Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

When does human life begin?

Obbe
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:43:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

It's all a matter of definitions and semantics. What does it matter?
ILoveSitarMusic
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 3:08:49 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:43:40 AM, Obbe wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

It's all a matter of definitions and semantics. What does it matter?

Answer my wuestion. When does life begin? This is important because if someone is alive, they have rights.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 9:07:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

Life begins at fertilization.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual." ~Clark Edward and Corliss Patten, _Human Embryology_, p. 30.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:43:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
(1) It's more of a scientific question than a philosophical one.

(2) An accurate definition of "life" is very tough to find. Attempting to find when "life begins" is very tough, since it depends on the definition of life. I assume whenever a certain group of biological processes starts (which group of biological processes is a continuous part of debate).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:53:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Simple, when the living, human egg is met by the living human sperm, forming a living human zygote. Only the reprobate deny this obvious truth.
CodingSource
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 5:11:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
From conception. The human soul enters the body at birth.
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 5:16:11 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:43:40 AM, Obbe wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

It's all a matter of definitions and semantics. What does it matter?

+1
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 5:26:48 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
The question 'when does human life begin?' is misconceived. (no pun intended.) The short answer is approximately 2 billion years ago. Of course, you're talking about an individual human life, and there's the misconception. Individuality is a mere by-product of the far more fundamental processes of life. Genetically we are a continuation of the lives of our ancestors - and by extension, life on earth - which began around 2 billion years ago. Or to express it in other terms - there's more than one way to slice a melon!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 6:54:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

When do we consider something a "person" is what you should be asking.

'life' as you are using it doesn't entail any specific rights, and before you disagree, consider the tragedy of the Salad Holocaust. Think of how much life WAS alive before it was viciously mangled and put into a bowl for your enjoyment.

Personhood, on the other hand, is much more relevant to the considerations of sperm and egg.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 7:10:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

Well brainwaves don't matter. The jelly fish and tree has no brainwaves.

Consider the following syllogism.
P1) All eukaryotic cells are living.
P2) All zygotes are eukaryotic cells.
C) All zygote are living.

Also, review this document: https://docs.google.com...
All you need to do if read the Conclusion on page 10, really...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 9:23:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:43:44 PM, tejretics wrote:
(1) It's more of a scientific question than a philosophical one.

Thank you!

(2) An accurate definition of "life" is very tough to find. Attempting to find when "life begins" is very tough, since it depends on the definition of life. I assume whenever a certain group of biological processes starts (which group of biological processes is a continuous part of debate).

I like the Characteristics of Life.. So I suppose we agree on that, considering you last sentence. I've looked at a ton of lists, and have found a total of 12 biological processes that each uses.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 10:20:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

I would say at birth.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Obbe
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 3:27:48 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 3:08:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:43:40 AM, Obbe wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

It's all a matter of definitions and semantics. What does it matter?

Answer my wuestion. When does life begin? This is important because if someone is alive, they have rights.

Like I said: The "beginning of life" is all a matter of definitions and semantics. When does a person become a person? When do we stop being people? It's all a matter of your perspective. I'm willing to argue that it's not as important as you think it is.
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 4:04:39 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 9:23:40 PM, donald.keller wrote:

I really think the whole issue is a semantic one.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 4:13:48 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:04:39 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/5/2016 9:23:40 PM, donald.keller wrote:

I really think the whole issue is a semantic one.

It is. That's why I try to keep the definition strictly to those Characteristics.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 4:14:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 7:10:58 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

Well brainwaves don't matter. The jelly fish and tree has no brainwaves.

Consider the following syllogism.
P1) All eukaryotic cells are living.
P2) All zygotes are eukaryotic cells.
C) All zygote are living.

Also, review this document: https://docs.google.com...
All you need to do if read the Conclusion on page 10, really...

Made up of living cells is a poor definition of life. Much of what I would call me is dead already. Teeth, fingernails, large parts of the skeleton, the outer layer of skin - are not living cells. Further, brain death would be inconvenient, but not definitive of death - and even death would not be definitive of death, as many cells, like stomach flora - continue living long after ...the soul has departed, if you like. And isn't that the real question here? In my view, babies don't have personalities - or souls. Personhood develops over the years. That's not to say I'm in favour of infanticide. Objection to abortion on the grounds that the soul is present from the moment of conception is absurd. Seeking to scientifically justify this view is even more bizzare. The only relevant question is the welfare of women.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 7:20:54 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:14:02 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/5/2016 7:10:58 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

Well brainwaves don't matter. The jelly fish and tree has no brainwaves.

Consider the following syllogism.
P1) All eukaryotic cells are living.
P2) All zygotes are eukaryotic cells.
C) All zygote are living.

Also, review this document: https://docs.google.com...
All you need to do if read the Conclusion on page 10, really...

Made up of living cells is a poor definition of life. Much of what I would call me is dead already. Teeth, fingernails, large parts of the skeleton, the outer layer of skin - are not living cells. Further, brain death would be inconvenient, but not definitive of death - and even death would not be definitive of death, as many cells, like stomach flora - continue living long after ...the soul has departed, if you like. And isn't that the real question here? In my view, babies don't have personalities - or souls. Personhood develops over the years. That's not to say I'm in favour of infanticide. Objection to abortion on the grounds that the soul is present from the moment of conception is absurd. Seeking to scientifically justify this view is even more bizzare.

Most of the cells in your are dead? So what? How does that mean the zygote isn't alive? Your flaw is that you seem to think those cells were created dead. They weren't. EACH and EVERY cell in you was alive once. The cells that are now dead were living before then. Likewise, the fetus is living until it also dies.

The zygote is a living cell until it dies, just like the now dead cells in your fingernails.

Trees don't have personality, and are still living. People throwing in random sh.t like that are just rationalizing. What's next? You have to have a sense of wonder to be living as well?

As for the flower being "dead" before actually dying... It's not dead. It's more akin to a coma. So the flower is not a good example.

Biology should be the ONLY means of answering a biological question. Is (biological creature) possessing (biological feature [like being alive"])? Biology is the means to answer that.

Keep philosophy were it belongs... At McDonald's placing orders.

The only relevant question is the welfare of women.

Why? If the unborn is living, and you are in fact killing it, then the law and every Supreme Court decision ever dictates that the right that is more important should come first. The only reason Roe v Wade didn't do this was because the court couldn't prove the unborn was alive...

That is the only relevant question. Is the fetus alive? Because if it is, then the Conflict of Rights principle dedicates it's life is important than Mommy's happiness.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 8:29:19 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Human life begins on your birthday. The second your born, full stop.

If you look at it from a con AND pro abortion stance. It should be the second that you can't get a abortion.

If you look at it from a con abortion . It the second you find out your pregnant.

If you look at it with a pro abortion . It's the second after you can't get a abortion .
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 8:47:11 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Con and pro abortion, people think they are GOD. It's a bad way to look at the topic, as it's 1 persons opinion then and their.

I myself am con abortion if its with a hot, cute ,chick.
And pro abortion if its a fat, ugly, s l u t.
If you are cheating on your wife and your lover falls pregnant, I'm pro abortion
If the person you got pregnant is mega rich , I'm Con abortion.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 10:18:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 7:20:54 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 3/6/2016 4:14:02 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/5/2016 7:10:58 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

Well brainwaves don't matter. The jelly fish and tree has no brainwaves.

Consider the following syllogism.
P1) All eukaryotic cells are living.
P2) All zygotes are eukaryotic cells.
C) All zygote are living.

Also, review this document: https://docs.google.com...
All you need to do if read the Conclusion on page 10, really...

Made up of living cells is a poor definition of life. Much of what I would call me is dead already. Teeth, fingernails, large parts of the skeleton, the outer layer of skin - are not living cells. Further, brain death would be inconvenient, but not definitive of death - and even death would not be definitive of death, as many cells, like stomach flora - continue living long after ...the soul has departed, if you like. And isn't that the real question here? In my view, babies don't have personalities - or souls. Personhood develops over the years. That's not to say I'm in favour of infanticide. Objection to abortion on the grounds that the soul is present from the moment of conception is absurd. Seeking to scientifically justify this view is even more bizzare.

Most of the cells in your are dead? So what? How does that mean the zygote isn't alive? Your flaw is that you seem to think those cells were created dead. They weren't. EACH and EVERY cell in you was alive once. The cells that are now dead were living before then. Likewise, the fetus is living until it also dies.

The zygote is a living cell until it dies, just like the now dead cells in your fingernails.

Trees don't have personality, and are still living. People throwing in random sh.t like that are just rationalizing. What's next? You have to have a sense of wonder to be living as well?

As for the flower being "dead" before actually dying... It's not dead. It's more akin to a coma. So the flower is not a good example.

Biology should be the ONLY means of answering a biological question. Is (biological creature) possessing (biological feature [like being alive"])? Biology is the means to answer that.

Keep philosophy were it belongs... At McDonald's placing orders.

The only relevant question is the welfare of women.

Why? If the unborn is living, and you are in fact killing it, then the law and every Supreme Court decision ever dictates that the right that is more important should come first. The only reason Roe v Wade didn't do this was because the court couldn't prove the unborn was alive...

That is the only relevant question. Is the fetus alive? Because if it is, then the Conflict of Rights principle dedicates it's life is important than Mommy's happiness.

It's like I said above, there's more than one way to slice up a melon. The science questions here are rationalizations. That's not where this issue plays out. Science is facts. Values are values. No amount of facts add up to a value. (Would you like fries with that!) For the record, I'm a 43 year old man. I can't imagine what it's like to be a woman. They have a hard time of it. And things like this are just piling on. I don't know how you've got the nerve to dictate what a woman can and can't do with her own body - and thereby, her life. I think there's two ways of looking at it - either the woman is going to agonize over the decision to terminate a pregnancy and possibly carry guilt about it all her life. In which case, if she decides to terminate she must have good reasons, and should be free to do so. Or, she doesn't give a fig - and is probably doing society a favour by not procreating. In which case she should definitely be free to do so.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 10:20:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

Because there are no brainwaves, a zygote is no more "human" than a piece of skin. One could try to argue that a zygote will become a human so therefore human life has begun. With advances in cloning, you could make the same argument for a piece of skin.

Until there are brainwaves, there is no possibility of consciousness. If there is no consciousness, a person does not yet exist therefore it would be after there are brain waves.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 10:24:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 7:10:58 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

Well brainwaves don't matter. The jelly fish and tree has no brainwaves.

Consider the following syllogism.
P1) All eukaryotic cells are living.
P2) All zygotes are eukaryotic cells.
C) All zygote are living.

Also, review this document: https://docs.google.com...
All you need to do if read the Conclusion on page 10, really...

So you are saying ending a pregnancy of a zygote is equivalent of killing a jellyfish. I agree with that.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 8:40:14 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Human life begins when an individual human being displays qualities universally identified with living things -- i.e., organization, growth, development, response to stimuli, etc., all of which are present at the moment of conception. Other qualities of life are in the fetus potentially if not actually -- i.e., the capacity for reproduction, which is not fully developed until puberty. If human life does not begin at conception, then you must admit the existence of some entity with biologically human DNA that is displaying an almost impossibly convincing imitation of life.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 2:30:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.
If someone seems to support the big bang as the beginning of the universe then I see no difference in the small bang of dividing cells as the beginning of a human. Though I'm sure you'll find those who will attempt to justify this analogy as weak or false. I personally see it exactly as the same process. And one of the few outspoken atheists on abortion was Christopher Hitchens. He always maintained it is killing a person at any stage from what I have seen him say, though he might have changed his mind at some point.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 6:53:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 2:30:28 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.
If someone seems to support the big bang as the beginning of the universe then I see no difference in the small bang of dividing cells as the beginning of a human. Though I'm sure you'll find those who will attempt to justify this analogy as weak or false. I personally see it exactly as the same process. And one of the few outspoken atheists on abortion was Christopher Hitchens. He always maintained it is killing a person at any stage from what I have seen him say, though he might have changed his mind at some point.

In another thread on canabilism - someone wrote: this isn't a philosophical question - and I was quite offended. Aristotle wrote about beetles and nose-hair; all sorts of things. But this really isn't a philosophical question - because it's a political question. While it has origins in religion, it's become a divisive political issue in American politics - and this is now where the debate plays out.
I am, and remain - pro-choice; and it doesn't matter 'when does human life begin?' There is no right answer - and if there were, it wouldn't change the reality of a woman, finding herself pregnant to some ill-advised behaviour, looking at a life-sentence in hock to a child she doesn't want. It is utterly bizzare to me - that the rights of a few cells should be thought to outweigh the rights of women to their own bodies, and to decide the course of the rest of their lives. My only qualification is that abortion should be carried out as soon as possible - and not beyond a certain point. An argument for compressing that time limit in line with scientific evidence could be beneficial - but this debate is oppressive and cruel.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 8:00:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 6:53:30 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/9/2016 2:30:28 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.
If someone seems to support the big bang as the beginning of the universe then I see no difference in the small bang of dividing cells as the beginning of a human. Though I'm sure you'll find those who will attempt to justify this analogy as weak or false. I personally see it exactly as the same process. And one of the few outspoken atheists on abortion was Christopher Hitchens. He always maintained it is killing a person at any stage from what I have seen him say, though he might have changed his mind at some point.

In another thread on canabilism - someone wrote: this isn't a philosophical question - and I was quite offended. Aristotle wrote about beetles and nose-hair; all sorts of things. But this really isn't a philosophical question - because it's a political question. While it has origins in religion, it's become a divisive political issue in American politics - and this is now where the debate plays out.
I am, and remain - pro-choice; and it doesn't matter 'when does human life begin?' There is no right answer - and if there were, it wouldn't change the reality of a woman, finding herself pregnant to some ill-advised behaviour, looking at a life-sentence in hock to a child she doesn't want. It is utterly bizzare to me - that the rights of a few cells should be thought to outweigh the rights of women to their own bodies, and to decide the course of the rest of their lives. My only qualification is that abortion should be carried out as soon as possible - and not beyond a certain point. An argument for compressing that time limit in line with scientific evidence could be beneficial - but this debate is oppressive and cruel.
Well, your arm is a few cells too, so are our organs, but you don't see people fighting to allow anyone to sell a kidney to the highest bidder.
I look forward to prostitution being the next equal agenda. Men and women have the right to have sex with who ever they want but I don't see people putting as much, if any, effort into overturning this ridiculous piece of "politicised" law. Why is that? Women have the right to shoot heroine into their bodies if they want too. I'll never have an abortion so I don't give a ffflick either way. If we could all just have an operation to rid ourselves of consequences it would be a better world I guess....lol
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:08:28 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/9/2016 6:53:30 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/9/2016 2:30:28 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.
If someone seems to support the big bang as the beginning of the universe then I see no difference in the small bang of dividing cells as the beginning of a human. Though I'm sure you'll find those who will attempt to justify this analogy as weak or false. I personally see it exactly as the same process. And one of the few outspoken atheists on abortion was Christopher Hitchens. He always maintained it is killing a person at any stage from what I have seen him say, though he might have changed his mind at some point.

In another thread on canabilism - someone wrote: this isn't a philosophical question - and I was quite offended. Aristotle wrote about beetles and nose-hair; all sorts of things. But this really isn't a philosophical question - because it's a political question. While it has origins in religion, it's become a divisive political issue in American politics - and this is now where the debate plays out.
I am, and remain - pro-choice; and it doesn't matter 'when does human life begin?' There is no right answer - and if there were, it wouldn't change the reality of a woman, finding herself pregnant to some ill-advised behaviour, looking at a life-sentence in hock to a child she doesn't want. It is utterly bizzare to me - that the rights of a few cells should be thought to outweigh the rights of women to their own bodies, and to decide the course of the rest of their lives. My only qualification is that abortion should be carried out as soon as possible - and not beyond a certain point. An argument for compressing that time limit in line with scientific evidence could be beneficial - but this debate is oppressive and cruel.

Why should those who are innocent of wrong doing be allowed to live when those culpable have the power to relieve themselves of such burdens.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:24:05 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:30:49 AM, ILoveSitarMusic wrote:
I am considering three views: Life at fertilization, implantation, ore when the baby has brainwaves.

I consider this question about as dumb as "Is it possible for nothing to exist" Life begins at conception DUH. When you have any rights is a whole other question in of itself. The two are not related.
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%