• 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
OP (I'm in late)

Is a seed a tree?
An egg a chicken?

What level of 'life' are we talking about - cells are merely cells. . . the building blocks of life, not life itself. . . they're where things begin - their presence doesn't mean that A) Life is imminent. B) Life is infallible C) Life is permanent.
 
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?

By the power of the Constitution of the USA, I hereby declare myself the 'rights' proxy of the iguana that lives outside my apartment in Florida. Henceforth, I will protect him from any rights violations since he is a living, breathing, creature of this great earth. I must protect his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!!
 
You lot are misrepresenting the concept of natural rights again...

A "right" is just a moral affirmation or sentiment; a philosophical concept. Saying they don't exist is just a strawman, because moral sentiments do not become valid by virtue of their tangibility.
 
Who decided the rules on being a "proxy"? You?

If there were rules regarding proxy,... would you abide by them without question in every case?

Can I be a proxy for a rock?

Aparently you can.

How about for a goat?

I don't know,... maybe... What does the rock have to say about it?

You have just created more subjectivity in order to explain away previous subjective claims. Where does it end?

Yeah,.. I know...

I invented the idea of an able bodied person arguing for the rights of one who is not so able. (Proxy)

I'm so ashamed.
 
By the power of the Constitution of the USA, I hereby declare myself the 'rights' proxy of the iguana that lives outside my apartment in Florida. Henceforth, I will protect him from any rights violations since he is a living, breathing, creature of this great earth. I must protect his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!!

"]It wouldn't be unheard of.

You know how chimps are more human (and deserving of rights) than pre-birth humans are.... right?
 
Chuz Life,

This is a sign you have lost:

By the power of the Constitution of the USA, I hereby declare myself the 'rights' proxy of the iguana that lives outside my apartment in Florida. Henceforth, I will protect him from any rights violations since he is a living, breathing, creature of this great earth. I must protect his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!!

When people start to make jokes utilizing the core logic of your argument that revolve around the most absurd notions but which are still inline with your argument, you have screwed the pooch.
 
Human-ness has nothing to do with being deserving of rights. -Rivrrat

Basic rights (such as the right your children have to their life) are a function of whether they are "deserved" or not?

Wow.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life,

This is a sign you have lost:

When people start to make jokes utilizing the core logic of your argument that revolve around the most absurd notions but which are still inline with your argument, you have screwed the pooch.

In my highschool debate classes,.. we were told that a sure sign of defeat is when someone starts claiming victory or telling you you have lost.

There is no prize in these exchanges.

I have the daunting task of trying to convince those who support elective abortions,... that they (some who have already had abortions themselves) are supporting the dehumanization and killing of pre-birth children.

And you have the task of trying to convince me (despite the biological facts, pictures and my personal experience)... that it's either not a child,... or none of my business.

It is what it is.
 
Human-ness has nothing to do with being deserving of rights. -Rivrrat

Basic rights (such as the right your children have to their life) are a function of whether they are "deserved" or not?

Wow.

You used the term. If you didn't like it's application, perhaps you should have chosen a different one.

You know how chimps are more human (and deserving of rights) than pre-birth humans are.... right?

But yes, rights are a function of whether they are deserved or not. Quite obviously, we do not feel that mosquitoes are deserving of rights under our government.

Now, what other word that you use would you like to oppose when someone else uses it?
 
Last edited:
I have the daunting task of trying to convince those who support elective abortions,... that they (some who have already had abortions themselves) are supporting the dehumanization and killing of pre-birth children.

How can you 'dehumanize' a human? LOL As for the latter, what difference does it make? Do you really think that calling something by a different name is going to change what it is or how anyone feels about it?

OMG! He called my fetus a 'child'!!! I'm so terribly horrified that I had it killed now!! If only I'd known!! :shock:

Is that really what you're expecting? :lol:
 
You used the term. If you didn't like it's application, perhaps you should have chosen a different one.

It was sarcasm, my dear.

And it aparently was lost on you.

But yes, rights are a function of whether they are deserved or not. Quite obviously, we do not feel that mosquitoes are deserving of rights under our government.

I completely disagree.

In my civics classes we we educated to respect the fact that basic rights are inherent. Rights are not granted or given (deserved or not) which is the basis for the "presumption of innocence" in cases where the accused is obviously guilty (i.e. the Ft. Hood shooter). Likewise,.. even he has a right to his life, equal protection under the law, due process, etc.

Whether he "deserves" those rights or not?

Irrelevant.
 
Rights are not granted or given (deserved or not) which is the basis for the "presumption of innocence" in cases where the accused is obviously guilty (i.e. the Ft. Hood shooter). Likewise,.. even he has a right to his life, equal protection under the law, due process, etc.

Whether he "deserves" those rights or not?

Irrelevant.

Some would say that the Roman Empire had more of a hand in giving the "Presumption of Innocence" idea form than that just being naturally occurring (inherent). I mean, I don't think they've found the "Presumption of Innocence" gene yet...
 
It was sarcasm, my dear.

And it aparently was lost on you.



I completely disagree.

In my civics classes we we educated to respect the fact that basic rights are inherent. Rights are not granted or given (deserved or not) which is the basis for the "presumption of innocence" in cases where the accused is obviously guilty (i.e. the Ft. Hood shooter). Likewise,.. even he has a right to his life, equal protection under the law, due process, etc.

Whether he "deserves" those rights or not?

Irrelevant.

You were poorly educated. Rights are in no way inherent. They are granted or taken. We GRANT the presumption of innocence in our legal system. It is not some inherent 'right'. We GRANT him a right to life. We GRANT him a right to equal protection under OUR law, etc. Not a single one of these things are inherent. It's not possible for them to be.
 
Some would say that the Roman Empire had more of a hand in giving the "Presumption of Innocence" idea form than that just being naturally occurring (inherent). I mean, I don't think they've found the "Presumption of Innocence" gene yet...

Weren't you the one who posted the definition of "Rights?"

Dude?

Did you see this one?

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
 
Weren't you the one who posted the definition of "Rights?"

Dude?

Did you see this one?

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

You're right about that, however the fact that:
1. I had to scroll way down for that shows it's not a more pertinent definition
and
2. Show me where, in nature, that any "right" is guaranteed. ****, show me ANYTHING that we're guaranteed by nature.

Your "Natural Right to Life" is all good and well until a person stops being alive due to natural causes, or perhaps the Earth explodes. Where'd your right go in that case?

Which trumps which? Natural causes or natural rights? :lol:


EDIT: Also, nice deflection of my post there too!
 
You were poorly educated. Rights are in no way inherent. They are granted or taken. We GRANT the presumption of innocence in our legal system. It is not some inherent 'right'. We GRANT him a right to life. We GRANT him a right to equal protection under OUR law, etc. Not a single one of these things are inherent. It's not possible for them to be.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,---That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "--Declaration of Independence

"Endowed by their creator" = Inherent.
 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,---That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "--Declaration of Independence

"Endowed by their creator" = Inherent.


And here I am thinking the Constitution was the Law of the land...
 
You're right about that, however the fact that:
1. I had to scroll way down for that shows it's not a more pertinent definition
and
2. Show me where, in nature, that any "right" is guaranteed. ****, show me ANYTHING that we're guaranteed by nature.

Your "Natural Right to Life" is all good and well until a person stops being alive due to natural causes, or perhaps the Earth explodes. Where'd your right go in that case?

Which trumps which? Natural causes or natural rights? :lol:

EDIT: Also, nice deflection of my post there too!

Nature can not be held liable or accountable.

A person can.
 
So what you're saying is?

I'm saying your strawman argument that nature can't be expected to respect our rights, so therefore they can't possibly be "inherent" is just that,... a classic strawman argument.

Description of Straw Man


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
  1. Person A has position X.
  2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
  3. Person B attacks position Y.
  4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,---That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "--Declaration of Independence

"Endowed by their creator" = Inherent.

Soo... if someone writes it, it must be true? Seriously? This is your argument? What 'creator'? When? Where? How?

Anywho, we GRANT those rights in this country. We are not born with them. The mere fact that we MUST GRANT them only reiterates the fact that they are NOT INHERENT. If they were inherent, we wouldn't need to grant them and enumerate them in a document now would we? We would all just be born with them and know what they are automatically.

Last but not least, the first words:

WE HOLD

We hold = we believe
Belief /= truth
We hold or we believe = We grant
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom