• 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!

Does life biologically begin at conception?

Does a new person's life "biologically" begin at conception?

  • Total voters
    72
Why is this even a poll. The OP should've just looked it up on Wikipedia. Sperm is biologically alive, so no, life does not "biologically" begin at conception. Case closed. No poll needed.

The anti-choice movement isn't based on "biological life" - it's based on the concept of the "soul", and in some cases, it's about fearing that women will not be forced into a "traditional caste system", so however wrote this poll must have been on crack.
 
Toothpicvic said:
The anti-choice movement isn't based on "biological life" - it's based on the concept of the "soul", and in some cases, it's about fearing that women will not be forced into a "traditional caste system", so however wrote this poll must have been on crack.
Click to expand...

Not just that... for many it's about punishing women who have illicit sex. It's sometimes more about politicization of sexual lifestyles than it is about what the woman is carrying inside of her.
 
So I agree that life "biologically" begins at conception, but when does it "spiritually" begin? When is the soul factored into the equation? That could happen at any time after the fact. Does God deny the soul its existance because the parents had an abortion? Isn't the primary moral argument against abortion that man is meddling with God's intentions? If so, isn't killing the sperm before it meets the egg that same thing? The Roman Catholics think so.

I think man has tried to over-simplify the abortion issue. It isn't simple (including reasons for an abortion).
 
Generally whenever someone makes an argument along the lines of "abortion is murder, because you are killing a human being," I ask them why it is illegal/immoral to kill a human being. Think about your answer to that question for a moment.

Surely murder isn't illegal/immoral merely because it's undesirable to kill living things. After all, cows and pigs are alive, and we kill and eat them every day.

Maybe it's illegal/immoral because there is something special about human DNA. But a close look at our genetic code reveals that we share over 99% of our DNA with other primates, and a fairly large percentage (I don't remember exactly how much) with all mammals.

Is murder illegal/immoral because the victim's friends and family would suffer? Well...we don't allow people to kill vagrants with no friends or family.

Some religious people might argue that it is illegal/immoral because humans have souls. But since there is no way to empirically test whether or not such a thing even exists, much less whether any specific entity such as a fetus has one, it is nothing more than an article of faith. It is never good idea to base government policy on articles of faith, whether they are religious or secular.

Or perhaps murder is illegal/immoral because of the potential value the victim had to society? If that is the case, why merely ban abortion? Masturbation and contraception are mass murder on the grandest scale, depriving society of millions of potential people.

Maybe murder is illegal/immoral because the victim suffers pain. But what if we anesthetize the fetus first, so that there was no possibility it could feel pain? Would this assuage your concerns about the procedure? I think not.

The nihilist (or the social contract theorist) might say that there is nothing inherently immoral about murder at all, as morals are social constructs. Perhaps it is only illegal because we personally don't want to be killed, and the only way to get everyone else to agree to that is for us to agree not to kill them in exchange. If that is the case, abortion should remain legal, as the people who are setting the laws do not need to worry about being aborted, having already been born themselves.

As I see it, none of these arguments address the reasoning behind why murder is illegal/immoral, and thus none of them are a valid justification for banning abortion. In my opinion, the reason society deems murder illegal/immoral is because the human brain is extremely complex, and society considers it undesirable to lose such a valuable resource (plus a bit of the nihilist/social contract theory too). For this reason, I would personally be appalled at the idea of killing intelligent extraterrestrials or intelligent computers...but would not be appalled at the idea of killing a cow.

That's just my two cents. Let me know if my reasoning is flawed somewhere.
 
Last edited:
OxymoronP said:
Until a Fetus is delivered, it is simply part of the host organism.
Click to expand...

So, if the mother is having a boy, she has a penis and a vagina? That's what happens if the fetus is "part" of the mother.
 
Toothpicvic said:
Why is this even a poll. The OP should've just looked it up on Wikipedia. Sperm is biologically alive, so no, life does not "biologically" begin at conception. Case closed. No poll needed.
Click to expand...

so masturbation is mass murder?
 
spud_meister said:
if i may, because it is a seperate biological entity, with its own genotype, phenotype, dna sequence, all that dosen't happen as soon as it is delivered
Click to expand...

It is a symbiant relationship yes, where the Fetus cannot survive without the Host. So in essence until delivery it is part of the Host organism.
 
OxymoronP said:
It is a symbiant relationship yes, where the Fetus cannot survive without the Host. So in essence until delivery it is part of the Host organism.
Click to expand...

So it is dependent for a time. Biologically, it is its own construct. Hell, going by dependence some people aren't really worthy of the title "person" until they are 25 years old these days.
 
OxymoronP said:
It is a symbiant relationship yes, where the Fetus cannot survive without the Host. So in essence until delivery it is part of the Host organism.
Click to expand...

so tree's are part of the soil, cows are part of the grass?

just because it's symbiant, dosen't mean it has to be a unified organism
 
Last edited:
WI Crippler said:
So it is dependent for a time. Biologically, it is its own construct. Hell, going by dependence some people aren't really worthy of the title "person" until they are 25 years old these days.
Click to expand...
aint that the truth
 
idk said:
I haven't voted because I still cannot come up with an answer. I've spent quite some time contemplating this question, which really boils down to, "What life is sacred?" The answers to these questions have significant and, at times, life-changing implications. They deserve more thought than I've had time to give...
Click to expand...

I appreciate your being cautious, IDK...

However, you are thinking too much into it. I understand why you are doing that as well. You are rightfully anticipating the meaning (significance) of the acknowledgment of the biological facts.

Take your time and vote when you are ready.
 
Chuz Life said:
From the "Compromise on abortion" thread;



Does everyone agree with myself and Rivrrat that a new person's life "biologically" begins at the moment of their conception?

Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Biologically yes, but as you'll see in your other poll, Constitutionally their life doth not begineth at conceptioneth.
 
OxymoronP said:
Indeed, but what is your point?
Click to expand...

My point is that the fetus is not "part" of the mother. If that were true, then half the pregnant women in America would be hermaphrodites.
 
spud_meister said:
so tree's are part of the soil, cows are part of the grass?

just because it's symbiant, dosen't mean it has to be a unified organism
Click to expand...

Cows can eat other things, they can move to other pastures. A fetus cannot, not only does it rely on the Host for energy, but also for warmth, for protection etc.

My point is that the fetus is not "part" of the mother. If that were true, then half the pregnant women in America would be hermaphrodites.
Click to expand...

You can only be a hemaphrodite if the sexual organ is on the outside.
 
OxymoronP said:
You can only be a hemaphrodite if the sexual organ is on the outside.
Click to expand...

According to who? The dictionary is your friend:

Main Entry: her·maph·ro·dite
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)hər-ˈma-frə-ˌdīt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English hermofrodite, from Latin hermaphroditus, from Greek hermaphroditos, from Hermaphroditos
Date: 14th century
1 : an animal or plant having both male and female reproductive organs
2 : something that is a combination of diverse elements

hermaphrodite - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Click to expand...
 
EpicDude86 said:
:lol: Haven't you been in the last 8 threads where someone tried to use a dictionary definition and got shot down? ;)
Click to expand...

LOL.

:spin:<--- detected

Shot down,... ?

Not even shouted down.

:rofl :rofl

When I run up against someone who has no defense other than to dismiss everything you throw at them,.. including the dictionary,... I know they are a complete waste of time.

Even in the U.S. Code,... most laws begin with a reference to terms and definitions.

But then,.. I digress.
 
Of course there is life at conception. I don't see how anyone can deny that. There are two living cells prior to conception that join together to create a living organism after conception. This is not debatable. Those are facts. Irrelevant facts, but facts nonetheless.
 
rivrrat said:
Of course there is life at conception. I don't see how anyone can deny that. There are two living cells prior to conception that join together to create a living organism after conception. This is not debatable. Those are facts. Irrelevant facts, but facts nonetheless.
Click to expand...

You said that no-one would deny these facts, Rivvr...

Can you see now that they do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom