• 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
Life is a long, unbroken chain stretching back millions of years. A particular genetic combination starts at conception, but that doesn't mean that before this moment, there was no life and after, there was life. Using conception as a decision point makes little sense.
 
Chuz Life said:
A human zygote is a child (human being/ person) in the most narrow and basic sense. An adult human is likewise a "person."

Both are persons,..

A Ford Pinto and a Ferarri are both cars (automobiles). I don't have to equate the two to recognize the fact that they are both automobiles.
Click to expand...

No it's not, any more than a seed is a tree or an egg is a chicken. They may eventually become something else, but a human zygote isn't a child until it is born because that's how the word is defined.
 
Cephus said:
No it's not, any more than a seed is a tree or an egg is a chicken. They may eventually become something else, but a human zygote isn't a child until it is born because that's how the word is defined.
Click to expand...

Except that a child that comes out a day early isn't less alive. Which side of the vagina you're on is kind of arbitrary.
 
phattonez said:
Except that a child that comes out a day early isn't less alive. Which side of the vagina you're on is kind of arbitrary.
Click to expand...

Because it's been born. Full-term doesn't mean born, there are plenty that come out late, they're no more or less born until they're actually on the outside. Once they are, they achieve particular rights, not one second before.
 
Cephus said:
Because it's been born. Full-term doesn't mean born, there are plenty that come out late, they're no more or less born until they're actually on the outside. Once they are, they achieve particular rights, not one second before.
Click to expand...

My daughter was born at (estimated) 26.5 weeks. (Preemie)

She weighed 5lbs at birth but lost weight after she was induced.

Her mother had Toxemia. Her body was rejecting the baby and one or both were going to die if the pregnancy continued.

Late, early, inside the womb or out.

My daughter had a right to her life,.... from the moment her life began.

I didn't see a non person "fetus" turn into a child in that delivery room.

I seen my daughter fighting for her life and unable to do so without a lot of help from others.

This baby is even smaller than my daughter was. But I did the same thing to show people how tiny she was,... I put her whole hand through my (size 10.5) wedding band.

20070521RingOnArm2b.jpg


Your words or her reality....

Which do you think affects me more?
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
My daughter was born at (estimated) 26.5 weeks. (Preemie)

She weighed 5lbs at birth but lost weight after she was induced.

Her mother had Toxemia. Her body was rejecting the baby and one or both were going to die if the pregnancy continued.

Late, early, inside the womb or out.

My daughter had a right to her life,.... from the moment her life began.

I didn't see a non person "fetus" turn into a child in that delivery room.

I seen my daughter fighting for her life and unable to do so without a lot of help from others.

This baby is even smaller than my daughter was. But I did the same thing to show people how tiny she was,... I put her whole hand through my (size 10.5) wedding band.

20070521RingOnArm2b.jpg


Your words or her reality....

Which do you think affects me more?
Click to expand...

1. Thank Goodness your daughter made it.

2. Right to Life is a human made (or Supernatural being made) concept, and what nature gives you is a "chance" at life. No guarantees. Toxemia is a perfect good of the chances slimming in favor of the child. If everyone has an innate or natural "right to life", the level of natural miscarriages would not be where it is, right?

3. You didn't see a non-person fetus turn into a child because your vision is filtered by Love and an emotional connection to your daughter. It's easy for "Her Reality" to affect you more because of this emotional connection, and while that's beautiful that you feel that way, it is a subjective mode of thinking, not that it's bad, just subjective which is why "Her Reality" will affect you more than the words posted on this forum.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Well how about attachment via umbilical then?
Click to expand...

The umbilical cord(made up of cells produced by the child) attaches the child to it's placenta (also produced by the child).

It is a common mis-perception that prebirth children are attached to their mother's by their umbilical cords.
 
EpicDude86 said:
1. Thank Goodness your daughter made it.

2. Right to Life is a human made (or Supernatural being made) concept, and what nature gives you is a "chance" at life. No guarantees. Toxemia is a perfect good of the chances slimming in favor of the child. If everyone has an innate or natural "right to life", the level of natural miscarriages would not be where it is, right?

3. You didn't see a non-person fetus turn into a child because your vision is filtered by Love and an emotional connection to your daughter. It's easy for "Her Reality" to affect you more because of this emotional connection, and while that's beautiful that you feel that way, it is a subjective mode of thinking, not that it's bad, just subjective which is why "Her Reality" will affect you more than the words posted on this forum.
Click to expand...

I was anti-abortion before my dughter was even conceived.

More significant than that? Just to share some personal information, my daughters mother and I were seperated when she was conceived. (On again off again relationship) I was leaving the State for school in Virginia when we found out she was pregnant.

I had everythng to gain and nothing to lose if my daughter were aborted or miscarried.

But the facts are what they are and I refuse to live in the denial of those facts as you seem to be able to.

Nice try.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
The umbilical cord(made up of cells produced by the child) attaches the child to it's placenta (also produced by the child).

It is a common mis-perception that prebirth children are attached to their mother's by their umbilical cords.
Click to expand...

and the placenta is connected to the uterine wall. Point is, it's on the inside and different to how their bodies operate on the outside.
 
EpicDude86 said:
and the placenta is connected to the uterine wall. Point is, it's on the inside and different to how their bodies operate on the outside.
Click to expand...

Who's (human) heart pumps the (human) blood through the placenta and umbilical cord, Dude?

Do you know?
 
EpicDude86 said:
Depends, how many weeks are we into this pregnancy?
Click to expand...

Dude... look it up.

The mother's blood never enters the child's body. Her blood is blocked by the placental Barrier. Likewise, the child's blood never enters the mother's system (blocked by the same barrier.)

In as much as a placenta connects the child to the mother, it also divides the two. But no-one ever considers that fact because it doesn't fit your desired outcome.

Fetal heartbeat.

Fetal development.

Placental Barrier
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
Dude... look it up.

The mother's blood never enters the child's body. Her blood is blocked by the placental Barrier. Likewise, the child's blood never enters the mother's system (blocked by the same barrier.)

In as much as a placenta connects the child to the mother, it also divides the two. But no-one ever considers that fact because it doesn't fit your desired outcome.

Fetal heartbeat.

Fetal development.

Placental Barrier
Click to expand...

Oh well, my bad. I was feeding my daughter and thought you were trying to use a trick question so I didn't google it. :lol: And you're right, it connects them and it divides them but the fetus requires the mother to develop and perform certain tasks that its body isn't suited for. That is a part of my argument.

On a side note, what does the fetus do in terms of blood until its own heart develops? I'm still a little busy so if someone could enlighten me on this that'd be super. links please. :D
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
Oh well, my bad. I was feeding my daughter and thought you were trying to use a trick question so I didn't google it. :lol: And you're right, it connects them and it divides them but the fetus requires the mother to develop and perform certain tasks that its body isn't suited for. That is a part of my argument.

On a side note, what does the fetus do in terms of blood until its own heart develops? I'm still a little busy so if someone could enlighten me on this that'd be super. links please. :D
Click to expand...

The heart developes

fetal heart
The embryonic heart starts beating 22 days after conception, or about five weeks after the last menstrual period, which by convention we call the fifth week of pregnancy. The heart at this stage is too small to hear, even with amplification, but it can sometimes be seen as a flickering in the chest if an ultrasound is done as early as four weeks after conception.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
My daughter had a right to her life,.... from the moment her life began.
Click to expand...

You state your opinion as though it is a demonstrated fact. I'm glad things turned out alright, but to demand that she somehow had a "right" to life is a serious misunderstanding of what "rights" actually are. The problem is that you're responding purely emotionally, not rationally. You're not presenting a case for your argument, you're just insisting that you're right and nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise. In very real terms, we're all talking to a fanatic who has no credible case, just a lot of emotionally-charged assertions.

And you wonder why most are not impressed?
 
Cephus said:
You state your opinion as though it is a demonstrated fact.
Click to expand...

I base my opinions on facts. And unless I can support them (my pinions) with those facts,... I don't air them.

You can ignore,dismiss, protest, ridicule all you want.

But in doing so, you can not change my opinions... unless you first address the facts that I base my opinions upon.

That's just how we roll round these parts.

Cephus said:
I'm glad things turned out alright, but to demand that she somehow had a "right" to life is a serious misunderstanding of what "rights" actually are.
Click to expand...

Here is the definition of what a "right" is (courtesy of Dude)

EpicDude86 said:
Right n.
1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
2: something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b1: the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural <mineral rights> b2: plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature
3: something that one may properly claim as due
4: the cause of truth or justice
Click to expand...

My daughter would be just as "just" in her claim to her life as you or I are. In adittion, we have the right to defend one another's rights (claims) by proxy.

Cephus said:
The problem is that you're responding purely emotionally, not rationally. You're not presenting a case for your argument, you're just insisting that you're right and nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise. In very real terms, we're all talking to a fanatic who has no credible case, just a lot of emotionally-charged assertions.
Click to expand...

Opinion noted.


Cephus said:
And you wonder why most are not impressed?
Click to expand...

If I were trying to impress people, I would just join your chorus and sing a little louder and a little more enthusiastically..
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
Medical Dictionary
Main Entry: child
Pronunciation:
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
1 : an unborn or recently born person
2 : a young person especially between infancy and youth —with child :

--Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc
Click to expand...
Fail again. Quoting a dictionary def doesn't change the scientific fact that a fetus/embryo is not homosapien by scientific definition.
 
Toothpicvic said:
Fail again. Quoting a dictionary def doesn't change the scientific fact that a fetus/embryo is not homosapien by scientific definition.
Click to expand...

Tell us, great taxologist, what species does a human embryo belong to?
 
Chuz Life said:
My daughter would be just as "just" in her claim to her life as you or I are. In adittion, we have the right to defend one another's rights (claims) by proxy.
Click to expand...

See, that's really where your problem lies. Let's look back at EpicDude86's original statement:

EpicDude86 said:
2: something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b1: the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural <mineral rights> b2: plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature
Click to expand...

Now you're asserting that your daughter has a "just" claim to life. First off, she is neither mentally nor physically able to make such a claim, no child can even comprehend the philosophical implications of such a claim so that's no surprise there. Secondly, you assert a "just" claim. What makes it just? This is a purely subjective viewpoint. What you consider just, others may not and vice versa. Since there is no objective definition of what is just and what is not, whether or not a claim is "just" or not is really irrelevant.

Once again, you're taking a purely emotional, personal position and insisting that it have objective application. You think that way, therefore that's the way it ought to be for everyone. You haven't constructed a logical framework and objective argument around your claim to explain *WHY* it ought to be universal, you've just wildly leapt from your feelings to unsupported assertions that they must be true.

It's not necessarily true until you can logically support it that way.
 
Cephus said:
See, that's really where your problem lies. Let's look back at EpicDude86's original statement:

Now you're asserting that your daughter has a "just" claim to life. First off, she is neither mentally nor physically able to make such a claim, no child can even comprehend the philosophical implications of such a claim so that's no surprise there. Secondly, you assert a "just" claim. What makes it just? This is a purely subjective viewpoint. What you consider just, others may not and vice versa. Since there is no objective definition of what is just and what is not, whether or not a claim is "just" or not is really irrelevant.

Once again, you're taking a purely emotional, personal position and insisting that it have objective application. You think that way, therefore that's the way it ought to be for everyone. You haven't constructed a logical framework and objective argument around your claim to explain *WHY* it ought to be universal, you've just wildly leapt from your feelings to unsupported assertions that they must be true.

It's not necessarily true until you can logically support it that way.
Click to expand...

Aparently, you didn't click on the link to the definition of the word; "proxy" in my earlier post.
 
Chuz Life said:
Aparently, you didn't click on the link to the definition of the word; "proxy" in my earlier post.
Click to expand...
Who decided the rules on being a "proxy"? You?

Can I be a proxy for a rock? How about for a goat? You have just created more subjectivity in order to explain away previous subjective claims. Where does it end?
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
Aparently, you didn't click on the link to the definition of the word; "proxy" in my earlier post.
Click to expand...

I happen to understand the meaning of the word, it doesn't improve your argument any. Now, not only are you declaring that rights exist out of thin air, you're declaring who ought to have them, based solely on your emotional wishful thinking.

Sorry, your statements aren't improving, if anything they're getting more irrational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom