frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





When exactly does a human individual life begin? And....

Debate Information

Note: Closing this debate as it has unfortunately degenerated as well as not getting much engagement.


Note: Important edit just to clarify what this debate is about and what it is not about. What it is not about is specifically all life in general. It is about what sets the criteria for the beginning of individual human life as well as what sets the criteria for what deems viability of personhood. In addition to this, the correct reference material has been added as that wasn't added the first time. If you don't find what you're looking for here then you can definitely find it in the reference at the end and go onto to check other references thereafter.


Out of the following scientific views, what do you think is the strongest argument for when an ontological human individual life begins. And What do you think holds to be the strongest in terms of the viability of personhood?



While this debate is in relation to the abortion debate it is also largely in part to do with what scientific view that you think holds the strongest and why. Now, there are different views about when human life begins. Some of these views are philosophical, others scientific. And with that being said, it might also appear that there is some the overlap between both views. Nonetheless, the current scientific views are:
  • Metabolic View
  • Genetic View
  • Embryological View
  • Neurological View
  • Ecological/Technological View

Out of all of them, I find the genetic view to be the weakest. The genetic view is also one that if favored by a lot of the public, especially anti-abortionist activists. The genetic view is that human life does begin at conception. However, there are multiple scientific studies that contradict this notion. Now, I understand that in some US states laws on abortion are changing or have changed and that this has been done via the help of a few expert testimonies making claims that either state or imply that human life does begin at conception. However, a few expert witnesses in one or a few states is no match for the overwhelming amount of scientific studies across the globe that contradicts the notion that human life does begin at conception.

One the argument that attempts to contradict the conclusions made from various studies about life not beginning at conception is what Alan Holland said which was that just because a zygote is capable of dividing does not mean it isn't an individual before it divides. By contrast, however, one could contend still that neither does this mean it is an individual; it's just a zygote. Furthermore, other proponents of the genetic view go on to claim that the key point is that human life may begin as a result of the zygote. This is where I also personally think the argument via conception breaks down. Because by stating that a zygote may become human life is not that much different than saying that sperm used in the right manner may also become a human life one day.


Moreover, the stances that I personally deem to be the strongest are both the Embryological and metabolic view. The Embryological view is the stage at which the beginning development of individuation has begun, approximately three weeks after pregnancy. This is also the stance that is adopted by the British Government. My reason for finding this a strong stance is due to the aforementioned individuation development as well as the fact that at this point the unborn can no longer divide into multiple other individuals. The metabolic view is that sperm and eggs should be considered living organisms which they are by the way but these proponents also go on to say that they should be treated as any other living organism. The metabolic view is a strong one because it is in alignment with the fact that human life, in general, begins before conception. I.E sperm is alive, eggs are alive, cells are alive and much more. In fact, these things have to be alive in order to create new living entities. However, with the Embryological view, I think this is advocating that single human life has begun at this stage which is at the stage of gastrulation.

With respect to the other views I think they are bordering more onto what constitutes viability and person-hood. The Ecological/Technological the view is more about if and when an unborn can survive outside the womb. With the Neurological view, I think there is some overlap with when human life begins and when personhood begins. I think both of these stances do hold some merit at least up to the point after the 24th week of pregnancy. However, not so much merit with regards to when human life actually begins.

In summary, there are few things that we can be almost certain of with regard to the abortion debate. For one, that is that there is no strong scientific consensus on when human life beings. However, most of the medical profession and the government, at least the British Government is that after 24 weeks of pregnancy you need a very good reason for abortion. And further to that, the abortion debate remains a highly controversial debate with a barrage of moral complexities.

References:
    Josh_Drake






    Debra AI Prediction

    Predicted To Win
    Predicted 2nd Place
    11%
    Margin

    Details +




    Post Argument Now Debate Details +

      Arguments


    • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
      This question does not really have a clear answer, as life is a spectrum, in a way. 

      Consider a similar question: at which point exactly does a seed become a flower? If we were to put a CCTV camera and record the whole growth process, then at what second on the recording would we say, "a second ago it was not yet a flower, but now it is"?

      We know that a little baby is a human, but a sperm cell is not. Human life begins somewhere in between, but there is a transitory stage in between human and non-human, which one could call "protohuman", similar to how a star during its formation experiences the "protostar" period, where the nucleosynthesis has not begun yet, or has only partially begun, yet the temperature and density of the gas has become high enough for it to be comparable to "complete" stars.

      It is an old philosophical question: "If we take a chair and start chopping out small splints of wood one by one, then when does it cease to be a chair?" That there is no satisfactory answer to this after multiple millennia of heated philosophical discussions shows how non-trivial this type of questions really is.
      Josh_DrakeBlastcat
    • MayCaesar said:


      It is an old philosophical question: "If we take a chair and start chopping out small splints of wood one by one, then when does it cease to be a chair?" That there is no satisfactory answer to this after multiple millennia of heated philosophical discussions shows how non-trivial this type of questions really is.
      It's at this point where there is an error. For one, this bit isn't even relevant to the actual discussion. @MayCaesar Out of the current scientific views what do you consider to be most strongest and why?
      Josh_Drake



    • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
      @ZeusAres42

      None, really, as I do not see how this question can have a proper answer, for the reasons I described above: there is no point at which human life begins, where it was not there a second ago. We do not even have a proper definition of life in general, for that matter. Is a highly advanced AI alive, for example?

      It is a purely terminological question, involving ill-defined terms, hence I do not see how it can be answered. Something more concrete, such as "What traits should the proto-human creature develop in order to be called human?", would be a better question, and even that runs into the problem of our lack of proper definition of what a "human" is.

      Biology is an interesting science in that it deals with a lot of edge cases, and almost all definitions there imply a lot of but-s and feature countless exceptions. It is different from chemistry or physics, where generally we have mathematically precise definitions for what we are talking about.
      PlaffelvohfenJosh_DrakeBlastcat

    • I would encourage you to read a bit more of the content of the post rather than just relying on the title alone. As some of the stuff that you are mentioning is already covered within the content of the post anyway.
      Josh_Drake



    • When does life begin?

      Ovulation on the introduction of an egg to the reproductive tract. The scientific keyword is begun now where can it be pronounced as determined by vote.

      Science holds only a united state on the official pronouncement of death. No egg, no life, this would be the United States Constitutional Start To Life home court rule. Where sex has the baseball pseudonym's, pregnancy gets the basketball pseudonym's. Pregnancy is the swish nothing but net, some cheer, some cry, others scram fowls. It is still just a one on one pick up game.


    • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -   edited February 2020
      I have to agree with MayCaesar on many points, human life is an ill-defined and elastic concept... To me life is a continuing process that started eons ago, and the bare correspondence to the description of life, is not enough... Life, alive, living, do not entail value without personhood and sentience...

      What is life if you're born in a permanent vegetative state?? Sure you're human but are you alive? Is that living and is it enough to warrant ascribing value to this state of existence??
      " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
    • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
      I too have to agree with @MayCaesar  to me it’s like asking on what day does a bald man become bald? Or on what day did Latin become Italian?
      PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
    • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  

      "When exactly does human life begin?"


      It begins, with a second chance called Adoption.
      Plaffelvohfen

    • The beginning of life has nothing to do with science understanding living and everything to do with the start of life recorded as location, where. The start of life has nothing to do with when an order to officially stop any transition of a state of life takes place.

      Conception is the point where two humans under the age of consent race toward the end of a short life span, meet, one dies, the other changes a state of life. It is related to a place where the two humans, minor, no longer move towards their own demise together in two locations. Regardless of any self-incrimination to express a change in the privacy of the minor one of those minors is a murder.

      A woman has no control over her body why?

      In order to stop this process, it would be required to place herself in danger and basically kill herself by starvation. officially stopping your life is not really control over your body.

      When does life begin?

      The moment a boy can put cards in the spokes of the bike tire and ride off with a girl on the handlebars of the bike. The moment a little girl and boy play doctor or show and tell. The moment a boy or girl has a changed body that generates a material capable to become independent from them.



    • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2673 Pts   -   edited February 2020

      As I said previously to MayCaesar you might want to read the whole post in it's in entirely have than just relying on the single question title. With that being said, I have updated the post so it is hopefully more clear now about what this discussion is about. I've also added the correct reference material as I put in the wrong ones in last time.

      @MayCaesar When I asked "Out of the current scientific views what do you consider to be strongest and why?" you responded with:

      None, really, as I do not see how this question can have a proper answer, for the reasons I described above: there is no point at which human life begins, where it was not there a second ago. We do not even have a proper definition of life in general, for that matter. Is a highly advanced AI alive, for example?

      It is a purely terminological question, involving ill-defined terms, hence I do not see how it can be answered. Something more concrete, such as "What traits should the proto-human creature develop in order to be called human?", would be a better question, and even that runs into the problem of our lack of proper definition of what a "human" is.

      Biology is an interesting science in that it deals with a lot of edge cases, and almost all definitions there imply a lot of but-s and feature countless exceptions. It is different from chemistry or physics, where generally we have mathematically precise definitions for what we are talking about.
      The first claim here is rather odd considering that the bit highlighted in bold is exactly in relation to the metabolic stance:
      Metabolic View:The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

      Another slightly different though similar position maintains that the argument over when a new human life begins is irrelevant because the development of a child is a smoothly continuous process. Discrete marking points such as the fourteen day dividing line between a zygote and an embryo are entirely artificial constructions of biologists and doctors in order to better categorize development for academic purposes. This position is supported by recent research that has revealed that fertilization itself is not even an instantaneous event, but rather a process that takes 20-22 hours between the time the sperm penetrates the outermost layers of the egg and the formation of a diploid cell (Kuhse 1988).

      http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf
      So, without even realizing it appears you are advocating for the Metabolic Stance. With regard to the other bit of yours highlighted in bold that states "What traits should the proto-human creature develop in order to be called human?", would be a better question was another odd thing to say considering that is also part of what this discussion is about and is also covered, if not completely within the post then definitely within the reference material. Hence why I also concluded that you may not have read or referenced exactly what this stance was as well as the post in its entirety.


      @Plaffelvohfen You said a similar thing to what @MayCaesar said which was:
      I have to agree with MayCaesar on many points, human life is an ill-defined and elastic concept... To me life is a continuing process that started eons ago, and the bare correspondence to the description of life, is not enough... Life, alive, living, do not entail value without personhood and sentience...

      What is life if you're born in a permanent vegetative state?? Sure you're human but are you alive? Is that living and is it enough to warrant ascribing value to this state of existence??
      With your first claim if you're talking about life in general then I think that's pretty much a given that life started eons ago. However, if you referring specifically to the beginning of human life then that again relates to the Metabolic Stance.

      With your last claim, I think you are talking more about viability than actual life. Note for example that surgeons do not refer to Brain-Dead patients as Deceased Patients. The viability of personhood is also covered within either the post or definitely the reference material. I think the neurological and ecological/technological stances are more applicable to viability of personhood. For instance, the Ecological view is about at what point a baby can survive outside the womb.


      @Dee I think your analogy about a bold man might become stronger if the debate was just asking generically "When does human life begin?" This was the title question intended to invite discussion. In order to respond more accurately, the whole post needs to be read in its entirety; not just the title question by itself. With that being said, however, you're analogy might still work in accordance with the Metabolic Stance.

      The error I see with one or more of you is that you say you don't consider or agree that any of the stances as being strong but then go on to advocate stuff that's exactly in align with at least one of those stances I.E the Metabolic Stance.
      Josh_Drake



    • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
      @ZeusAres42

      When exactly does a human individual life begin? 


      **** The error I see with on or more of you is that you say you don't consider or agree that any of the stances as being strong but then go on to advocate stuff that's exactly in align with at least one of those stances I.E the Metabolic Stance. 

      No , I advocated nothing , how could I know what no one seems to know? My analogy I thought might provide illumination into why I think this way but either way it’s only my opinion 
      ZeusAres42Blastcat
    • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2673 Pts   -   edited February 2020
      Dee said:
      @ZeusAres42

      When exactly does a human individual life begin? 


      **** The error I see with on or more of you is that you say you don't consider or agree that any of the stances as being strong but then go on to advocate stuff that's exactly in align with at least one of those stances I.E the Metabolic Stance. 

      No , I advocated nothing , how could I know what no one seems to know? My analogy I thought might provide illumination into why I think this way but either way it’s only my opinion 

      I didn't say you personally. I said one or more of you. Also, please remember this is what the discussion is about:

      "Out of the following scientific views, what do you think is the strongest argument for when an ontological human individual life begins. And What do you think holds to be the strongest in terms of the viability of personhood?"


      The above question is what I would like to discuss. I've also made it very clear now in my previous post and with the updating of the OP of what this discussion is about and what those stances entail. And I really don't think I can make it any simpler. Furthermore, when you quote me, can you please quote what I exactly said rather than jumbling bits of my posts together to make one quote and then making an argument that wasn't based on anything I said or even implied.

      DeeJosh_Drake



    • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited February 2020
      @ZeusAres42

      **** I didn't say you personally. I said one or more of you.

      What is one or “more of you “ regards my response?

      **** Also, please remember this is what the discussion is about:

      "Out of the following scientific views, what do you think is the strongest argument for when an ontological human individual life begins. And What do you think holds to be the strongest in terms of the viability of personhood?"


      I think that my answer and response would imply none have any strength regards views as they are a
      all subjective views nothing else 

      ***The above question is what I would like to discuss. I've also made it very clear now in my previous post and with the updating of the OP of what this discussion is about and what those stances entail. And I really don't think I can make it any simpler. 

      Right , I get that which is why my response addressed what this asked, I cannot make my response any simpler 

      ****Furthermore, when you quote me, can you please quote what I exactly said rather than jumbling bits of my posts together to make one quote and then making an argument that wasn't based on anything I said or even implied. 

      I’m guilty of nothing you stated , how have I “jumbled your posts “ ? I gave one response to your question would you prefer I picked one of your options just to satisfy the limitations you seem to place on the responses?
      ZeusAres42Blastcat
    • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2673 Pts   -   edited February 2020
      Dee said:
      @ZeusAres42

      **** I didn't say you personally. I said one or more of you.

      What is one or “more of you “ regards my response?

      **** Also, please remember this is what the discussion is about:

      "Out of the following scientific views, what do you think is the strongest argument for when an ontological human individual life begins. And What do you think holds to be the strongest in terms of the viability of personhood?"


      I think that my answer and response would imply none have any strength regards views as they are a
      all subjective views nothing else 


      In my opinion, I don't think this is a very good answer. But it is at least one that is now pertinent to the discussion and for that I thank you. This was also not your answer previously though. By the way, you appear very angry and defensive right now. If that is the case then once you've calmed down let me know so we might be able to continue a civil discussion if that's what you want that is.  If not, then I guess I'll just have to wait for other peoples responses. Thanks. :)
      DeeJosh_Drake



    • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
      @ZeusAres42

      ****
      In my opinion, I don't think this is a very good answer. 

      Right , you didn’t get the answer you wanted 

      ****But it is at least one that is now pertinent to the discussion and for that I thank you. 

      Fabulous 

      ***This was also not your answer previously though.

      You’ve lost me 

       ***By the way, you appear very angry and defensive right now. 

      Oookay , maybe that’s actually deflection on your part , if you think I take any of this seriously it says more about you than me 

      ***If that is the case then once you've calmed down let me know so we might be able to continue a civil discussion if that's what you want that is.  

      I’m perfectly calm actually , as I stated you’re upset I haven’t given  one of your preferred answers , I have not been uncivil and how you conclude that is beyond me . You seem terribly upset about something maybe you need to take time out have a beer or something and calm the Hell down 


      ****If not, then I guess I'll just have to wait for other responses which I anticipate to be a bit more civil and calmer anyway. Thanks. 

      Yes , Yes , you go for those “calm responses” anything else is obviously not calm and uncivil 

      Blastcat
    • Dee said:
      @ZeusAres42

      ****
      In my opinion, I don't think this is a very good answer. 

      Right , you didn’t get the answer you wanted 

      ****But it is at least one that is now pertinent to the discussion and for that I thank you. 

      Fabulous 

      ***This was also not your answer previously though.

      You’ve lost me 

       ***By the way, you appear very angry and defensive right now. 

      Oookay , maybe that’s actually deflection on your part , if you think I take any of this seriously it says more about you than me 

      ***If that is the case then once you've calmed down let me know so we might be able to continue a civil discussion if that's what you want that is.  

      I’m perfectly calm actually , as I stated you’re upset I haven’t given  one of your preferred answers , I have not been uncivil and how you conclude that is beyond me . You seem terribly upset about something maybe you need to take time out have a beer or something and calm the Hell down 


      ****If not, then I guess I'll just have to wait for other responses which I anticipate to be a bit more civil and calmer anyway. Thanks. 

      Yes , Yes , you go for those “calm responses” anything else is obviously not calm and uncivil 


      I see you have resorted to attacking the person rather than taking issue with the actual content of the argument. This does absolutely nothing to advance your position. In fact, it actively undermines it as well as being a clear reflection of desperation on your part. This is also where I say goodbye as I am not interested in these kinds of arguments where you just attack the person as well as making arguments against stuff that was never stated or implied I.E strawmen; I am here for proper rational discourse.
      DeeJosh_Drake



    • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
      @ZeusAres42

      **** ; I am here for proper rational discourse

      You’re not , from the start I made a statement that was entirely fair and accurate, you didn’t like it .....fine , but now you play the injured party claiming you were “attacked “ where no such thing happened in fact it’s you who went on a rant all because I didn’t give you the answer you wanted .

      **** it actively undermines it as well as being a clear reflection of desperation on your part. 

      Desperation at what is beyond me , don’t fret you will get the response you want 


      *** where you just attack the person

      Something I asked you to prove but you cannot 

      ***as well as making arguments against stuff that was never stated or implied I.E strawmen; 

      I made no arguments , I gave an opinion like others who disagreed but for some reason you’re  out for blood 

      ****I am here for proper rational discourse.

      Really ? Maybe you should give it a go if not I couldn’t care less either way 

      Blastcat
    • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2673 Pts   -   edited February 2020
      I have to agree with MayCaesar on many points, human life is an ill-defined and elastic concept... To me life is a continuing process that started eons ago, and the bare correspondence to the description of life, is not enough... Life, alive, living, do not entail value without personhood and sentience...

      What is life if you're born in a permanent vegetative state?? Sure you're human but are you alive? Is that living and is it enough to warrant ascribing value to this state of existence??

      @Plaffelvohfen I don't know if you got my previous response as I replied to a lot of you at once. But what I did say is that what you and MayCaesar are talking about are very much the same as what is in the Metabolic Stance.

      Metabolic View:The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

      Another slightly different though similar position maintains that the argument over when a new human life begins is irrelevant because the development of a child is a smoothly continuous process. Discrete marking points such as the fourteen day dividing line between a zygote and an embryo are entirely artificial constructions of biologists and doctors in order to better categorize development for academic purposes. This position is supported by recent research that has revealed that fertilization itself is not even an instantaneous event, but rather a process that takes 20-22 hours between the time the sperm penetrates the outermost layers of the egg and the formation of a diploid cell (Kuhse 1988).

      http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

      I also mentioned something about the viability if you got it?

      I'm calling you and @MayCaesar on the off chance that we might have now a proper discussion going, now that things have been updated and edited. Now, it's been updated and edited I think there might be room for engagement.

      Josh_Drake



    • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2673 Pts   -   edited February 2020
      Dee said:
      @ZeusAres42

      **** ; I am here for proper rational discourse

      You’re not , from the start I made a statement that was entirely fair and accurate, you didn’t like it .....fine , but now you play the injured party claiming you were “attacked “ where no such thing happened in fact it’s you who went on a rant all because I didn’t give you the answer you wanted .

      **** it actively undermines it as well as being a clear reflection of desperation on your part. 

      Desperation at what is beyond me , don’t fret you will get the response you want 


      *** where you just attack the person

      Something I asked you to prove but you cannot 

      ***as well as making arguments against stuff that was never stated or implied I.E strawmen; 

      I made no arguments , I gave an opinion like others who disagreed but for some reason you’re  out for blood 

      ****I am here for proper rational discourse.

      Really ? Maybe you should give it a go if not I couldn’t care less either way 


      @Dee I didn't actually read this before but now I have I've gotta say it's hilarious. I was in need of a good laugh today and you've done it. You've got me; I feel so personally attacked, upset and fretting by you that I have thrown my toys out the pram and crying myself to sleep. And yeah, out of the two us it's definitley me who isn't here for rational discourse. Yep, you got it, buddy. Satire! And asked me to prove something lmao; where? Hint, ya didn't.  And a lot of what I said you just project it back to me, and a lame attempt at that. You are behaving in the same way as TKDB. I would expect a bit more from you.

      Trying debating sometimes. It can be very enlightening.
      Josh_Drake



    This Debate has been closed.

    Back To Top

    DebateIsland.com

    | The Best Online Debate Experience!
    © 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

    Contact us

    customerservice@debateisland.com
    Terms of Service

    Get In Touch