and I can argue against you in that. A point that might also support your arguement is found in english law (I'm a law student):

section 1(1) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929:

“(1) Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life:

Provided that no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be primâ facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive.

"

4 points

Young is: "offspring, especially of an animal before or soon after birth". So yes I suppose it 'the young'.

However, very few people would call this a child. It does not have the same legal rights as a child and a child is generally a being with, at the very least has limbs, internal organs etc as well as a consciousness. The embryo does have the potential to be a child.


2 of 2 Pages: << Prev

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]