• 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!

I made a politically neutral explanation of when life begins as a response to media bias

RyanCMooney

RyanCMooney

New member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
19
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Looking at the frustrating search results for the question 'when does human life begin' inspired me to attempt a non-biased answer if anyone's interested:

YouTube

Summary of the video:

Liberal media/pro-choice biased people tend to deny the scientific consensus of when life begins.

Conservative media/pro-life biased people tend to cite the science correctly to a point but the implications and conclusions drawn go beyond the science.

Scientific consensus from embryologists: Biological life begins at fertilization. There is a scientific consensus that at the point of fertilization there is an individual biological human life.

Embryologists will call a zygote a human being but not necessarily a human person. The controversy is not when life begins, it is when personhood begins.
 
We seem to know when human life ends pretty well. Maybe we should work backwards from there.
 
RyanCMooney said:
Looking at the frustrating search results for the question 'when does human life begin' inspired me to attempt a non-biased answer if anyone's interested:

YouTube

Summary of the video:

Liberal media/pro-choice biased people tend to deny the scientific consensus of when life begins.

Conservative media/pro-life biased people tend to cite the science correctly to a point but the implications and conclusions drawn go beyond the science.

Scientific consensus from embryologists: Biological life begins at fertilization. There is a scientific consensus that at the point of fertilization there is an individual biological human life.

Embryologists will call a zygote a human being but not necessarily a human person. The controversy is not when life begins, it is when personhood begins.
Click to expand...

Firstly, you should probably have placed this topic in the abortion forum. Secondly, YouTube video's are generally a poor source choice.

And lastly, your "non-biased" explanation is anything but.
 
The question is not when human life begins, it's when personhood begins. You missed.
 
youtube videos suck.

Anti-abortion people deliberately conflate the question of "at what stage does a fetus amount to a person such that it should have the full rights of a person?" with that of "at what stage can we say that a thing is "life"?" Naturally, this involves putting the cart before the horse. They intend to arrive at the conclusion that abortion is wrong, so they assume that the question is the latter. It isn't. It's the former. The question is "when does personhood begin." (After all, killing a person can be murder, but killing "biological life" isn't).

Roe got it right by saying: look, it's impossible to say definitively when personhood is attained and clearly the mother has some degree of right about what goes on in her body, so let's just say that if the fetus can survive outside, its rights reign supreme and it should not be aborted. Until then, women's choice prevails.

That's the closest we'll get to a non-biased approach.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Firstly, you should probably have placed this topic in the abortion forum. Secondly, YouTube video's are generally a poor source choice.

And lastly, your "non-biased" explanation is anything but.
Click to expand...

That's fair. I put it here to talk about the media bias element of it but you're right. I did try my hardest give a non-biased take on the question though. Where did you see bias?
 
RyanCMooney said:
Looking at the frustrating search results for the question 'when does human life begin' inspired me to attempt a non-biased answer if anyone's interested:

YouTube

Summary of the video:

Liberal media/pro-choice biased people tend to deny the scientific consensus of when life begins.

Conservative media/pro-life biased people tend to cite the science correctly to a point but the implications and conclusions drawn go beyond the science.

Scientific consensus from embryologists: Biological life begins at fertilization. There is a scientific consensus that at the point of fertilization there is an individual biological human life.

Embryologists will call a zygote a human being but not necessarily a human person. The controversy is not when life begins, it is when personhood begins.
Click to expand...

When does an acorn become an oak tree?
 
ecofarm said:
The question is not when human life begins, it's when personhood begins. You missed.
Click to expand...

Why when personhood begins, and not when life begins, if it is a human life especially? It's clear when life begins, a human life, but personhood is a sketchy term.
 
Waddy said:
Why when personhood begins, and not when life begins, if it is a human life especially? It's clear when life begins, a human life, but personhood is a sketchy term.
Click to expand...

People have rights. We're not gonna try anyone for the murder of life in general.
 
ecofarm said:
People have rights. We're not gonna try anyone for the murder of life in general.
Click to expand...

No, they're called HUMAN RIGHTS for a reason. personhood has nothing to do with it. Being a human being has everything to do with it.
 
Waddy said:
No, they're called HUMAN RIGHTS for a reason. personhood has nothing to do with it. Being a human being has everything to do with it.
Click to expand...

Rights are an agreement between two or more people. Gotta have two people to make a right.
 
ecofarm said:
Rights are an agreement between two or more people. Gotta have two people to make a right.
Click to expand...

No; the concept of HUMAN RIGHTS, which is now generally accepted in the developed world, requires no "agreement" of any kind. Nor does it require more than one person. As a human, you have these rights from the start. Simply because you are a human being. Rights which are inalienable, inherent, and cannot be voided by government.
 
RyanCMooney said:
Looking at the frustrating search results for the question 'when does human life begin' inspired me to attempt a non-biased answer if anyone's interested
Click to expand...

For abortion related discussion, it does not matter when life begins. What matters is when human life begins. Life begins BEFORE human life. What makes us a person is NOT what life is at the point of conception.

If you want a truly non-biased answer, IMO you have to read all 4 pages of Carl Sagan's thoughts.
 
Waddy said:
No; the concept of HUMAN RIGHTS, which is now generally accepted in the developed world, requires no "agreement" of any kind. Nor does it require more than one person. As a human, you have these rights from the start. Simply because you are a human being. Rights which are inalienable, inherent, and cannot be voided by government.
Click to expand...

Rights only exist as an abstract social object. That requires two people.
 
ecofarm said:
Rights only exist as an abstract social object. That requires two people.
Click to expand...

No, even if you were the last person on earth you would still have your human rights. Because you have a human mind. The only abstract is that the entire concept of rights is a human construct. Nature knows no such laws. There are no "rights" in nature. Nothing you have said is an argument against human rights.
 
Waddy said:
No; the concept of HUMAN RIGHTS, which is now generally accepted in the developed world, requires no "agreement" of any kind. Nor does it require more than one person. As a human, you have these rights from the start. Simply because you are a human being. Rights which are inalienable, inherent, and cannot be voided by government.
Click to expand...

You just admitted that human rights is a concept the developed world has accepted. The developed world is more than one person.

For example you say human rights cannot be voided by government but that is exactly what happens in China, Russia, North Korea, the list goes on and on and on. So yes, it can be voided by government if that government doesn’t agree with your stance.

I’ll make you a deal, go to North Korea and upon arrival announce you are an American and your human rights cannot be voided. If you return unharmed, then we’ll believe you. :lamo
 
Waddy said:
No, even if you were the last person on earth you would still have your human rights.
Click to expand...

The concept of rights has no meaning to an individual in isolation.
 
Praxas said:
You just admitted that human rights is a concept the developed world has accepted. The developed world is more than one person.

For example you say human rights cannot be voided by government but that is exactly what happens in China, Russia, North Korea, the list goes on and on and on. So yes, it can be voided by government if that government doesn’t agree with your stance.

I’ll make you a deal, go to North Korea and upon arrival announce you are an American and your human rights cannot be voided. If you return unharmed, then we’ll believe you. :lamo
Click to expand...

Those governments don't void human rights, they oppress people. Even if your human rights are denied, they still exist. And while human rights are now widely accepted, they exist even if there is only one person left to enjoy them. They do not rely on numbers to be valid. You still fail to make a cogent argument against the concept of human rights.
 
ecofarm said:
The concept of rights has no meaning to an individual in isolation.
Click to expand...

Of course they do. Even in isolation human rights exist. Even if you were the last person on earth.
 
RyanCMooney said:
Looking at the frustrating search results for the question 'when does human life begin' inspired me to attempt a non-biased answer if anyone's interested:

YouTube

Summary of the video:

Liberal media/pro-choice biased people tend to deny the scientific consensus of when life begins.

Conservative media/pro-life biased people tend to cite the science correctly to a point but the implications and conclusions drawn go beyond the science.

Scientific consensus from embryologists: Biological life begins at fertilization. There is a scientific consensus that at the point of fertilization there is an individual biological human life.

Embryologists will call a zygote a human being but not necessarily a human person. The controversy is not when life begins, it is when personhood begins.
Click to expand...

It's kind of a pointless exercise really. There is no one point where life suddenly begins. A child that is born will remember nothing about that period of time when they're 10 years old, let along being in the womb. Somethings things happen gradually.

Does a child start to speak a language natively when A) they can understand their first word B) when the speak their first word C) when they can speak their first sentence D) when they can have a conversation with someone E) when they can express their own ideas in that language?

Could debate all day about it and still it's down to what someone thinks. There is no answer.

The biggest problem I have is, if someone is "pro-life", shouldn't they be pro-life?

If you're pro-life and yet support war and executions, support things that lead to the deaths of people, then this is wrong.

Take the UK. The UK is mostly pro-choice because politics really hasn't reached the point where abortion is the most important issue.

And yet the murder rate is 4-5 times lower than the US's, the number of people dying on the roads is 4-5 times lower, infant mortality rate is 4.3 instead of 6.5 for the US.

Literally the kids that grow up in the UK have a much better chance of living their life than in the US. Surely that's "pro-life".
 
Waddy said:
Of course they do. Even in isolation human rights exist. Even if you were the last person on earth.
Click to expand...

A right is an abstract social object. A person in isolation has no social.
 
ecofarm said:
A right is an abstract social object. A person in isolation has no social.
Click to expand...

Repeating it won't make you correct. Your view has been refuted. You're walking in circles. So unless you have something new?
 
Waddy said:
Repeating it won't make you correct. Your view has been refuted. You're walking in circles. So unless you have something new?
Click to expand...

Where do you think rights come from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom