• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

when does a Human life begin?

When does a human life begin

  • Conception

    Votes: 23 54.8%

  • Viable outside the womb

    Votes: 5 11.9%

  • Birth

    Votes: 5 11.9%

  • When the mother decides

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • When the child is brought home from hospital

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 8 19.0%
  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
sangha said:
The only reason you gave is "because I said so"
Click to expand...

No, I clearly outlined a logical argument that goes from the child having rights (the hypothetical premise we are working with), to the mother not being able to abort it.
 
iangb said:
And when you go out for a walk down a dark alley you consent to the possibility of being raped - and therefore consent to the possibility of getting pregnant through rape - and therefore consent to the possibility of creating offspring.

By your logical chain, 'not consenting to pregnancy' is practically impossible - and rape victims should be 'held responsible'.
Click to expand...

How would walking somewhere consent to the risk of being mugged? One does not naturally follow from the other like, sex with pregnancy
 
joko104 said:
That applies to any activity and so what, who cares anyway?
Click to expand...

any activity can create offspring or any activity has inherent risk?

It is just your women-having-sex-are-evil and should be punished attitudes towards women overall. Since abortion is legal, IN FACT, a woman knows 100% she won't have to have a baby she doesn't want and, therefore, is NOT accepting that possible consequence whatsoever.
Click to expand...

abortion being legal, or even morally or ethically justified, doesn't change the fact that there is a clear and obvious connection between intercourse and pregnancy. One follows from the other.
 
minnie616 said:
Consent to sex especially when using birth control is not consent to becoming pregnant.
Click to expand...

That isn't the argument though. The argument is that you are consenting to the possible dangers of sexual intercourse, like STD's and pregnancy. Yopu do the same thing when you smoke, drink alcohol, or even skydive.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
No, I clearly outlined a logical argument that goes from the child having rights (the hypothetical premise we are working with), to the mother not being able to abort it.
Click to expand...

No, you claimed that another person can use another person's body, without their consent, under certain conditions, even though that is not true. The only evidence you have to support the "truth" of that claim was "because I said so"
 
nota bene said:
The biological fact is every sex act potentially leads to pregnancy. If you know this, there is inherent consent to this potential.

And people do know this. They know that this is always a possibility.
Click to expand...

You know....that's not true. Women aren't futile 24/7/365.
 
sangha said:
No, you claimed that another person can use another person's body, without their consent, under certain conditions, even though that is not true. The only evidence you have to support the "truth" of that claim was "because I said so"
Click to expand...

well, if you rather ignore the logical arguments i made, and continue to go "nu uh" that's on you. The argument is there if yuo ever decide to address it
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
well, if you rather ignore the logical arguments i made, and continue to go "nu uh" that's on you. The argument is there if yuo ever decide to address it
Click to expand...

There is nothing "logical" about claiming that the law supports your claim when the law contradicts it.
 
sangha said:
There is nothing "logical" about claiming that the law supports your claim when the law contradicts it.
Click to expand...

are you confused on what a hypothetical is?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
are you confused on what a hypothetical is?
Click to expand...

Your hypothetical did not include changes to the law which would allow one person to use another person's body without their consent

You objected when another poster changed the "dynamics" of the hypothetical, yet you feel free to do the same. When I pointed out your hypocrisy, you objected and said you hadn't done that. And now you're doing it again
 
sangha said:
Your hypothetical did not include changes to the law which would allow one person to use another person's body without their consent
Click to expand...

I clearly explained my argument on that point. Again, feel free to address the actually line of logic, as opposed to going "nu-uh"

You objected when another poster changed the "dynamics" of the hypothetical, yet you feel free to do the same.
Click to expand...

No, nothing I wrote changed the premise of the hypothetical.

When I pointed out your hypocrisy, you objected and said you hadn't done that. And now you're doing it again
Click to expand...

you didn't point out hypocrisy (maybe ytour confused on the meaning of the word as well?). What you did was object to me pointing out that Minnie tried to dismiss my argument by ignoring the basic premise of the hypothetical.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I clearly explained my argument on that point. Again, feel free to address the actually line of logic, as opposed to going "nu-uh"



No, nothing I wrote changed the premise of the hypothetical.



you didn't point out hypocrisy (maybe ytour confused on the meaning of the word as well?). What you did was object to me pointing out that Minnie tried to dismiss my argument by ignoring the basic premise of the hypothetical.
Click to expand...

You changed the hypothetical to include a change to other laws which forbid a person from using another person's body. You objected when someone else did that, but it's OK when you do it :roll:
 
sangha said:
You changed the hypothetical to include a change to other laws which forbid a person from using another person's body.
Click to expand...

No i didn't

But feel free to provide quotes
 
iangb said:
This is the second time I've had to correct you on this point. You are equivocating sexual intercourse (coitus) with sexual reproduction. The first is a (usually) voluntary act, the second is a biological process which (depending on your POV) can take up to nine months. The vast majority of time the first one takes place, the second one does not - often because the people involved go to great lengths to prevent it, but even when they do not. They are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

And hopefully this is the second time I've had to point out how your "correction" is simply error.

a) "Sex" is shorthand for sexual reproduction.

b) Saying that sex does not cause the creation of offspring reminds me of Vincent from Collaterral:
"You killed him?!"
"No, I shot at him. The bullets and the fall killed him"
Click to expand...

There isn't a rolleyes in the history of the internets big enough for someone making such an argument in earnest.
 
JayDubya said:
And hopefully this is the second time I've had to point out how your "correction" is simply error.

a) "Sex" is shorthand for sexual reproduction.

b) Saying that sex does not cause the creation of offspring reminds me of Vincent from Collaterral:


There isn't a rolleyes in the history of the internets big enough for someone making such an argument in earnest.
Click to expand...

posting more of your opinion like its fact i see and failing again as usual.
Fact remains, consenting to sex is not consenting to anything else not giving birth, not reproduction not anything but sex :shrug: this fact will never change just like you have been told by many posters who actually prove their posts.
 
JayDubya said:
And hopefully this is the second time I've had to point out how your "correction" is simply error.

a) "Sex" is shorthand for sexual reproduction.
Click to expand...
As mentioned above, you are factually wrong. 'Sexual intercourse' and 'sexual reproduction' are not the same thing. While 'sex' can be used as shorthand for either, to call them the same thing is equivocation. You consent to sexual intercourse, not to sexual reproduction.

b) Saying that sex does not cause the creation of offspring reminds me of Vincent from Collaterral:


There isn't a rolleyes in the history of the internets big enough for someone making such an argument in earnest.
Click to expand...
Shooting at someone is generally done with the purpose of killing or wounding them. Having sexual intercourse with someone is rarely done for the purposes of sexualy reproduction when compared the amount of sex going on and, as also mentioned previously, plenty of people go to a certain amount of effort to avoid one leading to the other.

"He killed himself?"
"No, he went for a bungee jump, but the rope broke"
 
Last edited:
Science is shaking things up big.
A human embryo was made without a sprem cell.
They used an unfertilized egg , added the DNA from a skin cell and created LIFE...they created an embryo without a sperm cell.
For those believe who that LIFE only begins at conception ... maybe you need to retink things a bit.

From this article:
<SNIP>
Normally, an embryo is created when sperm enters the egg and it starts to divide.
But, in the Cell study, Shoukhrat Mitalipov and colleagues at Oregon Health & Science University began with skin cells from an 8-month-old baby that had a genetic disease.
They did not use sperm.

To create each embryo, they took the DNA out of an egg, so that it was hollow, and replaced it with the skin cell's DNA instead. The baby's DNA was the only genetic material being used.

With the help of chemicals, the egg started to divide just like a normal fertilized egg would. Then, within several days, embryos genetically identical to the baby were created, from which stem cells were derived.
Click to expand...

Cloning stem cells: What does it mean? - CNN.com

Welcome to a new form of Brave New World...
 
Isn't it law OR accepted science/medical practice that after so many days the fertilized egg is destroyed?

There is an ongoing huge efforts in Europe by lesbian organizations to eliminate men as a necessity to have a child. If accomplished - which really now is only "when" it is accomplished - will men try to have this procedure outlawed? They, of course, could also decide what gender children to have.
 
joko104 said:
Isn't it law OR accepted science/medical practice that after so many days the fertilized egg is destroyed?

There is an ongoing huge efforts in Europe by lesbian organizations to eliminate men as a necessity to have a child. If accomplished - which really now is only "when" it is accomplished - will men try to have this procedure outlawed? They, of course, could also decide what gender children to have.
Click to expand...

It does not have to destroyed, it can be frozen.
I think they cannot allow it grow more than a certain amount of days.
I just thought it was interesting they did not need a sperm to create LIFE in this case.
The DNA was taken out of the egg and replaced with a baby's Skin cell and they grew that egg until they were able to remove some stem cells in hopes of finding a cure for the baby with his cloned stem cells.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom