Chuz Life has certainly been making that claim.
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?It's a factor in deciding when life begins.
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?
"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.
An Individual's life (regardless of species) biologically begins at conception.
Agree?
An Individual's life (regardless of species) biologically begins at conception.
Agree?
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.
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.
An Individual's life (regardless of species) biologically begins at conception.
Agree?
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.
Our laws and our Constitution have established the rights that 'persons' and 'ciizens' have to their lives.
Correct?
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?
Thank you.Indeed,...
To make a coherent and consistent argument about why:What other "choice" do I have?
Drive safely!You have the last word for awhile,.. I gotta long drive in bad weather ahead of me.
What choices do I have?
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.
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.
If life does not begin at conception, then it never begins.
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.<----- FAIL
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.