The Instigator
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Bitch_Goddess
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The zygote is a child with rights.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
91days09hours26minutes49seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,280 times Debate No: 104595
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (107)
Votes (1)

 

YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Pro

Let's rock!
Bitch_Goddess

Con

I accept. Best of luck, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Pro

Let's start with a basic class in biology. About every 28 days, the woman's ovary releases at least one egg that contains 23 chromosomes. A sperm containing also 23 chromosomes attaches to the egg. The sperm penetrates the egg and the male and female pronuclei exchange information. About 24 hours after the sperm penetrates the egg, the male and female pronuclei fuse to form a new genetically unique organism. This is when a chemical called early pregnancy factor can be detected by sensitive blood tests that confirm that pregancy begins at fertilization. From fertilization to death the human organism is genetically the same. This is lso a Biblical fact. Job 3:3 says that Job was a male child at conception which is fertilization. As a former zygote, I oppose abortion, and ulipristal acetate which prevents the baby from implanting. Contraception is something that works to prevent the zygote from being created. This is not just eligion, this is scientific fact. An atheist can be prolife. Christopher Hitchens might be who I'm thinking of. I don't hate the mother, I just want equality for all humans.
Bitch_Goddess

Con

(A1)
"Let's start with a basic class in biology. About every 28 days, the woman's ovary releases at least one egg that contains 23 chromosomes. A sperm containing also 23 chromosomes attaches to the egg. The sperm penetrates the egg and the male and female pronuclei exchange information. About 24 hours after the sperm penetrates the egg, the male and female pronuclei fuse to form a new genetically unique organism."

(A2)
"This is when a chemical called early pregnancy factor can be detected by sensitive blood tests that confirm that pregancy begins at fertilization. From fertilization to death the human organism is genetically the same. This is lso a Biblical fact. Job 3:3 says that Job was a male child at conception which is fertilization."

(A3)
"As a former zygote, I oppose abortion, and ulipristal acetate which prevents the baby from implanting. Contraception is something that works to prevent the zygote from being created. This is not just eligion, this is scientific fact. An atheist can be prolife. Christopher Hitchens might be who I'm thinking of. I don't hate the mother, I just want equality for all humans."

Rebuttals:

A1 - I agree with all of this. As you said, this is basic biology.

A2 - I also agree that pregnancy begins at fertilization. However, I must note that genetics do not determine whether or not an organism is a human being. If Pro was suggesting something else, I ask that he/she specify on this if expecting a better argument on mine own behalf.
I'll also add, the Bible is not a reliable source when relying on what is/isn't fact. Firstly, because I believe in no God, as I am an atheist (this being more-so extra information, as the Bible does not influence my opinions/decisions). Secondly, the Bible also makes claims of being able to fit, on a man-made, hand-made ark, two of every single animal in the world. That claim, in and of itself, is ridiculous. More on, It also says that a virgin gave birth, a serpent was able to speak and a woman disintegrated into salt. So as I said, this Bible is not a reliable source of factual evidence.

A3 - Why do you oppose birth control? It's not killing anything, nor is it harming anything. It's preventing the woman from having something she does not want. Are you actually that against a woman doing to her own body as she pleases? It makes me glad that you are in no real position of power. Especially over a woman's freedom to choose what she does with her own body.
A woman deciding whether or not she wants kids are her decision and hers alone. The moment someone starts to dictate on whether or not a woman should be able to decide that is, in my opinion, disgusting.
I also find it unusual that you are (or perhaps, were) for sterilizing sex offenders, but against a woman choosing not to have a baby by taking birth control (even though she can change that at any given time). The reason I bring this up is that in your argument with another (as I always look at who I am debating with before I accept), your opponent brings up the excellent argument that there are many falsely accused sex offenders. However, you'd still be willing to risk them never having children, even over the possibility that they never did anything in the first place. As well as sterilization would not stop the sex offender from committing sex offenses.

So to conclude, I must ask: why is it that you are (or as I said, perhaps 'were') for sterilization of 'sex offenders', meaning they cannot produce biological children of their own (even with the possibility of them not having done anything) so easily, but against a woman deciding whether or not she wants to have a baby at a certain time by taking birth control? Even though, like said, she could change that at any given time? Such as when she is ready for a child? It truly just makes no sense to me. Quite baffling, in all honesty.

Link to debate: http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Pro

I a not saying that genetics is the only determing factor in humanity. I am saying that is the starting point. Other factors include heartbeat, brainwaves, and so on. All I am asserting is that the zygotic stage is the beginning of individual humanity. You were once a zygote. That's when your life began. When do YOU believe that individual human life begins.
Bitch_Goddess

Con

(B1)
"I a not saying that genetics is the only determing factor in humanity. I am saying that is the starting point. Other factors include heartbeat, brainwaves, and so on."

(B2)
"All I am asserting is that the zygotic stage is the beginning of individual humanity. You were once a zygote. That's when your life began."

(B3)
"When do YOU believe that individual human life begins."

_________________

B1 - Except, Pro, genetics has nothing to do with whether or not something is human. Yes, it is a factor of humanity, but it is not a determining factor. Otherwise, we would say all animals are humans, too. Which would seem rather foolish, would it not?

B2 - Also, it is not the starting point either. You have provided zero evidence for your claims, and therefore are failing at making a good argument for your case. I do hope you have better proof/evidence than just your

B3 - I believe that a human life begins at the start of brain waves; the same thing that determines when a human dies. Brain waves make the brain process, and therefore allows the now-called child to think, have consciousness, feel, etc.. And I ask Pro not to bring up the oh-so-popular argument "no, death happens when the heart stops". If death happened when the heart stopped, there would be no such thing as resuscitation. The heart is what helps make the brain function. Which is the reason that, before brain waves cease, there is indeed a chance to save the person even if their heart stops beating. Hence, CPR/resuscitation.

Conclusions:
This following paper was written quite a while back but still, holds very important and noteworthy points:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"This paper suggests that medically the term a 'human being' should be defined by the presence of an active human brain. The brain is the only unique and irreplaceable organ in the human body, as the orchestrator of all organ systems and the seat of personality. Thus, the presence or absence of brain life truly defines the presence or absence of human life in the medical sense. When viewed in this way, human life may be seen as a continuous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero (eight weeks gestation), until the occurrence of brain death."
Side note: brain life does not mean brainwaves. The 'brain life' they are referring to is the electrical signals flowing through the brain, not brain waves.

----

"A fetus' brain only starts to emit electrical signals at 12 weeks, and the EGGs recorded are comparable to that of a sea slug according to the eminent neuroscience researcher Micheal Gazzaniga in his book, 'The ethical brain'. A fetus only develops its cerebral cortex, the part of the brain which regulates thought and consciousness at 24 weeks, well after the limit for abortions. Before 24 weeks, its brain only emits electrical signals, not brain waves which indicate thought."

Source: http://www.lemauricien.com...

It would also be appreciated if Pro could refer back and answer to A3. I am very curious as to what they have to say.

Looking forward to your response, Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Pro

I have already proven my claims, now prove yours. Prove that life begins at some other point using science, not twisting religious scripture.
Bitch_Goddess

Con

Pro has not provided any scientifical evidence of their claims whatsoever. Therefore, I have nothing to refute. I provided my evidence in my most recent argument. And Pro has not proven his/her points. They make claims but provide no evidence.

--

My Used Sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.lemauricien.com...

Another important source:
http://www.svss-uspda.ch...

Thank you for debating this topic with me. I must admit, however, that your lack of sources and scientifical evidence was a disappointment. But all-in-all, it was an interesting discussion. Goodluck Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
107 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JimShady 1 month ago
JimShady
You have debated with honor, so good job to you. Although neither of us made progress to convince the other side, it was still fun and increased by debate skills/knowledge. I might challenge you on a slightly related topic, but then again I might not because it is a road I don't want to go down again.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 1 month ago
Bitch_Goddess
"and GENETICS does indeed DEFINE us as human, from the moment of conception.
Genetics also defines every other life form, not as human but as what ever they are...."
You are doing exactly what you accused me of doing: inserting your beliefs without any support.
You say that 'it is this', while not providing a shred of evidence. Of course, it will be useless now as I do not plan on responding anymore. But anyways, I suggest you play by your own rules if you tell others to. The types of genes someone has is very different from many others'. So the fact that "something has genes" does not mean it is a living human being. That is the point I was attempting to get across. But it's clear you understand that.

I did support my arguments. Check the debate, check the comments, check whatever. I supported much of what I said. I went off of what Pro started with. So if that's the problem, it's a bit late for that now.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 1 month ago
Bitch_Goddess
fzbw9br, these two next comments will be my only comments to you. You may, of course, reply as you wish. However, I will take no part in a long, useless debate as I already have with Jim. And it's lead nowhere.

"So a brain dead person is no longer a person, as brain wave activity has ceased, yet the body can be kept alive for an indeterminate time period?"
What you're suggesting here is that I believe the person is no longer such once their brainwaves cease. As I mentioned before to Jim, I do not believe that. I've never said I believe that. If you'd like, you may look back through the comments and see. I do not feel like making an explanation for something already written.

"PRO never gave any opposition to "birth control""
Pro gave opposition to an emergency birth control method (See R2). This is also known as "The Morning After Pill". Half of the time, women take it very soon after unprotected sex. Suffice to say, approximately a few hours after intercourse (the "morning after"). It can take approximately 6 days for the egg to even become fertilized. So the chances of the egg even being fertilized are very low (about a 0.08% chance if done within 12 hours after intercourse). This, in turn, would suggest that though it isn't even a zygote yet- what you people would consider a "human being"- it is not fertilized and therefore defeats the purpose that you're trying to defend the fertilized egg. The amount of time you have to take the pill is 72 hours after intercourse. It is preventing the egg from becoming fertilized. And yet again, this defeats the purpose Pro was proposing since it isn't what Pro considers a "living human being" yet.

"and then bringing in Sex Offenders???? What has that got to do with the instant debate?"
This has already been explained in the debate.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 1 month ago
Bitch_Goddess
Apologies, Jim Shady, but this will likely be my last reply regarding this discussion. I have been quite busy this past week and will also be in the following. If you would like to challenge me to a debate regarding this, I'd be open to accepting. Otherwise, we are getting nowhere. This conversation has been going back and forth for weeks and we have been doing nothing but countering each-others arguments with more arguments, and so on, but not doing anything productive in time.
I thank you for an interesting discussion on the topic.
Have a great day.
Posted by JimShady 2 months ago
JimShady
@fzbw9br

"and GENETICS does indeed DEFINE us as human, from the moment of conception.
Genetics also defines every other life form, not as human but as what ever they are....
CON suggests that because something has genes it SHALL be human. An inane assumption."

You are wasting your time, be careful or you will be sucked into a 103 comment debate like I was... aiii!
Posted by JimShady 2 months ago
JimShady
"they are theoretically possible"
"We cannot receive someone else's brain and be ourselves again." I partially agree with you, but if somehow in the future you could transmit a brain's memory and past to a computer chip, take a brain that has no past knowledge (like it has been somehow been memory-wiped or grown separately from a body) and then implant the computer chip into the new brain, it could possibly work. Even thought this is years ahead of us, I think it is a possibility.

My question was as is:
"What parts of either of our arguments have been scientifically proven wrong?"
To be accurate, nothing. Both check out. When saying there was only one correct answer, I simply meant the "opinion" part of when people should be valued as people and not aborted.

"Reply when you can, I am in no rush. No need to keep apologizing for late responses."
Sorry for always saying sorry.
Posted by JimShady 2 months ago
JimShady
"Many men would likely die in the process since the brick would not be as big as the whole. You cannot bring back those dead men." The focus is on the fort, not the men inside. The fort represents the person.

"With this, it's like saying if someone were shot in the head, heart and just all over. Some of their cells are not dead, but they would be considered dead. Why? Because they can no longer function anything. At all. There is no chance for them to breathe again, have blood pumping through their veins, feel pain, feel anything at all, think, process information, nothing."
Well, true, the person who is shot up everywhere is beyond the point of return, but still he has a little life juice left in him.

"It would be literally impossible for someone with no brainwaves, no blood pumping, no nothing but those living cells to come back to life." Theoretically it actually is possible, I just don't think science is advanced enough to do so. I need to do more research in this area before I can argue further.
Posted by JimShady 2 months ago
JimShady
"What about the mothers mental health?" Go to a mental health doctor.

"If the player, figuratively, is stressing the coach out, putting a strain on him, making the coach overwhelmed, I'd remove the player. Simple as that. If the woman is not ready/prepared to have a child and go through the excruciating pain of giving birth, then abortion should be an open option." So, the fault in my analogy is that removing the player from the team is not nearly as bad as death, so I kind of walked myself into that. But comparing leaving the team to death, I hope you can see my point.

"I would not put something that may or may not be a living human being over the mental health of a confirmed, alive woman." I would, because we already know it's a human. Personhood? No, but still.

I will continue my comment chain later today. Thanks for reading.
Posted by JimShady 2 months ago
JimShady
@Bjtch_Goddess

A murder via lethal injection may be painless, but it is still a murder, and thus immoral.

"They don't do it because they don't want to give up their nutrients, they do it because they aren't ready for a baby." OK, so in that case, quit making that ridiculous argument of "my nutrients, my choice."

"Nutrients from the woman, however, remains to the mother alone and if she chooses to share it, that's up to her." Again, selfish.

"Nutrients is a part of her body, therefore it does make it her body, her choice." Food is merely energy and isn't really part of her body. Why? Because the cells she eats have different DNA. If she resorted to cannibalism, I guess you could make your argument.

"Again, this is a living being that can feel pain, stress, FEELINGS, etc." While these do definitely help your argument, again, it's my opinion that life should not be destroyed because they can't feel pain or truly think-yet. Just a restatement of my argument that we will never come to conclusion with.

I will address your source later after further review, remind me if I forget please.

"I did what was best for the team. Removing a negative player from the team is the best decision I believed could've been made at the time. If they were not trying, I wouldn't try with them."
Well actually, I believe I forgot to mention this in the original analogy, but the kid IS trying... sort of like the human fetus is trying to grow into a full-on developed human. My fault, I explained this analogy badly. My point was to show how you shouldn't give up on someone who is trying, because in the end they will be worth it. Similar to a human fetus.
Posted by JimShady 2 months ago
JimShady
@Bjtch_Goddess

"But those aren't scientific facts, they are claims. They are not proven." In the same way that we are both making claims as to when human life starts. Obviously though, one side must be right.

"By coming to a common grounds of when humans should be given dignity of life."

"You clearly do not plan on changing your opinion, nor do I, because your argument is repetitive and we are getting absolutely nowhere with this." OK. Also, I commend you on not surrendering, thi is the longest comment debate I've ever had.

"I am not talking about just individuality, I am talking about what makes them human. So personhood is not what I am applying here." So, if personhood is not an appropriate definition, and nor is human being, what word would you like to settle on for when humans should receive the dignity of life?

"I do not consider something living if they rely on something else to make their body stay 'alive'."
This is just biologically absurd. In that case, then the bacteria within our bodies are not alive (as they rely on our bodies like a human zygote). I hope you don't mean alive in the literal sense in this case. Also, developed humans rely on food, which is given from other animals' cells and plant cells, so by your reasoning, developed humans depend on other organisms and are thus not alive.

I am also pro-euthanasia, but only in extreme cases when the body is beyond recovery. A zygote is not beyond recovery, in fact he or she still has his whole life ahead of them, and thus euthanasia/abortion for fetuses is not acceptable.

"So a child with brainwaves and proper functioning. That can feel pain while starving."
A child in the fetus state is properly functioning at least according to how they should in that stage of their life. Pain is a good argument to be made in favor of the pro-abortion standpoint, however I don't think you should judge whether it's ok to kill someone if they feel pain or not. (Continued in next comment)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 month ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGodBitch_GoddessTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con by default!