• 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 thread still going? I already answered his question for him. :confused:

i-love-abortion.jpg
 
"Does life biologically begin at conception?"

No. It does not begin at conception. It continues. Technically life began millions of years ago on our planet. Since then it has only continued.
 
idk said:
It's a factor in deciding when life begins.
Click to expand...
Life began with God, are you satisfied now? That's where it began. Anymore obtuse questions? Of course in the context of this thread and any other, it begins at conception. Is there any intent for your cum stained pillow to become a living being? Has anything ever grown out of your nutsack?
 
Last edited:
American said:
Life began with God, are you satisfied now? That's where it began. Anymore obtuse questions? Of course in the context of this thread and any other, it begins at conception. Is there any intent for your cum stained pillow to become a living being? Has anything ever grown out of your nutsack?
Click to expand...

Then twins aren't alive.

I'm fine with the argument that "life begins when God puts the soul in" because that isn't based upon anything scientific. But no one has yet said that in this thread. And incidentally, I don't think the Bible says when that happens either, so that would be as arbitrary as your current argument.

Instead, people keep trying to use biology to prove your point, and it simply doesn't. There are plenty of humans walking around that began from twinning rather than conception. There are also some people who had two conceptions. Conception doesn't define a new person or create life.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
"Does life biologically begin at conception?"

No. It does not begin at conception. It continues. Technically life began millions of years ago on our planet. Since then it has only continued.
Click to expand...

An Individual's life (regardless of species) biologically begins at conception.

Agree?
 
Chuz Life said:
An Individual's life (regardless of species) biologically begins at conception.

Agree?
Click to expand...

Nope, it continues.

You see chuz a case could be made that since genes are passed from both mother and father with no contribution from the child then that child is just an extension of the mother/father.
 
Chuz Life said:
An Individual's life (regardless of species) biologically begins at conception.

Agree?
Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:
Nope, it continues.

You see chuz a case could be made that since genes are passed from both mother and father with no contribution from the child then that child is just an extension of the mother/father.
Click to expand...

You seem to have (intentionally?) overlooked an important aspect to the question posed.
 
Technically speaking, its simple enough to say that an embryo is alive after it is conceived. However, that is meaningless to the abortion debate. Millions of bacteria live in your skin, and taking a shower is like genocide to them. Life alone has no value to us. The value of a life is completely subjective analysis, and thus evidence is not available.
 
rathi said:
Technically speaking, its simple enough to say that an embryo is alive after it is conceived. However, that is meaningless to the abortion debate. Millions of bacteria live in your skin, and taking a shower is like genocide to them. Life alone has no value to us. The value of a life is completely subjective analysis, and thus evidence is not available.
Click to expand...

Our laws and our Constitution have established the rights that 'persons' and 'ciizens' have to their lives.

Correct?
 
Chuz Life said:
An Individual's life (regardless of species) biologically begins at conception.

Agree?
Click to expand...

This is an equivocation of "life".
1) life - as in "I live my life"
2) life - as in, a bacteria is "life", bacteria is "alive".

A human being is "alive" at conception. E.G., a human zygote embryo, fetus, adult is "life" as defined by biologists.

However, when a human being possesses "a life" as in "a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul" is NOT a scientific question, it is distinctly different than the biological definition of life. The debate on where "one's life" begins (as opposed to when life biologically begins) is a question of constant debate without an objective answer because the question itself is subjective.

Chuz repeatedly blurs the line with ambiguous language and/or equivocation (as he has done here), either purposely or ignorantly, on this matter.
 
scourge99 said:
This is an equivocation of "life".
1) life - as in "I live my life"
2) life - as in, a bacteria is "life", bacteria is "alive".

A human being is "alive" at conception. E.G., a human zygote embryo, fetus, adult is "life" as defined by biologists.

However, when a human being possesses "a life" as in "a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul" is NOT a scientific question, it is distinctly different than the biological definition of life. The debate on where "one's life" begins (as opposed to when life biologically begins) is a question of constant debate without an objective answer because the question itself is subjective.

Chuz repeatedly blurs the line with ambiguous language and/or equivocation (as he has done here), either purposely or ignorantly, on this matter.
Click to expand...

This rant of yours tells me that you are completely oblivious to my accompanying poll; "What aspect of a person does the Constitution portect?"
 
Chuz Life said:
Our laws and our Constitution have established the rights that 'persons' and 'ciizens' have to their lives.

Correct?
Click to expand...

And the debate is, of course, when do humans become "persons" and "citizens"?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, simply being conceived does NOT qualify. The Supreme Court is not an authority on truth nonetheless they are the Supremme Authority when it comes to matters of interpreting the Consitutition.

Chuz do you have the integrity to ACKNOWLEDGE the Supreme Courts ruling and their REASONING, even though I am sure you disagree?
 
scourge99 said:
And the debate is, of course, when do humans become "persons" and "citizens"?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, simply being conceived does NOT qualify. The Supreme Court is not an authority on truth nonetheless they are the Supremme Authority when it comes to matters of interpreting the Consitutition.

Chuz do you have the integrity to ACKNOWLEDGE the Supreme Courts ruling and their REASONING, even though I am sure you disagree?
Click to expand...

Indeed,...

What other "choice" do I have?

You have the last word for awhile,.. I gotta long drive in bad weather ahead of me.
 
Chuz Life said:
Indeed,...
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Chuz Life said:
What other "choice" do I have?
Click to expand...
To make a coherent and consistent argument about why:

1) the Constitution should be interpreted as you believe rather than how the majority of Supreme Court Justices have. This would involve CITING the Supreme Courts reasoning or highlighting dissenting opinions on cases that have involved abortion.

2) people should ascribe to your position on abortion. This would involve an explanation of why your position on abortion is beneficial, optimal, or some other reason why your position is superior to that others. Since the moral debate is unbounded, that is, because the moral debate has no objective basis for determining what is "right" and "wrong" then this is far more difficult and complex issue.

Thus far you have blended and blurred many issues and sub-issues rather than targeting them independently and specifically. For example, you have written about when "science has determined life begins" but then don't explain why that is relevant to a moral position on abortion. You instead beg the question, equivocate with words such as "life", invent your own interpretation of the Constitution, or quote some person as an argument to authority.

Furthermore, you need to ATTEMPT to understand your oppositions position in its STRONGEST form. Perhaps this will give you a different perspective on what your opponents are actually proposing and objecting to. This may give you a better idea of how to attack their arguments then how you have done in the past. So far I haven't seen evidence that you actually comprehend your oppositions position fully.


Chuz Life said:
You have the last word for awhile,.. I gotta long drive in bad weather ahead of me.
Click to expand...
Drive safely!
 
Last edited:
What choices do I have?
Click to expand...

scourge99 said:
To make a coherent and consistent argument about why:

1) the Constitution should be interpreted as you believe rather than how the majority of Supreme Court Justices have. This would involve CITING the Supreme Courts reasoning or highlighting dissenting opinions on cases that have involved abortion.
Click to expand...

"The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental," Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when society's views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the "right" to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe. " Justice William Rehnquist- dissenting,... Roe v. Wade

Yeah,.. the same William Rehnquist who would later become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

scourge99 said:
2) people should ascribe to your position on abortion. This would involve an explanation of why your position on abortion is beneficial, optimal, or some other reason why your position is superior to that others. Since the moral debate is unbounded, that is, because the moral debate has no objective basis for determining what is "right" and "wrong" then this is far more difficult and complex issue.
Click to expand...

I prefer to do what I do,... as I have been for years. The trend in the country is shifting away from abortion on demand and towards a more anti-abortion posture.

scourge99 said:
Thus far you have blended and blurred many issues and sub-issues rather than targeting them independently and specifically. For example, you have written about when "science has determined life begins" but then don't explain why that is relevant to a moral position on abortion. You instead beg the question, equivocate with words such as "life", invent your own interpretation of the Constitution, or quote some person as an argument to authority.
Click to expand...

I'm content with people filling in the 'morality' blanks for themselves.

scourge99 said:
Furthermore, you need to ATTEMPT to understand your oppositions position in its STRONGEST form. Perhaps this will give you a different perspective on what your opponents are actually proposing and objecting to. This may give you a better idea of how to attack their arguments then how you have done in the past. So far I haven't seen evidence that you actually comprehend your oppositions position fully.
Click to expand...

1) I used to be pro-choice on abortion myself.

2) What I 'need' is fewer people telling me what I need. And I doubt very much your critique is actually geared to aid me in any of the ways you suggest.

If you can do it better than me,.. do it.

Barring that,... How would you like a nice big cup of,.....
 
If life does not begin at conception, then it never begins.
 
IMO a Sperm is not alive.
But the original question was Life beginning at conception, to which i answered 'Yes'

We were not asked to vote on whether that was intelligent Life or even life that was 'aware', merely the onset of Life.
 
American said:
If life does not begin at conception, then it never begins.
Click to expand...

You're right, it never begins because it never stopped to begin with. In order for it to "begin", it would have had to not exist and since both the ovum and sperm are alive... life never began, it just continued.
 
Cephus said:
No need, you keep moving the goalposts. You keep talking about life when you mean individual existence and those are two different things. Try again.
Click to expand...

:rofl :rofl :rofl

I haven't deviated from my original position yet,...

If you see moving goalposts,... it's in your perception.

I'm focused like a laser and I've not budged.
 
I have heard it argued that homosexuality is not a choice, that it is genetic. That may be true, but isn't it also true that all that genetic material is present at conception, so any genetically predetermined characteristics, be it homosexuality or otherwise, are already present. So if you are pro-abortion you are an intolerant bigot homophobe and if you have had an abortion you might be guilty of a hate crime. :shock:


Yes, I am willing to completely disregard and verbally rape logic and reason if it will save just one baby from a vacuum spike through the skull. Liberals are less likely to support abortion if they think those fetuses might be gay, or a tree, or an endangered rodent of some kind. The tree and rodent theory seemed difficult to suggest, so I went with gay. :spin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom