• 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!

If Life begins at Conception?

Lursa said:
In the US? Where?
Click to expand...

I’d imagine everywhere. There are some situation which render the woman unable to give legal consent.

Lursa said:
So then everything is arbitrary? Then what makes your view better?
Click to expand...

Who said everything? We’re we not specifically talking about personhood?

My view is better because it respects life and yet still provides the standard i believe set by Roe v Wade which is that of self defense. Any person who reasonably fears for their life or grave bodily injury has a right to defend themselves. I do not accept the father missing, or worrying about caring for the child, or the normal affects of pregnancy to be reasonable fears to justify homicide. I do believe it’s the doctors place to make that call as the expert but I do believe an affirmative defense is needed and so while privacy should be maintained but not a barrier to prosecution.
 
CLAX1911 said:
they do on December 8th it's called the immaculate conception day.

Some people even celebrate the immaculate conception of Mary on this day.
Click to expand...

So did Jesus take 17 days to gestate or 1 year and 17 days?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Do you think that Christmas is the actual day if his birth? Because I don't think anybody thinks that.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody much cares what the actual day is. Further, the day He was conceived as well as the day He was born to save the world and every day of His short time here and especially His death and resurrection are to be celebrated if you are a practicing Christian.
 
Aberration said:
I’d imagine everywhere. There are some situation which render the woman unable to give legal consent.
Click to expand...

So you made it up then. OK.

Non-valid.

Who said everything? We’re we not specifically talking about personhood?

My view is better because it respects life and yet still provides the standard i believe set by Roe v Wade which is that of self defense. Any person who reasonably fears for their life or grave bodily injury has a right to defend themselves. I do not accept the father missing, or worrying about caring for the child, or the normal affects of pregnancy to be reasonable fears to justify homicide. I do believe it’s the doctors place to make that call as the expert but I do believe an affirmative defense is needed and so while privacy should be maintained but not a barrier to prosecution.
Click to expand...

RvW is based primarily on privacy and family/reproductive rights, so you are wrong about the self-defense angle.

And you didnt address the arbitrary angle. Unless you are inventing self-defense on your own? In any case, every single pregnancy is a risk to a woman's life and every single pregnancy changes her body permanently. In the US/yr, 86,700 women die or nearly die from pregnancy/childbirth (aneurysm, kidney failure, stroke, pre-eclampsia). This is a significant risk. And it's not predictable or all preventable.

And it doesnt matter if 'you' dont believe that the father being missing or other financial/security reasons arent valid...only that woman knows the risks to her life and security and to those of her current dependents. She may need to be feeding a family and living in a safe area for other kids, elderly, disabled. That you choose to pretend she's just doing it on a whim is only evidence of disrespect for women, not reality. She has other obligations and commitments to community, society...you dont know, yet you believe strangers should be able to make her decisions regarding upholding those things for her? Is that true?
 
Aberration said:
I do not accept the father missing, or worrying about caring for the child, or the normal affects of pregnancy to be reasonable fears to justify homicide.
Click to expand...

Spoken truly like someone who's body will never, ever suffer the ravages of pregnancy and childbirth.

Abortion is not homicide.
 
Aberration said:
There is difference between believing someone without evidence of an act another committed, and believing someone testifying to their own actions and motivations.

It’s dishonest to try and conflate the two.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that God was justified in raping Mary?
 
Lursa said:
"Who says" all life must be saved? Or have rights? What authority?
Click to expand...

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

I'd like to answer your question by telling you who says that all human life shouldn't be saved or preserved. He was an Austrian-born guy with a funny mustache who convinced an entire continent to discount the personhood of a group of humans, leading to the the worst atrocity in modern history. If you think we're going to let you prance around with the same mindset, you're mistaken.

Most especially, what authority says that the life of the unborn should be preserved at the expense of a woman's life? A life is more than just a heartbeat...we're talking about a future, self-determination, etc. Is the unborn more deserving of those things than a woman? If so, why?

I value quality of life over quantity...just reducing humans to numbers is demeaning.
Click to expand...

Typical semantics. In 98% of cases, both the woman's life and the fetus' life can be preserved. You want to give millions of free passes to murder unborn babies to account for a tiny fraction of cases where it may be medically justifiable. You can understand our concern.

There have been cases where somebody was murdered, but if they had an M-16 and grenade launcher on them, they could've defended themselves. Does that mean should legalize and give all citizens the right to carry grenade launchers?
 
Lursa said:
No it's not arbitrary. Birth and the ending of the complete dependence on another's systems is a very clear point.

Before birth, the unborn cannot exercise a single right independently...none. It is wholly and completely dependent on the systems of the mother to keep it alive. This dependence truly demonstrates that the unborn is not equal to born people.

After birth it immediately begins to breath on its own...it needs no one to help it do that. It immediately begins interacting with society (crying, which is communication, a demand for attention), it needs no assistance for that.

another point is that after birth, anyone can care for the unborn and no one else's rights need to be violated to do so. Society cannot act on the unborn without the mother's consent. After, others can do so, with probable cause and due process.

The status of "person" is also defined legally. It is a man-made concept, yes...but so are all our rights and the legal system.
Click to expand...

Good to know you draw the line of life at viability. So if you're ever in an accident and go into comatose, needing urgent medical intervention to be bought back, I'll be sure to have your post here printed on flyers to hand out to the hospital staff, just to let them know that you would prefer not to be saved because you're no longer even a person since you rely on other people for life.
 
Lursa said:
"Who says" all life must be saved? Or have rights? What authority?
Click to expand...
Crusader13 said:
And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

I'd like to answer your question by telling you who says that all human life shouldn't be saved or preserved.
Click to expand...
Wrong, we have laws created by man that says human life shouldnt be saved or preserved...for all kinds of justification.

Like war, self-defense, assisted suicide, death penalty, pulling the plug, abortion, etc.

Now, please answer the question. It's a very serious question. I'm guessing you avoided a direct answer because it would be "God." And you know very well that in America, you cannot force your beliefs on others and our laws and the Constitution protect us from that.

So again, please answer the question...if you can do so honestly and directly. I have no intention of answering the rest of your response without that. Why should I answer yours if you wont answer mine?
 
Crusader13 said:
Good to know you draw the line of life at viability. So if you're ever in an accident and go into comatose, needing urgent medical intervention to be bought back, I'll be sure to have your post here printed on flyers to hand out to the hospital staff, just to let them know that you would prefer not to be saved because you're no longer even a person since you rely on other people for life.
Click to expand...

I didnt write the bold.

The unborn is a human life at fertilization.

And a person in a coma is also a human life.


Interesting that you completely ignored and removed the part of my post that explained that legal distinction (and mentioned nothing about viability).

Did you have any other response other than your failed attempt to personally dismiss my (incorrect) views?
 
Lursa said:
Wrong, we have laws created by man that says human life shouldnt be saved or preserved...for all kinds of justification.

Like war, self-defense, assisted suicide, death penalty, pulling the plug, abortion, etc.

Now, please answer the question. It's a very serious question. I'm guessing you avoided a direct answer because it would be "God." And you know very well that in America, you cannot force your beliefs on others and our laws and the Constitution protect us from that.

So again, please answer the question...if you can do so honestly and directly. I have no intention of answering the rest of your response without that. Why should I answer yours if you wont answer mine?
Click to expand...

I'll answer the question on my part if you answer it on yours.

Who says that we shouldn't preserve all innocent human life? And better yet - what makes them a valid and unerring source of truth on such a complex matter? Does this particular person or group of people posses some extra-ordinary or divine knowledge, and are they 100% free from error, misjudgment, oversight, or any form of wrongdoing?

Typical strategy to try and discount any arguments to the contrary by claiming they're religiously driven. One does not need to be religious to see that the exact same mindset as the pro-choice argument has existed for millennia, and in every single case it has led to unwarranted atrocities which were later regretted.
 
MrWonka said:
Why don't Jesus freaks celebrate the day Jesus was conceived instead of the day he was born? Isn't that the more important date? I mean you wouldn't have to worry about all these supposedly inferior holidays trying to steal your thunder if you moved Christmas to March 25th would you?

.
Click to expand...
Catholics do celebrate His conception

At Christmas we focus on the first chapter of Luke where Mary is met by the angel Gabriel and tells her that she will CONCEIVE

and she says How can this be? (because she was not planning to have sex even though she was betrothed to Joseph, which explains why the Catholic Church teaches of Mary's perpetual virginity)
 
Scrabaholic said:
A new individual life begins at fertilization. That doesn't mean the woman can't abort if she so chooses.

We don't know our date of fertilization. We do know that pregnancy in a human generally lasts 280 days but most women do not give birth on their exact due date. Also, there is the issue of preemies. It just wouldn't be workable.
Click to expand...

so the child is a human life but has no right to continue living?

you are quite the humanitarian
 
Lursa said:
I didnt write the bold.

The unborn is a human life at fertilization.

And a person in a coma is also a human life.


Interesting that you completely ignored and removed the part of my post that explained that legal distinction (and mentioned nothing about viability).

Did you have any other response other than your failed attempt to personally dismiss my (incorrect) views?
Click to expand...

Your post is nonsense and completely irrational. You draw a false conclusion by saying that just because a fetus is dependent on it's mother, that this means it is unequal or undeserving of person-hood status. You've provided no moral, technical, scientific, or medical justification for that conclusion. It's akin to saying that because you have blue eyes and most of the population has brown eyes, you are unequal and undeserving of human status. Makes no sense.

You also fail to recognize that many babies are born needing life support. I could not breathe on my own for at least 6 months after birth. I needed a machine and medical intervention to do it for me. Does that mean I wasn't a person yet? If someone killed me at that point, would they have simply been squashing a parasite?

Then you go into this even further mental gymnastic state by saying that nobody's rights are violated by caring for a born child, so that means it is thus a person....except the father or taxpayer who is legally forced to give up their money to support that child if it doesn't have a carer.

Your argument sucks.
 
Crusader13 said:
I'll answer the question on my part if you answer it on yours.

Who says that we shouldn't preserve all innocent human life? And better yet - what makes them a valid and unerring source of truth on such a complex matter? Does this particular person or group of people posses some extra-ordinary or divine knowledge, and are they 100% free from error, misjudgment, oversight, or any form of wrongdoing?

Typical strategy to try and discount any arguments to the contrary by claiming they're religiously driven. One does not need to be religious to see that the exact same mindset as the pro-choice argument has existed for millennia, and in every single case it has led to unwarranted atrocities which were later regretted.
Click to expand...

I asked you first. So...dont answer my question with a question.

Please answer mine.
 
Crusader13 said:
Your post is nonsense and completely irrational. You draw a false conclusion by saying that just because a fetus is dependent on it's mother, that this means it is unequal or undeserving of person-hood status. You've provided no moral, technical, scientific, or medical justification for that conclusion. It's akin to saying that because you have blue eyes and most of the population has brown eyes, you are unequal and undeserving of human status. Makes no sense.

You also fail to recognize that many babies are born needing life support. I could not breathe on my own for at least 6 months after birth. I needed a machine and medical intervention to do it for me. Does that mean I wasn't a person yet? If someone killed me at that point, would they have simply been squashing a parasite?

Your argument sucks.
Click to expand...
The personal attack shows you are not able to refute my arguments head on.

I can make the argument for personhood on moral, scientific, legal, and medical grounds.

The ones I gave you are based on scientific and legal grounds....and you are so rigidly biased you didnt even realize it.

The unborn is wholly dependent on the woman...*physiologically.* I wrote "every system" :doh That's "science" :roll: And if it cannot exist without being specifically attached to her...it's like a parasite. Something that cant exist without being linked physiologically to something else is not equal to that thing (when the woman can indeed live just fine without it).

And in discussing equal 'status' I was referring to legally :roll: We recognize equality as a legal status here in the US. Blacks and women were at one time also not considered to have equal status under the law here. Here's a good reason to understand why blacks and women were actually equal and the unborn were not and are not equal (under the law): blacks and women were already exercising many of their/our rights and when recognized as equal under the, they/we were able to immediately exercise all our rights. The unborn were not and can not. They are not equal because, again, they are incapable of exercising a single right independently. They do not start to be able to until birth.

I can give you the biological/natural reasons why too...but I'm not going to bother if you dont demonstrate some basic understanding of what I've already written. I dont mean agree, just demonstrate you understand basic law and biology.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
I asked you first. So...dont answer my question with a question.

Please answer mine.
Click to expand...

No no - it's you who wants to legalize the systematic and on-demand murder of millions of human beings. I'm the one who thinks we should pay tribute to our moral compass that we already have in place, which is backed by millions of years of human history, metaphysics, and philosophy. The onus is on you to prove that we should disregard all this by legalizing infanticide.
 
Lursa said:
The unborn is wholly dependent on the woman...*physiologically.* I wrote "every system" :doh That's "science" :roll: And if it cannot exist without being specifically attached to her...it's like a parasite. Something that cant exist without being linked physiologically to something else is not equal to that thing (when the woman can indeed live just fine without it).
Click to expand...

Evidence or moral precedence of this claim? Why do you consider physiological independence the criteria for personhood - what about financial independence? What makes financial independence (or lack of it) less important than physiological independence? In other words, if something cannot exist without specifically being linked financially to something else, does that also mean that it is no equal to that thing? What about emotional independence? If something cannot exist without being linked emotionally to something else, does that mean it is not equal to that thing? What about medical independence? If something cannot exist without being medically linked to something else, does that mean it is not equal to that thing?

You've simply chosen 1 aspect of independence as an (unproven) criteria for personhood.

The unborn were not and can not. They are not equal because, again, they are incapable of exercising a single right independently. They do not start to be able to until birth.
Click to expand...

Another unverified and irrational claim. Why does being able to exercise rights determine personhood? Why is a human being less of a person if they are unable to exercise rights?

You're also wrong about the fetus. Living is a right. The fetus is a living thing so therefore it is exercising its right to live.

The worst part is that even if all the nonsense you've spewed here is true - that means you wouldn't have a problem with me poisoning a woman or intentionally shoving her to the ground resulting in a miscarriage. After all, even if she really wanted that baby and it meant everything to her, me killing it should only be punishable with a basic assault charge (for the harm caused to the woman). I didn't kill an actual legal person so therefore I should get off lightly and be freed to do it again. Is that OK by you?

The problem is you've made all this effort to protect the right of women who don't care about their babies, while completely stripping down the protections of women who do :doh
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
No no - it's you who wants to legalize the systematic and on-demand murder of millions of human beings. I'm the one who thinks we should pay tribute to our moral compass that we already have in place, which is backed by millions of years of human history, metaphysics, and philosophy. The onus is on you to prove that we should disregard all this by legalizing infanticide.
Click to expand...

What factual murder?
What factual infanticide?

LMAO why do people make stuff up and post so many lies and thing people will buy it . .its hilarious
 
Crusader13 said:
No no - it's you who wants to legalize the systematic and on-demand murder of millions of human beings. I'm the one who thinks we should pay tribute to our moral compass that we already have in place, which is backed by millions of years of human history, metaphysics, and philosophy. The onus is on you to prove that we should disregard all this by legalizing infanticide.
Click to expand...

So you cant honestly answer my question.

And you are also lying about my posts.

You have cant counter my arguments with adult discussion.

OK...we can all see that.
 
Crusader13 said:
Evidence or moral precedence of this claim? Why do you consider physiological independence the criteria for personhood
Click to expand...

Still cant read properly eh? I wrote about equal status, not persohood, and in the example you are quoting here...physiological equality. I spelled it out for you. But again...you cant refute my arguments directly, so off you go, on your own tangents.

You asked for a scientific example, I gave it to you, and you turned it into something about personhood (no such thing in science) and finances :doh

Same with my legal example...which of course includes a discussion of rights :doh And you switched it to personhood, again.

Your dishonesty and failure know no bounds.
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
The worst part is that even if all the nonsense you've spewed here is true - that means you wouldn't have a problem with me poisoning a woman or intentionally shoving her to the ground resulting in a miscarriage. After all, even if she really wanted that baby and it meant everything to her, me killing it should only be punishable with a basic assault charge (for the harm caused to the woman). I didn't kill an actual legal person so therefore I should get off lightly and be freed to do it again. Is that OK by you?

The problem is you've made all this effort to protect the right of women who don't care about their babies, while completely stripping down the protections of women who do :doh
Click to expand...

You've run off the rails here, it's like you are posting with your hair on fire...this is all specious fabrication from your imagination, it's not connected logically to my responses.

Have a little self-respect. Either discuss without inventing fantasies or dont bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom