Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Life begins at conception.

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 2:18:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.

If a born person is not viable, would you kill them?
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 2:21:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:50:01 AM, Double_R wrote:
So genetic codes are alive?

Life begins when the baby hjas its own genetic code.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 4:33:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 2:21:16 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:50:01 AM, Double_R wrote:
So genetic codes are alive?

Life begins when the baby hjas its own genetic code.

I understand you're saying that. I'm asking why? What does the word "life" mean to you? A baby immediately after conception is nothing more than an conscious-less puddle of chemicals, yet you seem to be implying that it should have rights. Please explain.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 4:37:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 4:33:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:21:16 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:50:01 AM, Double_R wrote:
So genetic codes are alive?

Life begins when the baby hjas its own genetic code.

I understand you're saying that. I'm asking why? What does the word "life" mean to you? A baby immediately after conception is nothing more than an conscious-less puddle of chemicals, yet you seem to be implying that it should have rights. Please explain.

It makes scientific sense for life to begin at conception. That is when the baby has iuts own genetic code.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 4:41:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 4:37:25 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 4:33:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:21:16 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:50:01 AM, Double_R wrote:
So genetic codes are alive?

Life begins when the baby hjas its own genetic code.

I understand you're saying that. I'm asking why? What does the word "life" mean to you? A baby immediately after conception is nothing more than an conscious-less puddle of chemicals, yet you seem to be implying that it should have rights. Please explain.

It makes scientific sense for life to begin at conception. That is when the baby has iuts own genetic code.

Science tells us how the world works. That is useful for helping us determine how we ought to act but cannot determine it alone.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 4:46:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 4:41:19 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/15/2015 4:37:25 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 4:33:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:21:16 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:50:01 AM, Double_R wrote:
So genetic codes are alive?

Life begins when the baby hjas its own genetic code.

I understand you're saying that. I'm asking why? What does the word "life" mean to you? A baby immediately after conception is nothing more than an conscious-less puddle of chemicals, yet you seem to be implying that it should have rights. Please explain.

It makes scientific sense for life to begin at conception. That is when the baby has iuts own genetic code.

Science tells us how the world works. That is useful for helping us determine how we ought to act but cannot determine it alone.
It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 6:04:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 4:46:40 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 4:41:19 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/15/2015 4:37:25 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 4:33:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:21:16 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:50:01 AM, Double_R wrote:
So genetic codes are alive?

Life begins when the baby hjas its own genetic code.

I understand you're saying that. I'm asking why? What does the word "life" mean to you? A baby immediately after conception is nothing more than an conscious-less puddle of chemicals, yet you seem to be implying that it should have rights. Please explain.

It makes scientific sense for life to begin at conception. That is when the baby has iuts own genetic code.

Science tells us how the world works. That is useful for helping us determine how we ought to act but cannot determine it alone.
It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception.

Are you paying attention, or just on auto-repeat?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 6:53:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 2:18:28 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.

If a born person is not viable, would you kill them?

If a person if not viable when they are born, then they would die regardless of my wishes.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 7:33:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 6:53:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:18:28 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.

If a born person is not viable, would you kill them?

If a person if not viable when they are born, then they would die regardless of my wishes.
It is is wrong to kill. Peop[le have the right to live.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 7:42:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 7:33:29 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 6:53:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:18:28 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.

If a born person is not viable, would you kill them?

If a person if not viable when they are born, then they would die regardless of my wishes.
It is is wrong to kill. Peop[le have the right to live.

If they are not viable, no actions are necessary on my part for them to die. People have a right to live - provided they can.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 7:46:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I like the viable thing. A human is not viable anywhere but on this earth. And even then a human can only be viable on 20% of it. The womb is just a development atmosphere then a human at a certain stage of development is able to transition to it's new atmosphere.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 7:48:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 7:42:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:33:29 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 6:53:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:18:28 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.

If a born person is not viable, would you kill them?

If a person if not viable when they are born, then they would die regardless of my wishes.
It is is wrong to kill. Peop[le have the right to live.

If they are not viable, no actions are necessary on my part for them to die. People have a right to live - provided they can.

The fetus has the right to live.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 7:50:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 7:48:45 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:42:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:33:29 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 6:53:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:18:28 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.

If a born person is not viable, would you kill them?

If a person if not viable when they are born, then they would die regardless of my wishes.
It is is wrong to kill. Peop[le have the right to live.

If they are not viable, no actions are necessary on my part for them to die. People have a right to live - provided they can.

The fetus has the right to live.

The fetus has the right to live provided it can actually live. It does not have the right to demand we make it live.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:41:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 4:33:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:21:16 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:50:01 AM, Double_R wrote:
So genetic codes are alive?

Life begins when the baby hjas its own genetic code.

I understand you're saying that. I'm asking why? What does the word "life" mean to you? A baby immediately after conception is nothing more than an conscious-less puddle of chemicals, yet you seem to be implying that it should have rights. Please explain.

The explanation is very simple and logically sound. If you believe that all persons have rights from the moment their life begins and it is true that their life began at and by conception. . . then it stands to reason that they had rights even in the first days or even minutes of their life.

What good is having a right to your life if it doesn't begin when your life does?
"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...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:59:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:50:01 AM, Double_R wrote:
So genetic codes are alive?

He suggests an attribute of alive is to have one's own genetic code you dumb f**k. How does that ever turn into genetic code is alive?

For an animal to be a dog it has to have a tail. DOES that mean tails are animals? No it doesn't and yet that is the stupid atheist crud you are asking.

Alive things have unique genetic code. DOES NOT equal genetic code is alive.

Why? because atheist argumentation has tricked you into thinking that by reversing word order you make a statement that is equally valid and true. Which in no CONTEXT ever works!

Cart is pulled by horse. A then B IS NOT F**KING EQUAL TO B then A.

For FRAK SAKE. This is why atheism is a poison to human reason.

This semantic trick is seen all the time with atheist idiots. just take the predicate put in before the subject and think it exposes some flaw. It shows you for what you are a complete moron.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:02:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 7:50:53 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:48:45 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:42:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:33:29 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 6:53:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:18:28 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.

If a born person is not viable, would you kill them?

If a person if not viable when they are born, then they would die regardless of my wishes.
It is is wrong to kill. Peop[le have the right to live.

If they are not viable, no actions are necessary on my part for them to die. People have a right to live - provided they can.

The fetus has the right to live.

The fetus has the right to live provided it can actually live. It does not have the right to demand we make it live.

So this opens up the option to make it die. Sounds legit to me.

Why separates the baby at 26 weeks from the baby born 5 minutes ago? Why can the latter demand the right we allow it live?

Abortion is legal murder of people with no voice.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:21:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 7:33:29 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 6:53:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:18:28 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.

If a born person is not viable, would you kill them?

If a person if not viable when they are born, then they would die regardless of my wishes.
It is is wrong to kill. Peop[le have the right to live.

Ahhh but does a person exist from the moment of conception ? You can assert yes, but I can assert no, and where does that leave us ?

I don't see why I should see from the moment of conception a few cells should be viewed as a person.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:31:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 8:41:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 3/15/2015 4:33:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:21:16 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:50:01 AM, Double_R wrote:
So genetic codes are alive?

Life begins when the baby hjas its own genetic code.

I understand you're saying that. I'm asking why? What does the word "life" mean to you? A baby immediately after conception is nothing more than an conscious-less puddle of chemicals, yet you seem to be implying that it should have rights. Please explain.

The explanation is very simple and logically sound. If you believe that all persons have rights from the moment their life begins and it is true that their life began at and by conception. . . then it stands to reason that they had rights even in the first days or even minutes of their life.

What good is having a right to your life if it doesn't begin when your life does?

The explanation is simple and logically sound... if you accept a mesh of chemicals slopped together by two people having sex as "life".

I don't know why Pro-lifers always pretend that there is no distinction between usages of the word "life", well... actually I think I do; Because it makes your argument sound more compelling then it actually is. You're invoking the emotional reaction people have when hearing the word "life" because of what they associate with their own life experiences while using the term in a context that just as accurately applies to a tree. So sure it's a logically sound argument, but it's an uncompelling reason to claim that this is the point where a product of natural reproduction should be granted rights.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:34:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 8:59:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:50:01 AM, Double_R wrote:
So genetic codes are alive?

He suggests an attribute of alive is to have one's own genetic code you dumb f**k.

Let me know when you are interested in intelligent conversation.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:49:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:02:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:50:53 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:48:45 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:42:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:33:29 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 6:53:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:18:28 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.

If a born person is not viable, would you kill them?

If a person if not viable when they are born, then they would die regardless of my wishes.
It is is wrong to kill. Peop[le have the right to live.

If they are not viable, no actions are necessary on my part for them to die. People have a right to live - provided they can.

The fetus has the right to live.

The fetus has the right to live provided it can actually live. It does not have the right to demand we make it live.

So this opens up the option to make it die. Sounds legit to me.

Why separates the baby at 26 weeks from the baby born 5 minutes ago? Why can the latter demand the right we allow it live?

Abortion is legal murder of people with no voice.

A baby at 26 weeks can be viable, and I would not advocate for allowing an abortion in such a case.

However, to answer the real matter you're pursuing, a being cannot demand individual rights until it can be an individual (nor should we petition on its behalf), and that would include the ability to live outside of the mother's body.

In addition to this, I see you argument as demanding humans have the right to live regardless of environment. You and I agree humans have the right to life, but that right is the least of your worries if the environment is not kosher with your physiology. Try demanding a 'right to life' outside of the Earth's atmosphere with no support systems, and let me know how that works out. ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 10:03:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:21:32 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:33:29 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 6:53:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:18:28 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.

If a born person is not viable, would you kill them?

If a person if not viable when they are born, then they would die regardless of my wishes.
It is is wrong to kill. Peop[le have the right to live.

Ahhh but does a person exist from the moment of conception ? You can assert yes, but I can assert no, and where does that leave us ?

I don't see why I should see from the moment of conception a few cells should be viewed as a person.

If thje fetus is not a person, the mother is not pregnant. Abortion is the worst form of age discrimination.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 10:09:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 10:03:28 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:21:32 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:33:29 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 6:53:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:18:28 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.

If a born person is not viable, would you kill them?

If a person if not viable when they are born, then they would die regardless of my wishes.
It is is wrong to kill. Peop[le have the right to live.

Ahhh but does a person exist from the moment of conception ? You can assert yes, but I can assert no, and where does that leave us ?

I don't see why I should see from the moment of conception a few cells should be viewed as a person.

If thje fetus is not a person, the mother is not pregnant. Abortion is the worst form of age discrimination.

How about you explain it to me more plainly.

Why should anyone view the few cells of say a 3 day human embryo as a "person" a person who has among other things the right to life in such a way that would force a woman to continue with pregnancy against her will.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 10:44:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:34:07 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/15/2015 8:59:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:50:01 AM, Double_R wrote:
So genetic codes are alive?

He suggests an attribute of alive is to have one's own genetic code you dumb f**k.

Let me know when you are interested in intelligent conversation.

It obviously can be done with you, which is why i avoid you most of the time.

Do you understand that a part makes the whole and the whole is alive. that doesn't make the part alive?

Obviously not from your comment.

just another example of the dumbest thing i see leave a liberal or an atheist mouth. Because you guys actually think you are smart by swapping the latter words to the former and puking it back out. I see straight through it a rhetorical game of bs is all you know and think of.

intelligent conversation with someone like you? How could that be possible.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 2:13:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:21:32 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/15/2015 7:33:29 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 6:53:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:18:28 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:41:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

...and yet, it is not viable until ~24-26 weeks or so.

If a born person is not viable, would you kill them?

If a person if not viable when they are born, then they would die regardless of my wishes.
It is is wrong to kill. Peop[le have the right to live.

Ahhh but does a person exist from the moment of conception ? You can assert yes, but I can assert no, and where does that leave us ?

For me that leaves us with the existing legal definitions and with whatever answers we can best support with logic, reason and an understanding of the facts.

I don't see why I should see from the moment of conception a few cells should be viewed as a person.

Without exception, every person walking the Earth today and every one that ever has lived on this Earth was once that small. The legal definition of a "person" is simply "a human being. Logically, any "human being" would meet that definition - regardless of what temporary stage of development they are in.
"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...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 2:24:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:31:11 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/15/2015 8:41:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 3/15/2015 4:33:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/15/2015 2:21:16 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:50:01 AM, Double_R wrote:
So genetic codes are alive?

Life begins when the baby hjas its own genetic code.

I understand you're saying that. I'm asking why? What does the word "life" mean to you? A baby immediately after conception is nothing more than an conscious-less puddle of chemicals, yet you seem to be implying that it should have rights. Please explain.

The explanation is very simple and logically sound. If you believe that all persons have rights from the moment their life begins and it is true that their life began at and by conception. . . then it stands to reason that they had rights even in the first days or even minutes of their life.

What good is having a right to your life if it doesn't begin when your life does?

The explanation is simple and logically sound... if you accept a mesh of chemicals slopped together by two people having sex as "life".

You act like that is so far out of the realm of any possibility. Yet, I'm willing to bet that you ascribe to the "big bang" theory as the way our entire UNIVERSE began, We have far more physical and verifiable evidence to support the fact that a human being's life (or almost any other animal's life for that matter) BEGINS at conception than we do to prove that there really was a "big bang."

I don't know why Pro-lifers always pretend that there is no distinction between usages of the word "life", well... actually I think I do; Because it makes your argument sound more compelling then it actually is. You're invoking the emotional reaction people have when hearing the word "life" because of what they associate with their own life experiences while using the term in a context that just as accurately applies to a tree.

As a tree is alive from the moment of it's own germination. . . so too is a human being alive from the moment of their conception. Where is there any confusion on that?

So sure it's a logically sound argument, but it's an uncompelling reason to claim that this is the point where a product of natural reproduction should be granted rights.

We don't agree that rights (like the right a person has to their life) are granted. I agree with the founders and the framers who held that our basic human rights are inherent, intrinsic, or as some say "God Given." Our society does not have the right, nor the Constitutional authority to arbitrarily decide who gets a right to live and who doesn't.
"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...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 3:57:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:49:56 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:02:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Abortion is legal murder of people with no voice.

A baby at 26 weeks can be viable, and I would not advocate for allowing an abortion in such a case.

Viability is extremely subjective. For example, if a child in the first week of gestation is not 'viable' they will not likely live to see their second week.

However, to answer the real matter you're pursuing, a being cannot demand individual rights until it can be an individual (nor should we petition on its behalf), and that would include the ability to live outside of the mother's body.

Individuals in the womb are already recognized as such by our fetal homicide laws and by our medical community that recognizes children in the womb as patients and as the young of their parents.

In addition to this, I see you argument as demanding humans have the right to live regardless of environment. You and I agree humans have the right to life, but that right is the least of your worries if the environment is not kosher with your physiology. Try demanding a 'right to life' outside of the Earth's atmosphere with no support systems, and let me know how that works out. ;-)

You are seriously confusing the right that a person has to continuing the life they are already living with the ability to live in any environment. A human being may not be able to live (unaided) outside of Earth's atmosphere but that doesn't mean they can be denied the right to TRY. It certainly doesn't mean it would be okay to kill them while they are attempting to survive.
"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...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 4:40:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 12:01:45 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
It is at conception that the child has its own genetic code.

So?