Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

When does human life begin?

Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 2:45:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 8:56:17 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that human life begins at implantation, but I am open to hearing other views.

I believe it begins as soon as the egg is fertilized. I presume that is the same thing as what you call implantation.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 5:22:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At conception.

Those who disagree arbitrarily decided that some humans are killable, property, and subhuman based on convenience. AND THEN decided that those killable humans are killable at will. These are the two premises, in which convenience > human value.

This isn't different than slavery and eugenics. The inconvenience in this case is the developmental stage every human goes through that requires care. I see no reason to not label toddlers, old people, and people with disabilities as killable at will for convenience as well.
lund1492
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 8:38:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe human life begins at consciousness. Now, where you lie on the issue of consciousness or possible consciousness can be debatable, but if a life form does not know it exists or it does not have a functioning brain, it is not experiencing life. Think about it the way you would think about someone who is brain dead. If they are brain dead, but their body is still breathing with the help of machines (the way a fetus would in a womb with the help of a mother - its life support) then are they experiencing life? Is it okay for you to let them go then? Most people would agree that yes, it is reasonable to disconnect the support.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 12:47:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 2:45:37 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/4/2014 8:56:17 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that human life begins at implantation, but I am open to hearing other views.

I believe it begins as soon as the egg is fertilized. I presume that is the same thing as what you call implantation.

Fertilization is when the sperm penetrates the egg. Implantation is when the egg attaches to the mother. :)
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 12:48:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 5:22:07 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At conception.

Those who disagree arbitrarily decided that some humans are killable, property, and subhuman based on convenience. AND THEN decided that those killable humans are killable at will. These are the two premises, in which convenience > human value.

This isn't different than slavery and eugenics. The inconvenience in this case is the developmental stage every human goes through that requires care. I see no reason to not label toddlers, old people, and people with disabilities as killable at will for convenience as well.

It makes more sense for life to begin at implantation.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 12:49:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 8:38:06 AM, lund1492 wrote:
I believe human life begins at consciousness. Now, where you lie on the issue of consciousness or possible consciousness can be debatable, but if a life form does not know it exists or it does not have a functioning brain, it is not experiencing life. Think about it the way you would think about someone who is brain dead. If they are brain dead, but their body is still breathing with the help of machines (the way a fetus would in a womb with the help of a mother - its life support) then are they experiencing life? Is it okay for you to let them go then? Most people would agree that yes, it is reasonable to disconnect the support.
If a born person is not sentient, is it okay to kill them>
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 3:11:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 12:48:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:22:07 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At conception.

Those who disagree arbitrarily decided that some humans are killable, property, and subhuman based on convenience. AND THEN decided that those killable humans are killable at will. These are the two premises, in which convenience > human value.

This isn't different than slavery and eugenics. The inconvenience in this case is the developmental stage every human goes through that requires care. I see no reason to not label toddlers, old people, and people with disabilities as killable at will for convenience as well.

It makes more sense for life to begin at implantation.

Why? Eggs can be implanted into the fallopian tube and not become fertilized. Those unfertilized eggs end up disintegrating and that is when the period begins and the unfertilized eggs are shed from the body.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 3:18:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 12:49:51 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 8:38:06 AM, lund1492 wrote:
I believe human life begins at consciousness. Now, where you lie on the issue of consciousness or possible consciousness can be debatable, but if a life form does not know it exists or it does not have a functioning brain, it is not experiencing life. Think about it the way you would think about someone who is brain dead. If they are brain dead, but their body is still breathing with the help of machines (the way a fetus would in a womb with the help of a mother - its life support) then are they experiencing life? Is it okay for you to let them go then? Most people would agree that yes, it is reasonable to disconnect the support.
If a born person is not sentient, is it okay to kill them>

How are you going to decide if they are sentient or not in the first place? They cannot tell you if they can perceive anything.
Why would you want to kill a new born baby if it is breathing and its organs are functioning?
If its organs are not functioning then it will naturally die anyway without anyone killing it.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 3:22:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:18:12 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:49:51 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 8:38:06 AM, lund1492 wrote:
I believe human life begins at consciousness. Now, where you lie on the issue of consciousness or possible consciousness can be debatable, but if a life form does not know it exists or it does not have a functioning brain, it is not experiencing life. Think about it the way you would think about someone who is brain dead. If they are brain dead, but their body is still breathing with the help of machines (the way a fetus would in a womb with the help of a mother - its life support) then are they experiencing life? Is it okay for you to let them go then? Most people would agree that yes, it is reasonable to disconnect the support.
If a born person is not sentient, is it okay to kill them>

How are you going to decide if they are sentient or not in the first place? They cannot tell you if they can perceive anything.
Why would you want to kill a new born baby if it is breathing and its organs are functioning?
If its organs are not functioning then it will naturally die anyway without anyone killing it.
Are you going to answer my question?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 3:47:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 12:48:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:22:07 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At conception.

Those who disagree arbitrarily decided that some humans are killable, property, and subhuman based on convenience. AND THEN decided that those killable humans are killable at will. These are the two premises, in which convenience > human value.

This isn't different than slavery and eugenics. The inconvenience in this case is the developmental stage every human goes through that requires care. I see no reason to not label toddlers, old people, and people with disabilities as killable at will for convenience as well.

It makes more sense for life to begin at implantation.

A life begins when it begins and not just when it "makes the most sense" to acknowledge it.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 3:53:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:47:26 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:48:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:22:07 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At conception.

Those who disagree arbitrarily decided that some humans are killable, property, and subhuman based on convenience. AND THEN decided that those killable humans are killable at will. These are the two premises, in which convenience > human value.

This isn't different than slavery and eugenics. The inconvenience in this case is the developmental stage every human goes through that requires care. I see no reason to not label toddlers, old people, and people with disabilities as killable at will for convenience as well.

It makes more sense for life to begin at implantation.

A life begins when it begins and not just when it "makes the most sense" to acknowledge it.
You argument is circular. Can you prove that life begins at fertilization?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 3:57:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:53:46 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:47:26 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:48:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:22:07 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At conception.

Those who disagree arbitrarily decided that some humans are killable, property, and subhuman based on convenience. AND THEN decided that those killable humans are killable at will. These are the two premises, in which convenience > human value.

This isn't different than slavery and eugenics. The inconvenience in this case is the developmental stage every human goes through that requires care. I see no reason to not label toddlers, old people, and people with disabilities as killable at will for convenience as well.

It makes more sense for life to begin at implantation.

A life begins when it begins and not just when it "makes the most sense" to acknowledge it.
You argument is circular. Can you prove that life begins at fertilization?

Sure I can.

Are you alive?

Is your being alive a direct result of fertilization?

Would you be alive if that fertilization failed or if it did not take place?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:02:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:57:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:53:46 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:47:26 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:48:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:22:07 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At conception.

Those who disagree arbitrarily decided that some humans are killable, property, and subhuman based on convenience. AND THEN decided that those killable humans are killable at will. These are the two premises, in which convenience > human value.

This isn't different than slavery and eugenics. The inconvenience in this case is the developmental stage every human goes through that requires care. I see no reason to not label toddlers, old people, and people with disabilities as killable at will for convenience as well.

It makes more sense for life to begin at implantation.

A life begins when it begins and not just when it "makes the most sense" to acknowledge it.
You argument is circular. Can you prove that life begins at fertilization?

Sure I can.

Are you alive?

Is your being alive a direct result of fertilization?

Would you be alive if that fertilization failed or if it did not take place?
I disagree. It cannot grow unless it implants. If life begins at conception, is the petri dish pregnant in the case of IVF?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:04:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:22:31 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:18:12 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:49:51 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 8:38:06 AM, lund1492 wrote:
I believe human life begins at consciousness. Now, where you lie on the issue of consciousness or possible consciousness can be debatable, but if a life form does not know it exists or it does not have a functioning brain, it is not experiencing life. Think about it the way you would think about someone who is brain dead. If they are brain dead, but their body is still breathing with the help of machines (the way a fetus would in a womb with the help of a mother - its life support) then are they experiencing life? Is it okay for you to let them go then? Most people would agree that yes, it is reasonable to disconnect the support.
If a born person is not sentient, is it okay to kill them>

How are you going to decide if they are sentient or not in the first place? They cannot tell you if they can perceive anything.
Why would you want to kill a new born baby if it is breathing and its organs are functioning?
If its organs are not functioning then it will naturally die anyway without anyone killing it.
Are you going to answer my question?

Are you going to answer mine?
Who makes the decision regarding whether a person is sentient or not if they cannot tell you themselves?

Whether it is right to kill a person or not depends on many circumstances and I think it would be wise for more than one person to make the final decision than just one person deciding to terminate the life of another.

eg. If a baby was born without a brain would you consider that person to be sentient?
Such a child lived to be 12 years old
http://q13fox.com...
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:08:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 4:04:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:22:31 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:18:12 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:49:51 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 8:38:06 AM, lund1492 wrote:
I believe human life begins at consciousness. Now, where you lie on the issue of consciousness or possible consciousness can be debatable, but if a life form does not know it exists or it does not have a functioning brain, it is not experiencing life. Think about it the way you would think about someone who is brain dead. If they are brain dead, but their body is still breathing with the help of machines (the way a fetus would in a womb with the help of a mother - its life support) then are they experiencing life? Is it okay for you to let them go then? Most people would agree that yes, it is reasonable to disconnect the support.
If a born person is not sentient, is it okay to kill them>

How are you going to decide if they are sentient or not in the first place? They cannot tell you if they can perceive anything.
Why would you want to kill a new born baby if it is breathing and its organs are functioning?
If its organs are not functioning then it will naturally die anyway without anyone killing it.
Are you going to answer my question?

Are you going to answer mine?
Who makes the decision regarding whether a person is sentient or not if they cannot tell you themselves?

Whether it is right to kill a person or not depends on many circumstances and I think it would be wise for more than one person to make the final decision than just one person deciding to terminate the life of another.

eg. If a baby was born without a brain would you consider that person to be sentient?
Such a child lived to be 12 years old
http://q13fox.com...
It is wrong to kill unborn babies. The fetus is not part of the mother's body.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:13:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 4:02:33 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:57:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:53:46 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:47:26 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:48:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:22:07 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At conception.

Those who disagree arbitrarily decided that some humans are killable, property, and subhuman based on convenience. AND THEN decided that those killable humans are killable at will. These are the two premises, in which convenience > human value.

This isn't different than slavery and eugenics. The inconvenience in this case is the developmental stage every human goes through that requires care. I see no reason to not label toddlers, old people, and people with disabilities as killable at will for convenience as well.

It makes more sense for life to begin at implantation.

A life begins when it begins and not just when it "makes the most sense" to acknowledge it.
You argument is circular. Can you prove that life begins at fertilization?

Sure I can.

Are you alive?

Is your being alive a direct result of fertilization?

Would you be alive if that fertilization failed or if it did not take place?

I disagree. It cannot grow unless it implants.

Science has already observed and documented a new life's beginning and growth as it precedes implantation.

http://youtu.be...

If life begins at conception, is the petri dish pregnant in the case of IVF?

You can say it is pregnant or that it is not if you want to - doing so will not change the fact that the embryo it holds is alive and has been so since the moment its conception took place.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:25:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 4:13:07 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:02:33 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:57:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:53:46 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:47:26 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:48:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:22:07 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At conception.

Those who disagree arbitrarily decided that some humans are killable, property, and subhuman based on convenience. AND THEN decided that those killable humans are killable at will. These are the two premises, in which convenience > human value.

This isn't different than slavery and eugenics. The inconvenience in this case is the developmental stage every human goes through that requires care. I see no reason to not label toddlers, old people, and people with disabilities as killable at will for convenience as well.

It makes more sense for life to begin at implantation.

A life begins when it begins and not just when it "makes the most sense" to acknowledge it.
You argument is circular. Can you prove that life begins at fertilization?

Sure I can.

Are you alive?

Is your being alive a direct result of fertilization?

Would you be alive if that fertilization failed or if it did not take place?

I disagree. It cannot grow unless it implants.

Science has already observed and documented a new life's beginning and growth as it precedes implantation.

http://youtu.be...

If life begins at conception, is the petri dish pregnant in the case of IVF?

You can say it is pregnant or that it is not if you want to - doing so will not change the fact that the embryo it holds is alive and has been so since the moment its conception took place.

A woman is not even pregnant until implanation.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:28:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 4:25:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:

A woman is not even pregnant until implanation.

Yes she is.

http://www.debate.org...
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:31:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 4:28:29 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:25:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:

A woman is not even pregnant until implanation.

Yes she is.

http://www.debate.org...

No she is not. Science does not say that pregnancy begins at conception.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:36:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 4:31:07 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:28:29 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:25:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:

A woman is not even pregnant until implanation.

Yes she is.

http://www.debate.org...

No she is not. Science does not say that pregnancy begins at conception.

"Doctors count the length of a pregnancy as 280 days, which equals 40 weeks or 10 months. Why not nine months? The counting begins with the first day of your last normal menstrual period before you got pregnant. In other words, the counting begins about two weeks before you have even conceived.

Why does the counting begin that early? It starts at that point primarily it is because it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date a woman conceived, and the first date of her last menstrual period is a much easier marker to identify."

Read more: http://www.justmommies.com...
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:38:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Scientifically, at conception, where the 23 sperm chromosomes and the 23 egg chromosomes combine into the 43 chromosomes, which begins the growth process of each human being.
Nolite Timere
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 5:11:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 4:38:06 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Scientifically, at conception, where the 23 sperm chromosomes and the 23 egg chromosomes combine into the 43 chromosomes, which begins the growth process of each human being.

I think you meant to say 46 chromosomes. Why do you believe that life begins at fertilization? Is it for religious reasons?
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 5:19:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 4:36:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:31:07 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:28:29 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:25:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:

A woman is not even pregnant until implanation.

Yes she is.

http://www.debate.org...

No she is not. Science does not say that pregnancy begins at conception.

"Doctors count the length of a pregnancy as 280 days, which equals 40 weeks or 10 months. Why not nine months? The counting begins with the first day of your last normal menstrual period before you got pregnant. In other words, the counting begins about two weeks before you have even conceived.

Why does the counting begin that early? It starts at that point primarily it is because it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date a woman conceived, and the first date of her last menstrual period is a much easier marker to identify."

Read more: http://www.justmommies.com...
Science has shown that in the human species, pregnancy begins when the egg attaches to the mother.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 5:31:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 5:19:36 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:36:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:31:07 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:28:29 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:25:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:

A woman is not even pregnant until implanation.

Yes she is.

http://www.debate.org...

No she is not. Science does not say that pregnancy begins at conception.

"Doctors count the length of a pregnancy as 280 days, which equals 40 weeks or 10 months. Why not nine months? The counting begins with the first day of your last normal menstrual period before you got pregnant. In other words, the counting begins about two weeks before you have even conceived.

Why does the counting begin that early? It starts at that point primarily it is because it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date a woman conceived, and the first date of her last menstrual period is a much easier marker to identify."

Read more: http://www.justmommies.com...
Science has shown that in the human species, pregnancy begins when the egg attaches to the mother.

You claim is not supported by the biological facts that you have already been presented with.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 5:39:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 4:08:38 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:04:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:22:31 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:18:12 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:49:51 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 8:38:06 AM, lund1492 wrote:
I believe human life begins at consciousness. Now, where you lie on the issue of consciousness or possible consciousness can be debatable, but if a life form does not know it exists or it does not have a functioning brain, it is not experiencing life. Think about it the way you would think about someone who is brain dead. If they are brain dead, but their body is still breathing with the help of machines (the way a fetus would in a womb with the help of a mother - its life support) then are they experiencing life? Is it okay for you to let them go then? Most people would agree that yes, it is reasonable to disconnect the support.
If a born person is not sentient, is it okay to kill them>

How are you going to decide if they are sentient or not in the first place? They cannot tell you if they can perceive anything.
Why would you want to kill a new born baby if it is breathing and its organs are functioning?
If its organs are not functioning then it will naturally die anyway without anyone killing it.
Are you going to answer my question?

Are you going to answer mine?
Who makes the decision regarding whether a person is sentient or not if they cannot tell you themselves?

Whether it is right to kill a person or not depends on many circumstances and I think it would be wise for more than one person to make the final decision than just one person deciding to terminate the life of another.

eg. If a baby was born without a brain would you consider that person to be sentient?
Such a child lived to be 12 years old
http://q13fox.com...
It is wrong to kill unborn babies. The fetus is not part of the mother's body.

What does that have to do with the question I asked? I did not ask if you were pro or anti abortion. I asked Who makes the decision regarding whether a person is sentient or not if they cannot tell you themselves?
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 5:42:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 5:39:22 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:08:38 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:04:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:22:31 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:18:12 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:49:51 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 8:38:06 AM, lund1492 wrote:
I believe human life begins at consciousness. Now, where you lie on the issue of consciousness or possible consciousness can be debatable, but if a life form does not know it exists or it does not have a functioning brain, it is not experiencing life. Think about it the way you would think about someone who is brain dead. If they are brain dead, but their body is still breathing with the help of machines (the way a fetus would in a womb with the help of a mother - its life support) then are they experiencing life? Is it okay for you to let them go then? Most people would agree that yes, it is reasonable to disconnect the support.
If a born person is not sentient, is it okay to kill them>

How are you going to decide if they are sentient or not in the first place? They cannot tell you if they can perceive anything.
Why would you want to kill a new born baby if it is breathing and its organs are functioning?
If its organs are not functioning then it will naturally die anyway without anyone killing it.
Are you going to answer my question?

Are you going to answer mine?
Who makes the decision regarding whether a person is sentient or not if they cannot tell you themselves?

Whether it is right to kill a person or not depends on many circumstances and I think it would be wise for more than one person to make the final decision than just one person deciding to terminate the life of another.

eg. If a baby was born without a brain would you consider that person to be sentient?
Such a child lived to be 12 years old
http://q13fox.com...
It is wrong to kill unborn babies. The fetus is not part of the mother's body.

What does that have to do with the question I asked? I did not ask if you were pro or anti abortion. I asked Who makes the decision regarding whether a person is sentient or not if they cannot tell you themselves?

It has everything to do with this debate. I am prolife because it is wrong to kill babies.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 5:44:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 5:31:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:19:36 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:36:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:31:07 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:28:29 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:25:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:

A woman is not even pregnant until implanation.

Yes she is.

http://www.debate.org...

No she is not. Science does not say that pregnancy begins at conception.

"Doctors count the length of a pregnancy as 280 days, which equals 40 weeks or 10 months. Why not nine months? The counting begins with the first day of your last normal menstrual period before you got pregnant. In other words, the counting begins about two weeks before you have even conceived.

Why does the counting begin that early? It starts at that point primarily it is because it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date a woman conceived, and the first date of her last menstrual period is a much easier marker to identify."

Read more: http://www.justmommies.com...
Science has shown that in the human species, pregnancy begins when the egg attaches to the mother.

You claim is not supported by the biological facts that you have already been presented with.

So you saying that in humans, the fetus is not attached to the mother? I disagree.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 6:41:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 5:44:04 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:31:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:19:36 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:36:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:31:07 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:28:29 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:25:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:

A woman is not even pregnant until implanation.

Yes she is.

http://www.debate.org...

No she is not. Science does not say that pregnancy begins at conception.

"Doctors count the length of a pregnancy as 280 days, which equals 40 weeks or 10 months. Why not nine months? The counting begins with the first day of your last normal menstrual period before you got pregnant. In other words, the counting begins about two weeks before you have even conceived.

Why does the counting begin that early? It starts at that point primarily it is because it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date a woman conceived, and the first date of her last menstrual period is a much easier marker to identify."

Read more: http://www.justmommies.com...
Science has shown that in the human species, pregnancy begins when the egg attaches to the mother.

You claim is not supported by the biological facts that you have already been presented with.

So you saying that in humans, the fetus is not attached to the mother? I disagree.

"Pregnancy" simply means "with child" attached or un-attached, if a woman is carrying her child inside her body, she is "with child." It is a fact that implantation and attachment occur during pregnancy but the mother is "with child" even before implantation takes place.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 6:44:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 6:41:15 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:44:04 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:31:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 5:19:36 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:36:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:31:07 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:28:29 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:25:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:

A woman is not even pregnant until implanation.

Yes she is.

http://www.debate.org...

No she is not. Science does not say that pregnancy begins at conception.

"Doctors count the length of a pregnancy as 280 days, which equals 40 weeks or 10 months. Why not nine months? The counting begins with the first day of your last normal menstrual period before you got pregnant. In other words, the counting begins about two weeks before you have even conceived.

Why does the counting begin that early? It starts at that point primarily it is because it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date a woman conceived, and the first date of her last menstrual period is a much easier marker to identify."

Read more: http://www.justmommies.com...
Science has shown that in the human species, pregnancy begins when the egg attaches to the mother.

You claim is not supported by the biological facts that you have already been presented with.

So you saying that in humans, the fetus is not attached to the mother? I disagree.

"Pregnancy" simply means "with child" attached or un-attached, if a woman is carrying her child inside her body, she is "with child." It is a fact that implantation and attachment occur during pregnancy but the mother is "with child" even before implantation takes place.
You should challenge me to debate on this. It would be fun.