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 Does Life Begin?

13



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • @just_sayin

    The issue is not "are there rights", but that there are two conflicting sets of rights - the mother and the child.

    There are no conflicting rights because there is no right that allows an individual to use someone's body other than their own.

    Democrats were so committed to abortion that they refused to support a bill that would insure that when a child is born alive from a botched abortion

    Yea, that doesn't happen. I'd guess that's probably why it wasn't voted for. I'm not familiar with the vote, so that's just a guess.

    jack
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @SkepticalOne

    There are no conflicting rights because there is no right that allows an individual to use someone's body other than their own.

      Wrong. The 13th Amendment allows power of slavery to congress by way of the American Courts of law.........Why do you think any one state would risk legal malpractice of law by using an admission of crime as a written law?

    The argument of abortion before the Supreme Court meant nothing for woman as a United States Constitutional right they must be ratified by vote into the united states constitution and there was going to be no way that would happen as women had become vindictive towards preservation of United States Constitutional states of the union.


  • @John_C_87

    Gibberish. 
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -  
    MineSubCraftStarved said:

    Therefore, if someone is in a coma, and I steal 10,000 dollars from them, should I be criminally charged? The basic rules of consent regarding this scenario would be that if the person consented, the act is legal, if the person did not consent, the act is illegal. However, when the creature is unable to give or disallow consent, what is the legal status of me taking the 10,000 dollars? Should I be charged with the crime or not punished? The most logical answer to this would be no, I infringed on their liberties without them allowing that infringement, thus I broke their consent and so the same logic would apply to the crime of murder toward the fetus. The principle of laws in our government are that if someone infringes on another person, they must do so with their consent, as a fetus is unable to give consent, a mother has no right to infringe on the rights of the fetus and kill it. A 4-year-old certainly has the ability to consent as it has the ability to express negative or positive reactions to an action(yes or no). The reason that caretakers are able to force children into bed is that as legal guardians they have the ability to make them do something that is beneficial for their health(such as sleeping).
    Taking away $10,000 that belongs to someone is a crime, of course. One's inability to give consent at a particular point in time does not imply their inability to give consent in general, which is how the concept of "consent" works: if I sign a financial contract placing some obligations on me, I cannot just say a minute later, "Oh, I consented to it in the past, but not anymore", and be freed of those obligations. It is quite different from a creature that has never developed to the point of being able to give consent, which is why for such creatures the concept of "consent" makes no sense.

    If a 4 year old can consent or not consent to something, then forcing him to bed is in violation of his rights. It does not matter if it is beneficial to his health: something being beneficial to someone does not make it legal to force them into it. Giving up alcohol may be beneficial to you, but if I take a bottle of rum out of your hands and throw it away, that will be considered an act of robbery, and justly so.

    MineSubCraftStarved said:

    Where did the fetus consent to being made to exist? The fetus is also forced to stay in the womb and that is a violation of its freedom.
    You should be able to sue your parents any more than you should sue a doctor that saved your life for a heart transplant(for instance). They saved you, if your mother had not given birth then you would've died in the womb regardless.
    The fetus is not a conscious creature that can be "forced" into something, any more than a tree or a mushroom or a bacteria can.

    What if I wanted to die in the womb? What if I did not consent to being born? What if I did not consent to being conceived? That was your very argument: that the fetus did not consent to these things. Therefore, I should be able to sue my parents for damages. That is the conclusion of your logic, not mine, see?

    MineSubCraftStarved said:
    "If grandma had wheels, would she be a trolley?" This well-known proverb applies quite well to your argument. Simply because something looks like something else, and may act like it as well, does not mean it is that thing. Additionally, you mentioned that roles determine how a creature should be valued, therefore, a homeless drug addict without education and at the age of 75 years old and thus has nil value for society, for the economy, and for everything. Its purpose is mainly to keep living, so it can be seen as a creature with parasitic behavior. As this creature has the agency of continuing to do drugs until it overdoes, am I allowed to kill it? After all, if an individual agency is a determinant in deciding the worthiness of life, why can't I end lives that have only a negative impact on others?
    From my perspective, for all intents and purposes, it is that thing. What if the girl I am dating is an android, with microchips inside rather than cells? Unless I have the plan to cook her for eating (which would not work as well with an Android), I have no reason to care about what is inside there, as long as something does not break down and needs expensive repairs.
    The way the legal system works is, the court analyses the available data and issues a verdict. The data available is always superficial and does not describe everything. What is an offense and what is not is determined not by what is true, but by what has been demonstrated to be true.

    Presence of agency exactly implies that the creature has rights and you are not allowed to kill it. A drunk homeless drug addict has agency over his actions, he just chooses the actions that do not benefit anyone including himself - which is his right.
    That said, you can end lives that actually have a negative impact on others in the sense of severely violating their rights. You can kill a robber in self-defense (in proper legal systems). But you obviously cannot kill someone who you simply dislike: disliking someone is entirely subjective, while law is objective.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 855 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    Argument Topic: Inconsistent Reasons given for dehumanizing human life

    @MayCaesar and MineSubCraftStarved 

    It is good to mention the inconsistency in logic of what makes a person a person, by pointing out that we do not think that someone who is in a comma has ceased to be a person with rights.  He is not conscious and not able to give consent, nor does he have "agency", but we do not think we could just walk up to him and kill him.  His mental and physical state do not cause him to pop out of personhood when he is in a comma and then pop back into personhood when he awakes.  This would be logically inconsistent.  If ability to give consent or consciousness made someone a "person", then when they lost those attributes, they would cease to be that person.  It would therefore be illogical to think they could then come back later from waking up from a comma and be the same person again.  If they are the same person again after coming out of the comma, then we know that whatever makes a "person" a "person" remained with them during the time they were in a coma.  Persons don't pop into and out of existence and then into existence again and remain the same person after doing so.  Again, personhood arguments have historically been used by oppressors to rationalize their dehumanizing their victims.
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -   edited January 2023

    Again, personhood arguments have historically been used by oppressors to rationalize their dehumanizing their victims.

    Hello:

    You should excuse me, but I'm about to blab.. Calling a fetus a person, or discussing whether it's alive, or believing it doesn't feel pain, or whether it's conscious or not, and dozens more reasons, are simply twisting words to justify killing it, or to justify not killing it.

    We kill it for the convenience of its carrier.  That's it.  And, it's WRONG.

    However, forcing a woman to endure a pregnancy she does not want, is wronger still. There are no winners in this debate, only losers.

    excon
  • @SkepticalOne
    Gibberish. 

    Really, here I highlighted where it was put in writing for you. Your understandings in all matters is not required as your actions may be hostile to the establishment of a state of the union made on behalf of the people with established justice and facts of American United States Constitution preamble.


    13th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

    13th Amendment

    Primary tabs

    Amendment XIII

    Section 1.

    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2.

    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    wex resources

    Article V

    Article V Explained

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress


    Article III

    Article III Explained

    Section 1

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Section 2

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

    Section 3

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


    NOTE:

    A women is an abassador by law of nature, a person of religous conviction acting on admission of crime in a state is not an abassador but agent of State or Court

    Article IV

    Article IV Explained

    Section 4

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

  • @jack
    Hello:

    You should excuse me, but I'm about to blab.. Calling a fetus a person, or discussing whether it's alive, or believing it doesn't feel pain, or whether it's conscious or not, and dozens more reasons, are simply twisting words to justify killing it, or to justify not killing it We kill it for the convenience of its carrier.  That's it. And, it's WRONG.  However, forcing a woman to endure a pregnancy she does not want, is wronger still.  There are no winners in this debate, only losers.

    Speak for yourself..........the immigration of a fetus is life threatening to a women not the person in religious contest to life, scientific or medical field.......She is and her alone by law of nature ambassador of the immigrant in transition. It is between her and United States Constitutional right that all women be created and held equal in such a manner as it is if she is republican as mentioned in Article IV Section IV.

    (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

    Federal and state Legislation cannot be convened against the fetus...The ambassador, mother, female has authority by United States Constitutional Right to protect from invasion......Even if she is in shock and cannot think clear enough to ensure her and our own liberties.......by understanding, by location of united states constitutional right.


  • jackjack 447 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @jack

    Speak for yourself............

    by understanding, by location of united states constitutional right.


    Hello John:

    Well, alrighty then.

    excon
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar and MineSubCraftStarved 

    It is good to mention the inconsistency in logic of what makes a person a person, by pointing out that we do not think that someone who is in a comma has ceased to be a person with rights.  He is not conscious and not able to give consent, nor does he have "agency", but we do not think we could just walk up to him and kill him.  His mental and physical state do not cause him to pop out of personhood when he is in a comma and then pop back into personhood when he awakes.  This would be logically inconsistent.  If ability to give consent or consciousness made someone a "person", then when they lost those attributes, they would cease to be that person.  It would therefore be illogical to think they could then come back later from waking up from a comma and be the same person again.  If they are the same person again after coming out of the comma, then we know that whatever makes a "person" a "person" remained with them during the time they were in a coma.  Persons don't pop into and out of existence and then into existence again and remain the same person after doing so.  Again, personhood arguments have historically been used by oppressors to rationalize their dehumanizing their victims.
    Being temporarily unconscious is not the same as having never been conscious in the first place. If you look at your chair, you will have absolutely no reason to think that this chair is to be treated as a person with rights - however, 20 years from now technological advancements in the AI industry may very well allow this chair to become, for all intents and purposes, a person. This possibility does not change what it is in any way. It is not the same for a person in a comma, who had agency a while ago and will have agency in the future. The whole concept of "rights" is predicated on a certain continuity of the possessor of those rights; we are not talking about a particular moment in spacetime, but about a life cycle of the person. And that life cycle does not begin until the person acquires agency for the first time, nor does it cease to continue simply because temporarily the person loses agency.

    There is no inconsistency here. What is inconsistent is to assume that something has rights because, under the right circumstances, it has the potential in the future to become something that we believe intrinsically has rights - yet not expand the same reasoning onto all beings that have such potential.

    Lastly, how certain arguments can and have been used (abused) does not in any way compromise those arguments. Arguing that saying that something is not human is reminiscent of Nazis treating certain groups of humans as sub-humans is like arguing that saying that a man is not a woman is reminiscent of Jim Crow's laws saying that some citizens are not fully citizens. It misses the whole context and compares different entities on the grounds of their superficial similarities.
  • @jack
    Hi, Jack
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @jack
    Hi, Jack
    Hello John:

    Last person who said that was tackled head first by 12 TSA cops.  Poor guy.  He was just saying hello..

    excon

    just_sayinJohn_C_87
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    You do not have the right to kill 


    Who are you to say they're wrong ?

    As you keep telling us as you stated below ....... 

    Anyone can make their own system of logic and beliefs, and who are we to say that they are wrong? 

    So why are you even arguing?


    John_C_87
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @Dee
    Who are you to say they're wrong ?

    A person trying to protect a Nation from a malpractice of law...What better way to conduct malpractice of law if not by imposing it from legislation of state law, as many state impose restrictions of actions filed before the courts form outside the Oval office against such legal malice.


  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @MayCaesar

    There is no inconsistency here.

    The lack of representation to United States Constitutional Right is the major inconsistency here and is taking place at an international level. A United States Constitutional argument is already openly filed as better connection to established justice, Female-specific amputation.


  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @pamxxxxxxxson1 (name disguised to respect privacy and mental health awareness)
    Even the scientist knows that when the egg is fertilized life begin.

     


    Nice of you to try to speak for all scientists but   .. "NO"   They don't all think life begins at the zygote state... and certainly not this scientist. 

    There are 5 different scientific "Perspectives"     Ecological, Neurological Metabolic Genetic Embryological  ..  4 of which do not agree that human life begins at the zygote. 

    Genetic perspective puts the beginning but .. this perspective -- while popular with the public - has fallen out of favor amoung scientists due to various problems such as the twinning argument. 

    In any case  . the claim that any Scientist knows when human life begins is false .. never mind  All of them .. which is demonstrably false nonsense on steroids. 
    John_C_87
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @Sargonski ;Nice of you to try to speak for all scientists but

    I did not try to speak for all scientists at all and in fact I did not speak for any scientist whatsoever.

    The thread clearly refutes the absurd, ill-gotten concept that life begins when the egg is fertilized.

    John_C_87
  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw ;    think I may have messed up the quot function
  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Even the scientist knows that when the egg is fertilized life begin.

    @pamxxxxxxxson1 (name disguised to respect privacy and mental health awareness)

    You don't speak for all scientists ..   myself included .. and in general the Scientists does not claim to know such a thing .. and certainly no credible scientists who understand the subject matterial .     

    It would be very difficult to find a scientist that believes animate comes from inanimate  ..  and certainly not in your case it did not happen that way.     We Scientists know that life begets life. 
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @Sargonski ;We Scientists know that life begets life. 

    That sounds a tad Biblical to me. For the purposes of determining what constitutes a human life however, we look to science but ultimately the decision comes from considered consensus between many parties including scientists, politicians, lawyers, community groups and lobby groups. 

  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Life on Earth begins with abiogensis.

    Self-replication is one definition another is heredity. The ability to pass on genes. Are viruses life or prions as in mad cow disease? Every cell is living and sperms are cells. Therefore one can only conclude that every sperm is sacred.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer ;Therefore one can only conclude that every sperm is sacred.

    Whatever that means. Conflating living cells and a living human life does not contribute to the debate as to when life begins. In fact, I think it is counter-productive to infer the assumption that living cells in any way equals human life.

    I would say that there are many people who have made agonizing and well-considered choices in line with the law who would feel offended at such a loose assumption.

  • Swolliw said:
    @Dreamer ;Therefore one can only conclude that every sperm is sacred.

    Whatever that means. Conflating living cells and a living human life does not contribute to the debate as to when life begins. In fact, I think it is counter-productive to infer the assumption that living cells in any way equals human life.

    I would say that there are many people who have made agonizing and well-considered choices in line with the law who would feel offended at such a loose assumption.

        The Uinited State Constitutional argument that is ignored over democratic mayhem is when and how does citizenship begin? How does the legal process already apply? Medically when can a doctor declare a person living and issue a certificate of life under a state license of medical practice?

    Therefore one can only conclude that every sperm is sacred

    @Dreamer ;

    One can conclude every sperm is alive, not sacred, the conclusion that sperm is sacred comes only after fertilization by innuendoes set in stories told in the Bible. The mistake is to believe the stories in the Bible are the legal grievances which hold abortion as an imperfect state of the American constitutional union. What is coming to the Supreme Court is the argument of Citizenship created by birth as immigration into the Country is a federal issue. The second issue that is working its way to the Supreme Court is State malpractice of law in relationship to all legislation based on pregnancy abortion as it will be weighed against the United States Constitutional right of Female-specific amputation which is now simply unratified by the state’s offices performing malpractice of law.


  • jackjack 447 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:

    When does life begin?
    Hello S:

    Don't you mean life on earth?  Besides, who says it began??  Maybe it was always there - just not on this planet.

    excon
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 855 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Human life begins at conception

    From the American College of Pediatrians - "The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins... The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created."

    "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

    "Development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an ovum to form a zygote; this cell is the beginning of a new human being."
    Moore, Keith L., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, page 12, W.B. Saunders Co., 2003

    See WebMDs slide presentation: http://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-conception
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @jack ;Don't you mean life on earth?  Besides, who says it began??  Maybe it was always there - just not on this planet.

    Maybe however if you hark back to yonder OP the subject was about human life and at what point can you state that an embryo is a living human being and not just living cells. We already know when and how life began on earth...that if definitive.

  • @just_sayin
    From the American College of Pediatrians

    Where is the common defense?
    In other words the college of baby doctors said life starts at conception and they in no way are confused with when medical treatment starts under their care?
    Confirms??? No, the Collage of Pediatricians needs to sign a sworn affidavits life starts at conception as a common defense towards a general welfare. Truth. 
    Also sworn in the affidavits they have seen human life start without an egg from a woman. Finally, it would be nice to include in the sworn statement that immigration of the child is not a legal issue at a federal level as they are state licensed doctors not Federal licensed doctors. Want my mailing address if it is a defense for the courts it is good enough for me, just a witness to a possible legal malpractice of law?

    Affudavits, signed, dated, and noterized. Please....thanks.
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    Swolliw said:
    @jack ;Don't you mean life on earth?  Besides, who says it began??  Maybe it was always there - just not on this planet.

    Maybe however if you hark back to yonder OP the subject was about human life...

    Hello S:

    Nahhh.  The OP I read said thus:  "When Does Life Begin?"   No mention of human life.

    excon


    Dreamer
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: The orginial topic was so vague as to invite misinterperation.

    Is this about creationism, evolution, and abiogensis or is this about abortion? I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Others seem to go out of their way to strawman by misreading and misinterpreting in the worst possible way and most offensive. That's why I tend to stay away from woke mobs, no matter what you say they can always strawman and get highly offended.

    Therefore, the only way to truly answer is to answer both interpretations.

    I. If this is about creationism, evolution, and abiogensis.

    Although science and mathematics have not dis-proven the existence of God we can say that creationism is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. That it is extremely likely that the Earth is approx 4.5 billion years old and not 6,000-10,000 as in taking the bible literally. Funny video below on Noah's Ark and taking the bible literally.


    If you want a serious debate I recommend Bill Nye's refute of creationism. Evolution has the benefit of a 97% scientific consensus. Again, since the intelligent design is unfalsifiable we will not know with 100% certainty.  Very powerful being(s) could have created humans and made it look exactly like evolution.

    II. Else, abortion.

    This comes down to feasibility and the law. On the one extreme we have every single sperm is alive and a human life. Therefore we should bury and mourn every sperm. That the death of a sperm should be treated as murder. Sperm lives matter!


    Yet, this is unfeasible. Just as the union of a sperm and egg is unfeasible. This is because often the fertilized egg falls off before implantation. This would be murder/manslaughter which would be ludicrous.

    "Even if the timing is right, implantation may not happen. According to researchersTrusted Source, a lack of implantation is a common cause of early pregnancy loss."


    "In humans, natural fecundity suggests that the chance of conception per cycle is relatively low (~30%) and two-third of lost pregnancies occur because of implantation failure."


    This means 2/3's of the time a sperm and egg united that it is lost to implantation. This is a lot of tombstones to mourn each zygote. This would clog the courts with lots and lots of manslaughter/murder charges. How would you even keep track of women who lost their zygote? The police state that would be needed would be bad.

    On the other hand we need some sort of definition of life otherwise men who assault pregnant women would get away with less crimes. In fact many of the pro-life laws are designed to protect women against assault and battery. The idea that the assaulter is harming two human lives.

    That being said the definition of human life would have to be after implantation at the earliest to be feasible.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @jack Nahhh.  The OP I read said thus:  "When Does Life Begin?"   No mention of human life.

    Nahh you are still completely wrong.
    The Topic reads "When Does Life Begin?"
    The OP clearly states: "Even the scientist knows that when the egg is fertilized life begin."

    Am I right or am I right?

    You may also take note that there is also a line in the OP referring to mental health awareness.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @Dreamer ;That being said the definition of human life would have to be after implantation at the earliest to be feasible.

    Without going through all the whys and wherefores, quite simply put; a fertilized egg isn’t considered a fetus until the 9th week after conception, or week 11 after the mother's last menstrual period. That's where we have decided when a human life begins and all the arguing in the world and taking sides has not and will not change that. If people want to state otherwise, they are profoundly stu-pid and being highly offensive and insensitive towards people who are faced with making responsible, informed choices.

    Dreamer
  • @Swolliw

    "No, that is where a human life is first medically treated not where life begins." Medicine like law is a human licensed practice life starts means we are asking the question of origin of beginning, answering the question what is first needed even if it means before the medical practice begin its treatment. That's where we have decided when a human life begins and all the arguing in the world and taking sides has not and will not change that. Do you know and understand if true you are given an admission to conspiracy created by a malpractice of law on an international level? You are also giving a motive as to why women have been intentionally misdirected to help change the legal precedent as an international conspiracy of what is required of a man to be a President of the United States of America.

    In any other nation it would not matter their have no Preamble of introduced fact as a legal cause in their constitutions holding even male lawyers equal to all other men. In simple words the American Constitution creates all men as Knights of a well-rounded American Constitution not kings of perpetual laws.  The desire and the cost a person will pay for a license does not make them a better creator perfection than anyone else as the search of perfection is above the principles of be licensed to practice law. As fact, practice of Interpretation of what might be called justice established or not Vs, pursuit of perfection in a united state of established justice.

    The fact here in America is women are going to be proven as incompetent is establishing United State Constitutional Right just as men have always been proven as being incapable of the display of abilities, incompetent in establishing the identical United States of Constitutional Right. The first order of Business is All women are created equal by their creator, Presadera without prejudice.

    By the way I would love to give Dreamer the lecture on how mathematics has proven the existence of a non-religious GOD then defending the self-evident truth. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Is held by a united state of republic in whole truth when the existence of a non-religious GOD is held as fact before the House of Representatives in its entirety. What to see the creation of a President of the United States of America? They are at liberty to only claim by intelligence, then be proven by intelligence an attempt to pass laws respecting the establishment of religion.


  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    No, that is where a human life is first medically treated not where life begins."

    yay verily that life may well be first medically treated however we are talking specifically at what stage a human life begins. We have to put a stick in the sand somewhere and when one takes all the factors into consideration, it is the 9th week of conception. Some may argue 8 weeks some may argue one second, some may argue eleven weeks, some may argue at birth however we can't all be right so we have to decide what is right and collectively "we" have decided that it is nine weeks. If you want to do your fancy maths calculations and conclude that most people don't like 9 weeks then you would be most probably be right. But the fact is that when we make a decision as a benchmark for all to follow and agree with then that is how it is.

    Dreamer
  • BarnardotBarnardot 521 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin ;human life begins at conception—fertilization.

    Yes but what happens when a woman gets rapped and then gets an abortion. She might be killing the life but who wants to give birth to a low life any way.

  • @Swolliw

      I am going to point out what you said at what stage life begins correct Life begins at the start of the very first stage. That is how a beginning works, there is no choice. When Does Life Begin at its very start not a stage along the way as two person's debating you are asking me to participate in a malpractice of law or worse.

    yay verily that life may well be first medically treated however we are talking specifically at what stage a human life begins.

    The whole argument is not even in the right zip code women have been found constitutional incompetent in this matter. Women are not alone as many men are not able to display any ability as well. Intentional or not the argument of pregnancy abortion is over immigration into a nation not birth. without marriage held as a United State of law there was no proof pregnancy was planned and is not officially part of posterity without legal emancipation occurring first. This grievance is not presented as a clear case before the world’s courts of law.

    Female-Specific Amputation is not pregnancy abortion it is a pronoun as the connection of all females that had never made with American Constitutional Right.




  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ;When Does Life Begin at its very start not a stage along the way as two person's debating you are asking me to participate in a malpractice of law or worse.

    You are the legal eagle so you would know the importance of definitions. I am looking from an ethical point of view. We are human beings and we are capable of manipulating our environment and we have, for better or for worse, give and take life. Therefore we must collectively make a decision as to when a human "life" can be ethically stopped. 

    Whether it is in the womb or lying motionless and devoid of any quality in an old folks home I still think we can be responsible and make a decision at where the point lies. An undeveloped life before 9 weeks we deem as not a fully formed human life for not just one reason but for many reasons. The debate will always rage on however to make a decision based on one factor alone is unconstructive and polarizing to be declared as being reasonable.

  • @Swolliw
    You are the legal eagle. I over think details.

    We are not talking about when humans can stop a life of a person, we are going over conditions of when a woman herself must end life by use of lethal force. How do we say this without self- incrimination on behalf of the women, then how is what is said connect to women in a string of truths that connect the action to only females. As fact I cannot see how anything connected to when life begins as a path that will lead us to a perfect connection to established justice. Let alone the other principles of American Constitutional preamble.


  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Abstinence is murder!
  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @Swolliw
    You are the legal eagle. I over think details.

    We are not talking about when humans can stop a life of a person, we are going over conditions of when a woman herself must end life by use of lethal force. How do we say this without self- incrimination on behalf of the women, then how is what is said connect to women in a string of truths that connect the action to only females. As fact I cannot see how anything connected to when life begins as a path that will lead us to a perfect connection to established justice. Let alone the other principles of American Constitutional preamble.


    John --    there is legal problem with ending life ..  you do this every day when you eat ..   one of the unfortunate facts about humanity .. in order to survive we must kill life -- 

    Constitution has no problem with the killing of life  ..  no probem with killing    "Human Life" .     The problem here is you not understanding the difference between the descriptive adjective and noun form of the word   "Human" 
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @Sargonski
    The problem here is you not understanding the difference between the descriptive adjective and noun form of the word   "Human."
    Wow! Thanks.........I understand clearly now.

    : a word belonging to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages and typically serving as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else
    Adjective Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

    : any member of a class of words that typically can be combined with determiners (see DETERMINER sense b) to serve as the subject of a verb, can be interpreted as singular or plural, can be replaced with a pronoun, and refer to an entity, quality, state, action, or concept
    Noun Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

    there is legal problem with ending life ..  you do this every day when you eat ..   one of the unfortunate facts about humanity .. in order to survive we must kill life.
    We sacrifice animals as food it is not killing by law.
    : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else. We make sacrifce for shelter as well.
    Sacrifice Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

    Constitution has no problem with the killing of life  ..  no probem with killing    "Human Life."
    "We the people of the United States of America in order to form the more perfect union estabish."The issue is that abortion is a verb and it is replaced by constitutional right by a combination of verb and noun Female-specific amputation to establish a more perfect state of the union with introduced facts listed in the American Constitution Preamble. For the official record the use of Female-specific amputation has never been legally objected outside a court of law or inside a court of law and found to be Illegally used in describing a medical and legal practice. American United States Constitution has already been cited in many court proceedings regarding Pregnancy which abortion had been found not only unconstitutional but also illegal by how the act of breaking American Constitutional right took place between 1965-1973.


  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited May 2023

    Amputation is a medical treatment used to stop immigration which may or may not be life threatening. The courts have no record of emancipation of life of what is to be a child represented by a constitutional ambassador who has been selected by law of nature. A President of the United States of America, as a man who sits before constitutional right on behalf of all men, petition the Armed Services of America who have now engaged in the expectance of female officers and enlisted, can be now hold tribunals by request of Constitutional preservation, service, and protection, based on rules of engagement as sexual assault connect to female pregnancy has always been a warning. In an America military precedent, the shape of pregnancy terminations is restructured to reflect United States Constitutional right woman had been never forced to make. Forced as a choice a women must choose clearly between what is by united state of law constitutional right and wrong,

    Choice 1. Pregnancy abortion.

    Choice 2. Female Specific Amputation.


  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @Sargonski ;in order to survive we must kill life

    That is a valid point and I think that today's Western culture tend to treat life ridiculously. Those who vehemently oppose abortion are either religiously motivated or for no other reason than "it is wrong to kill". Those motivations lack reason, purpose and tact.

    John_C_87
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited May 2023

    Abortion is a crime just not the one most witness report.
    The difference is I do not need to wait for the law to correct or pursue crime it is a DIY solution. Female-Specific amputation is clearly not Pregnancy abortion. It has never been argued in a court of law and may or may not be a violation of patient privacy.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ;Abortion is a crime just not the one most witnesses report.

    And I dare say that illustrates perfectly the point I made that forming a notion just "because it is written" is both dangerous and simply doesn't cut the mustard in today's informed society. Especially if something is written by some hearsay, highly superstitious reasoning from well over two thousand years ago.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @Swolliw
    Good thing you wrote it down and didn't say it then...................
    lol

    For the record I only disagreed with the principle of performing sacrifice for food is not killing…as a self-evident truth……… I just no I’m a broken record repeating the idea of self-evident truth and it get old even for me………

    Pregancy abortion is the admission to a crime of murder using the process of intelectual rephrasing. A women who is to seek a abortion is like a person who goes out and trys to higher a hit man they are equal under the law. The two principles are not equal udner American Consitutional right. In America birth holds a legal constitutional united state with immigration that identical state of the union is made with most of the world. What is the truth? Are we stopping immigration? Are we removing the process of immigration being undertaken by a women? When do we violate patient privacy law? Abortion dictates a women admits to us of killing a person as whole truth before we no truth, whole truth and nothing but truth. Is she stopping life or is she removing life from her body?

    That the principle of immigration is not being legally argued as being wrong and it is to the advantage of Female-Specific Amputation over abortion. Not being able to understand an admission of crime, in the legislation of law is an open admission to negligence criminal or not. A perinciple of immigration forms aconnection to foreign power as a Country, as a nation becomeing a federal issue of law for that Nation.

    As always it is a pleasure to discuss states of perfection with you SwoIIiw. The United States American Constitutional argument is that it forms perjury that is cast upon the voters of a unregulated democracy forming a laps of law enforcement then becoming an inadequate connection to established justice. First in a list of states of the union of introduced fact as Preamble.

    Edited May 14 9;03 am

  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: We sacrifice animals as food it is not killing by law.

    @John_C_87

    What a preposterous exercize in avoidance and denial ..   completely failing to address what is before you. 

    Yeah man    we kill life .. and it is not illegal ..      The question on the table is whether or not killing life shoud be legal .. not whether or not it is Legal ? 

    Killing a Person is a crime .. but if you can not show that the zygote is a Person .. then killing a zygoe is not a crime under that statute. 
  • @Sargonski
    Killing a Person is a crime .. but if you can not show that the zygote is a Person .. then killing a zygoe is not a crime under that statute.
       
     
    (a)Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought
    18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

    Correction we do not need to show a zygote is a Person we only need show a human zygote can be nothing other than the human by prior knowledge. We do not need a human body to establish that there has been a murder. You are arguing over a malpractice of law taking place since at least 1973.  We are not a lawyer doesn't mean a person is incapable or does not have the ability to malpractice law. What is the doctor expecting the zygote to be as a state of the union if not human?

    I am debating United States Constitutional Right not law, the reason is law has been found by the Courts to be a lesser connection to established justice. Not having a State License to practice law does not make arguing law over United States Constitutional right any more perfect than law will be when held as a malpractice. How do you know the Zygote is not already dead in a Female Specific Amputation, the death of the potential immigrant is simple one cause for the medical amputation?


  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Correction we do not need to show a zygote is a Person we only need show a human zygote can be nothing other than the human by prior knowledge.

    John_C_87 said:
    @Sargonski
    Killing a Person is a crime .. but if you can not show that the zygote is a Person .. then killing a zygoe is not a crime under that statute.
       
     
    (a)Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought
    18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

    Correction we do not need to show a zygote is a Person we only need show a human zygote can be nothing other than the human by prior knowledge.  


    This is is raging fallacious nonsense and falsehood Friend.    

    1) If a Person does not exist ---    a   "Living Human" does not exist ..   hence the big debate over personhood .. so your completely off the farm here.

    2)  by what prior knowledge  would we be able to show that a human zygote can be nothing other other than the human ? 
  • @Sargonski
    1) If a Person does not exist ---    a   "Living Human" does not exist ..   
    A persons existence is not the American Constitutional debate, personhood is not the American Consituitional debate, a living human does exist and it wants to immigrate to achieve American Constuitutional Right.
    hence the big debate over personhood .
    There is no debate over personhood, there is a filed grievance set around personhood and the debate is over best connection to established justice. Too which you admit openly and give reason why the connection made by personhood is poor enough to be challenged by an American Constitutional right and replaced by Female-Specific Amputation.

    so your completely off the farm here.
    I am not following a principle that was found to be unconsitutional and illegal in the Supreme Court by undescribed loss of privacy since 1973.

    "immigration, process through which individuals become permanent residents or citizens of another country. Historically, the process of immigration has been of great social, economic, and cultural benefit to states. The immigration experience is long and varied and has in many cases resulted in the development of multicultural societies; many modern states are characterized by a wide variety of cultures and ethnicities that have derived from previous periods of immigration."

    Immigration | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica
     
    Location: location: location: The first place life begins is at the ovary...
    The first location of citizen ship in acordiance with American United States Constitution is were birth takes place.
  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    You are not addressing anything said to you ... making stuff up about what I said...and using words like Constitution ... citing irrelevant statutes  that relate not to the question at hand. 

    Personhood is the issue -    whether or not a Living Human Exists ...   despite your desperate cry to the contrary .. which is mute even before you get in the door ... as  .. regardless of your lack of understanding of Personhood .. and its relation to the constitution .. and Law messing with Essential liberty ...      It can not be shown that a living human exists - in any way shape or form --  Person or no person .. prior to 22 weeks ..   and only on the basis of personhood at that poing ..   if you are negating personhood    you can't show a living human exists until after Birth. 

    but that is just the science ---   science not the determining factor in such cases of constitutional Law ..    where Gov't wants to mess with individual liberty  .. but has no legitimate authority to do so. 

    Thus -- from a constitutional perspective -- an overwhelming consent is required ..    at least 67%    .. the bar is 75% of states in the case of a Change to the Constitution ..  which this would not require .. but might be an idea :) 


Sign In or Register to comment.

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