• 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
rivrrat said:
I have no idea what you mean by "agree with". Negative individual liberties aren't something you can "agree with".
Click to expand...

They are a philosophical concept, so, yes, you either agree with them or you don't, i.e., you believe negative individual liberties are the moral basis for society or you don't.

Pray tell, what is this moral sentiment you speak of?
Click to expand...

That negative individual liberties should be the moral basis for society.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Since Mother Nature aborts babies all the time and let's baby animals get eaten by bigger animals...I'm just going to assume there is no natural "moral affirmations" ;) at least nothing to be compared with human morals. :lol:
Click to expand...

How is this relevant?
 
Chuz Life said:
I see,... so what right does my child or my wife or my neighbors , or YOU have,... to keep on living if it would be a convienience to me to keep you from doing so?
Click to expand...

The right to life, which is a philosophical construct that you either agree with or you don't.
 
Contrary to what the Supreme Court may have said, this debate has never been about when life begins, but about when it is worth protecting and at what cost to a mother's liberty. The sentiment to that question has always changed and always will.
 
CriticalThought said:
Contrary to what the Supreme Court may have said, this debate has never been about when life begins, but about when it is worth protecting and at what cost to a mother's liberty. The sentiment to that question has always changed and always will.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting take.

But it seems you are responding to something other than the question posed in my poll.
 
Ethereal said:
They are a philosophical concept, so, yes, you either agree with them or you don't, i.e., you believe negative individual liberties are the moral basis for society or you don't.



That negative individual liberties should be the moral basis for society.
Click to expand...

You didn't previouslly ask if I agreed if negative individual liberties should be the basis of a society. You asked if I agreed with negative individual liberties. ;) I can't 'agree' with something that just is, I can only agree or disagree with its application. So thank you for the clarification.

Whether or not I agree or disagree if they should be the basis of a society is irrelevant to whether or not I believe that any rights are inherent in the absence of a society or governing body to grant and/or protect them.

Do I think that the ideal 'An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will' should be the basis of a society? Of course. Any society that *I* want to be a part of, anyway. It's unfortunate that our society isn't as free as I'd like it to be, however.
 
Chuz Life said:
That's an interesting take.

But it seems you are responding to something other than the question posed in my poll.
Click to expand...

Life never ended before it began. Embryos aren't created from dead sperm and eggs, they only come from living sperm and eggs. The question of whether "life" or "personhood" begins at a certain point is not a biological question because life can only come from life at this stage of evolution. It is a spiritual question of when whatever special spiritual entity or essence inhabits the human form. Historically, that answer has changed considerably with the sentiments and knowledge of people. The Catholic Church used to allow abortions all the way up to the "quickening" when the first movements of a fetus were felt. With the progression of science and the understanding of fertilization, the date was pushed back to conception. Although the sentiments behind that have always had political implications, such as increasing the procreation in order to establish a larger church membership and granting greater patriarchal power to husbands over their wives by limiting their reproductive rights.

As such, if your question is when life biologically began, then the evidence indicates it began billions of years ago. The process of sexual conception isn't a beginning and end of that process, but only a continuance of it. It's an arbitrary question as it has no bearing on the spiritual implications of when a soul or spirit would inhabit a human form or when a person should guaranteed human rights.
 
Chuz Life said:
Your opinion is noted.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Ethereal isn't giving an opinion. He isn't saying "I believe X is so": that is an opinion. He is saying that X is objectivly true. He is making a claim.

Please provide evidence or reasoning that rights are not a philosophical construct. Or claim to be agnostic in regards to what rights fundamentally are..

I doubt you have the humility or the integrity to face this challenge honestly.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
You didn't previouslly ask if I agreed if negative individual liberties should be the basis of a society. You asked if I agreed with negative individual liberties. ;) I can't 'agree' with something that just is, I can only agree or disagree with its application. So thank you for the clarification.

Whether or not I agree or disagree if they should be the basis of a society is irrelevant to whether or not I believe that any rights are inherent in the absence of a society or governing body to grant and/or protect them.
Click to expand...

Does the absence of a society or governing body change the underlying morality of natural rights, though? For instance, a person hits you in the head with a shovel for no good reason; there are no laws, no society, no government; so, unless you're a nihilist (or someone with a very strange moral code), how could you contend that your moral claim (your right) to be left alone hasn't been violated? Why does society or government need to validate something inherent to all humans? The desire to live in accordance with one's will is uniform throughout humanity.

Do I think that the ideal 'An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will' should be the basis of a society? Of course. Any society that *I* want to be a part of, anyway. It's unfortunate that our society isn't as free as I'd like it to be, however.
Click to expand...

Okay! Then you believe in the concept of natural rights. Natural rights theory isn't dependent upon "rights" physically existing in the same way a tree does; it's simply a moral commentary, one you apparently agree with.
 
Ethereal said:
Does the absence of a society or governing body change the underlying morality of natural rights, though? For instance, a person hits you in the head with a shovel for no good reason; there are no laws, no society, no government; so, unless you're a nihilist (or someone with a very strange moral code), how could you contend that your moral claim (your right) to be left alone hasn't been violated? Why does society or government need to validate something inherent to all humans? The desire to live in accordance with one's will is uniform throughout humanity.
Click to expand...
If I say I've been violated, then I have been. If I allow someone to hit me with a shovel, then apparently I don't feel violated. And as long as I allow them to do it, then I deserve it. Of course the desire to live with one's will is uniform throughout ALL animal life, not just humanity. That's just part of biology. Otherwise, we wouldn't move. We wouldn't eat. We wouldn't DO anything if we had no desire to do anything. That's not some 'natural right'. It's just biology.

Every creature on this planet wishes to do what they want, and every creature wants to do something different. This is why there cannot be any "inherent" rights. They'd be different for every single individual creature on this planet, and they would change from one moment to the next. And, as long as each creature is able to what they want, that is their right to do so. As soon as something stops them, however, they no longer have that right. Said right only exists as long as they can prevent it from being taken away. The king of the pack has the right to all the females in the pack until a bigger, badder king comes and takes it away from him. ;)

Okay! Then you believe in the concept of natural rights. Natural rights theory isn't dependent upon "rights" physically existing in the same way a tree does; it's simply a moral commentary, one you apparently agree with.
Click to expand...
No, I don't believe in any rights that are inherent to every animal on the planet just by way of being born.
 
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...

The answer is YES!It is already a Human Beeing.
 
Alfons said:
The answer is YES!It is already a Human Beeing.
Click to expand...

Human BEEing?

bee.jpg
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
A person's body begins at conception, yes.
Click to expand...

Cephus said:
That doesn't mean their rights do.

Fail.
Click to expand...

I share Anarcho's claim (above) and I disagree completely with you (Cephus) on when a person's rights begin.

You seem to agree that their body begins at conception.

That body (however small and un-developed) is alive on some level.

Agree so far?

If you agree that it is alive,... who's life is it living if not it's own?
 
Chuz Life said:
I share Anarcho's claim (above) and I disagree completely with you (Cephus) on when a person's rights begin.

You seem to agree that their body begins at conception.

That body (however small and un-developed) is alive on some level.

Agree so far?

If you agree that it is alive,... who's life is it living if not it's own?
Click to expand...

Whose life is a brain dead person living? Without consciousness, without sentience, life is meaningless, valueless.
 
Chuz Life said:
I share Anarcho's claim (above) and I disagree completely with you (Cephus) on when a person's rights begin.

You seem to agree that their body begins at conception.

That body (however small and un-developed) is alive on some level.

Agree so far?

If you agree that it is alive,... who's life is it living if not it's own?
Click to expand...

Being alive is not the same as having rights. Individual cells are absolutely genetically human and absolutely alive, yet they have no rights because society has not granted them any. Rights come exclusively from society and whether you like it or not, a fetus does not have the rights that a born human child does. You might not like that, you're certainly welcome to try to change it by convincing the majority of Americans to vote for legal change and Constitutional amendments, but until you actually do change it, it's just your opinion and not worth much more.
 
Chuz Life said:
Whose life is a brain dead person living? Without consciousness, without sentience, life is meaningless, valueless.
Click to expand...
Take it from someone who's been there.
Click to expand...
:roll: An argument to authority? You are willfully resorting to logical fallacies. You have nothing Chuz. You don't have a coherent position. You simply have preconceived notions and are willing to say anything to move your beliefs along.

Furthermore, you are saying you've been brain-dead? Last time I checked no one has ever regained consciousness after the major parts of the brain have been destroyed.

Chuz Life said:
Their own.
Click to expand...
What is the will of a brain dead person? My "life" is the totality of my dreams, aspirations, desires, and needs. Are you claiming a brain-dead person has these?
 
Last edited:
I used to think life began during the final stages of the birthing process. I've changed my views to thinking life begins at fertilization and implantation.
 
windovervocalcords said:
I used to think life began during the final stages of the birthing process. I've changed my views to thinking life begins at fertilization and implantation.
Click to expand...

Thank you Wind,... for joining in and saying so.

Like you, I used to be "pro-choice" on abortion.

My position was the (now all too familiar) "I don't personally like abortion,... but who am I to tell others,... blah blah blah"

Sound familiar?

If it's not too much to ask,... could you share some of the circumstances that changed your mind?

(please God, don't let it be for religious reasons)
 
Chuz Life said:
Thank you Wind,... for joining in and saying so.

Like you, I used to be "pro-choice" on abortion.

My position was the (now all too familiar) "I don't personally like abortion,... but who am I to tell others,... blah blah blah"

Sound familiar?

If it's not too much to ask,... could you share some of the circumstances that changed your mind?

(please God, don't let it be for religious reasons)
Click to expand...

I used to believe in the concept of a 'soul' entering the body or fetus at some stage in development of the fetus. Now I think more in terms of consciousness entering at the time of fertilization and implantation.

So the 'morning after pill' IMO is not an abortion because it prevents the fertilized egg from implanting. At the point of cell division and implantation life begins.

JMO.

I have 'spiritual reasons' as well. I think it's still a terrible position to be in to have an unwanted pregnancy. But these days, culturally, we can live with unmarried women raising their children alone. That was not the case pre-Roe v Wade. I remember women who took their own lives, who died in back alley or coat hanger procedures, who died of infections. I remember a time when some women were not permitted to have any kind of contraception or choice of being sexual.

I consider myself in favor of a woman's right to choose. I have more reservations about what circumstances constitute the levity to make that decision than I used to.

Generally, I think it's best for the woman to carry the pregnancy to term and to put her child up for adoption if she is unable or unwilling to raise the child.

What about in cases of rape or incest or medical danger to a woman's health?

Don't you think there are some circumstances that should be weighed in the decision?

I once worked in family planning. I could not, at this time.in good conscience counsel a woman to have an abortion unless she had been raped or sexually molested by a relative or at risk of dying. If the woman was suicidal, I would take that into consideration. I still think it's best for the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, but if she is at risk of taking her own life, that would give me pause.

If a woman dies from child birth, suicide, infection or an unsafe procedure two deaths have occurred. I'd prefer no deaths at all on my watch, and when it is absolutely necessary, I would rather only one death than two.
 
Last edited:
windovervocalcords said:
I used to believe in the concept of a 'soul' entering the body or fetus at some stage in development of the fetus. Now I think more in terms of consciousness entering at the time of fertilization and implantation.

So the 'morning after pill' IMO is not an abortion because it prevents the fertilized egg from implanting. At the point of cell division and implantation life begins.

JMO.

I have 'spiritual reasons' as well. I think it's still a terrible position to be in to have an unwanted pregnancy. But these days, culturally, we can live with unmarried women raising their children alone. That was not the case pre-Roe v Wade. I remember women who took their own lives, who died in back alley or coat hanger procedures, who died of infections. I remember a time when some women were not permitted to have any kind of contraception or choice of being sexual.

I consider myself in favor of a woman's right to choose. I have more reservations about what circumstances constitute the levity to make that decision than I used to.

Generally, I think it's best for the woman to carry the pregnancy to term and to put her child up for adoption if she is unable or unwilling to raise the child.

What about in cases of rape or incest or medical danger to a woman's health?

Don't you think there are some circumstances that should be weighed in the decision?

I once worked in family planning. I could not, at this time.in good conscience counsel a woman to have an abortion unless she had been raped or sexually molested by a relative or at risk of dying. If the woman was suicidal, I would take that into consideration. I still think it's best for the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, but if she is at risk of taking her own life, that would give me pause.

If a woman dies from child birth, suicide, infection or an unsafe procedure two deaths have occurred. I'd prefer no deaths at all on my watch, and when it is absolutely necessary, I would rather only one death than two.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing, Wind.

You leave a lot of things wide open for questions.... but i don't have the time right now. Good on ya!

--Chuz Life
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom