• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Life doesn't begin at Conception?" - Really? [W:268]

Also, there is no evidence to prove that life begins at fertilization.

It is textbook scientific fact.

Sperm, the egg, tissue, blood, etc, all are alive, no?

A sperm cell is not an organism. An egg cell is not an organism. An erthryocyte is not an organism.

The lifespan of every individual organism of our species begins at fertilization.

The only reason why you deem it necessary to prove that life begins at conception, is to enforce bronze age legislation which allows a woman to have no control over her own body.

Funny how exploitation, slavery, and mass culling are very much the values of primitive civilizations, and how abortion's right there alongside slavery in all of them. No thanks, I've got a modern mentality in favor of human equality.

Also, coming from a libertarian, such as yourself, this is hilarious.

The central tenet of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle.

Abortion is objectively an aggressive killing.
 
It is textbook scientific fact.

Please cite a textbook which states this.

A sperm cell is not an organism. An egg cell is not an organism. An erthryocyte is not an organism.

The lifespan of every individual organism of our species begins at fertilization.

Yes, it is a mobile carbon-based life form. Sperm is a living organism. The egg, or ovum is basically part of the female reproductive system, and is not so much a living entity, but part of a living entity. There are unicellular and multi-cellular organisms, etc. How could you be so daft in basic cell biology?

Funny how exploitation, slavery, and mass culling are very much the values of primitive civilizations, and how abortion's right there alongside slavery in all of them. No thanks, I've got a modern mentality in favor of human equality.

Are you telling me exploitation, slavery and mass culling doesn't exist in our society today? It's not a primitive concept, but a MODERN issue.

The central tenet of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle.

Abortion is objectively an aggressive killing.

Every time a human ejaculates, sneezes, spits, etc, you kill cells. Your definition of killing pertains to controlling the female body, through bronze age rhetoric. You're not a libertarian by any means.
 
Stupid ignorant bitch should have controlled herself. No reason to give the DEATH PENALTY to babies. Only NAZIS think that.



We've been paying increased taxes for forty ****ing years and there are MORE poor now than ever before. Your way has failed.


I can't believe you PRO ABORTION NAZIS continue to bring up that failed WRONGHEADED argument.




None of which a liberal NAZI has any comprehension thereof.

I ask this in all sincerity since not much shocks me but this did in a mild way due to it's anger, how can you claim to value life and speak about another another human being in this manner?

Do you really think you are pro-life?
 
Or how about Locke's belief that Natural law and natural right may be combined, but if they are, one must take precedence over the other. Either the individual’s right, or his duty to moral law, must come first.

?? That doesn't make any sense. Natural rights are part of natural law.

From where or what does "individual rights" come from if not via civil law? But if an individual chooses to exercise his (her) duty to what they believe is moral law...which might be far from congruent to civil law...what would that person's defense be during a court hearing?

Natural rights are based on body sovereignty.
 
Please cite a textbook which states this.

:lamo Try to cherry pick one that doesn't. You're having a failure on a fundamental level here, regarding the understanding of basic terms within the field of biology.

Sperm is a living organism.

Insanity! A haploid gamete cell cast off from the body it belongs to is not its own organism.

Are you telling me exploitation, slavery and mass culling doesn't exist in our society today? It's not a primitive concept, but a MODERN issue.

Yes it is. Pro-aborts very much have that mentality.

Every time a human ejaculates, sneezes, spits, etc, you kill cells.

Individual cells that comprise our body are alive yes, but they are not lifeforms, organisms, members of our species. The offspring we create ARE.

Your definition of killing pertains to controlling the female body, through bronze age rhetoric.

Nope. My definition of killing is the actual definition of killing. A living member of the species Homo sapiens is rendered dead through the deliberate action of another, in this case, a proxy hired by the organism's own parent. That is a homicide, the motive is personal convenience and the hired perpetrator does it entirely for the sake of financial remuneration.

You're not a libertarian by any means.

And yet your only "evidence" of this is my opposition to aggression on the basis of the central tenet of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle.

So, that particular feather is not yours, it's on this cap I'm wearing over here. What else you got?
 
I'm talking about in our current context.

Pro-choice is all about "murder is wrong," but that's not the point of abortion.

The point of abortion is to remove a long-lasting, serious burden from a woman's body. The reason the fetus does not survive is because it is reliant on the mother as a host the same way a parasite is.

I'm quite certain that abortion takes an emotional toll, but i'm not willing to force women to avoid that option. One major effect that will have is that many more women will attempt a far more dangerous, impromptu abortion, risking their own life in the process. That's how big of a deal it is for a woman to bring a fetus to term.

Abortion's not a modern phenomenon. If you spend any serious time with colonial genealogy you will eventually conclude that most women gave birth every two years like clockwork. This occurred because the Puritan believed that "continence" should be practiced in an effort to preserve the health of the mother. When that failed, colonial women already overburdened would often resort to herbal contraceptives that would induce miscarriage, a practice acquired from the native american. The clergy was well aware this was occurring; it was debated on correspondence, but ultimately chose to remain silent on it. Still, child bearing was the leading cause of death prior to the advent of modern medicine. So it's not like Protestants aren't aware, they are.

The "parasite" argument fails in that if one were to ingest a virus that eventually matured to leave the body to subsist on its own, we would, nonetheless, identify and label this as an individual life form from the moment of inception.

I've known a lot of women, some that had abortions, others that considered abortions, many who debated abortion; none that wholly approve of it or warmly embrace it. Most "normal" women find the thought rather repugnant. And it hasn't been very popular with males, either. Suggesting that pro-choice occupies some ethical or moral high-ground is patently false; it simply does not bear the test of reality or life experience.

The one thing we can say about future generations is that if we insist they must accept a particular line of thought, we can be quite certain they will not.
 
Last edited:
You're the one demanding that anyone who opposes the aggressive killing of human beings is obliged to either assume financial responsibility for the would be victims directly or indirectly through taxation.

Education is a tangent we need not go on. If you say you don't support leftist entitlements and you mean it then we don't disagree on that point. Nevertheless, you have certainly adopted the leftists' talking points and are currently projecting the notion that we are obliged to provide money for services people want but cannot afford. That is not a strawman – those are your words. And the message they convey is decidedly not "libertarian."

So you are just like the feminists. You want all the authority but none of the responsibility.

No. If you claim the authority you have to take the responsibility.

Which means you ave to pay the prison costs and medical fees. Or you raise the baby.

You sound just like those who want to force the rich to pay for everything without giving up any of their own money.

i see absolutely no difference between them and you.
 
:lamo Try to cherry pick one that doesn't. You're having a failure on a fundamental level here, regarding the understanding of basic terms within the field of biology.

You haven't answered my question. Name me one textbook, any, that states that life begins at conception. Enlighten me.
 
So you are just like the feminists. You want all the authority but none of the responsibility.

No. If you claim the authority you have to take the responsibility.

Which means you ave to pay the prison costs and medical fees. Or you raise the baby.

You sound just like those who want to force the rich to pay for everything without giving up any of their own money.

i see absolutely no difference between them and you.

I don't see anything to respond to in this post.

I don't bear any responsibility for those who aren't violently killed because I support laws against them being violently killed. Period.
 
Abortion's not a modern phenomenon. If you spend any serious time with colonial genealogy you will eventually conclude that most women gave birth every two years like clockwork. This occurred because the Puritan believed that "continence" should be practiced in an effort to preserve the health of the mother. When that failed, colonial women already overburdened would often resort to herbal contraceptives that would induce miscarriage, a practice acquired from the native american. The clergy was well aware this was occurring; it was debated on correspondence, but ultimately chose to remain silent on it. Still, child bearing was the leading cause of death prior to the advent of modern medicine. So it's not like Protestants aren't aware, they are.

The "parasite" argument fails in that if one were to ingest a virus that eventually matured to leave the body to subsist on its own, we would, nonetheless, identify and label this as an individual life form from the moment of inception.

I've known a lot of women, some that had abortions, others that considered abortions, many who debated abortion; none that wholly approve of it or warmly embrace it. Most "normal" women find the thought rather repugnant. And it hasn't been very popular with males, either. Suggesting that pro-choice occupies some ethical or moral high-ground is patently false; it simply does not bear the test of reality or life experience.

Hold on. A parasite is a life form, does it follow that vaccines, antibiotics, and antivirals are equally murderous as abortion ...?

Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. For me, it simply means i don't want to make that decision on someone else's behalf.
 
Insanity! A haploid gamete cell cast off from the body it belongs to is not its own organism.

We're talking about life. When life begins. You're now venturing into living organisms. The whole tenet of the pro-life party is preserving life within the womb. However, what they fail to realize, as you do as well, is that life began billions of years ago, and sperm, blood, tissue, are all living.

Individual cells that comprise our body are alive yes, but they are not lifeforms, organisms, members of our species. The offspring we create ARE.

Now you're just being silly. They're living things. I don't hear the pro-life party calling themselves pro-organism! Good grief.

Nope. My definition of killing is the actual definition of killing. A living member of the species Homo sapiens is rendered dead through the deliberate action of another, in this case, a proxy hired by the organism's own parent. That is a homicide, the motive is personal convenience and the hired perpetrator does it entirely for the sake of financial remuneration.

So animals cannot kill humans, only homo sapiens, using your logic? How inclement weather, disease, etc?

And yet your only "evidence" of this is my opposition to aggression on the basis of the central tenet of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle.

So, that particular feather is not yours, it's on this cap I'm wearing over here. What else you got?

Libertarians believe in self-governing. David Boaz, of the Cato Institute, has said that being pro choice singles out freedom of choice as the fundamental difference between libertarian and conservative viewpoints. You're a conservative. Just admit it. :)

Pro-Choice | Libertarianism.org
 
I ask this in all sincerity since not much shocks me but this did in a mild way due to it's anger, how can you claim to value life and speak about another another human being in this manner?

Do you really think you are pro-life?

Pro "unborn," certainly not pro "women."
 
I don't see anything to respond to in this post.

I don't bear any responsibility for those who aren't violently killed because I support laws against them being violently killed. Period.

Parasites are killed, along with animals, sperm, blood, plants, etc. I love how you only single out what lies within the female body.
 
Hold on. A parasite is a life form, does it follow that vaccines, antibiotics, and antivirals are equally murderous as abortion ...?

Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. For me, it simply means i don't want to make that decision on someone else's behalf.

No, what I'm saying is that simply dismissing that fetus as a "parasite" does not suffice. That's not sufficient definition.

You and I don't make these decisions anyway. If we were the plaintiff and we received a favorable decision, we might say that it was made on our behalf, but the court of public opinion in no way makes these decisions.
 
Last edited:
Pro "unborn," certainly not pro "women."

hm, pro unborn...I like that term

I did note that there was no mention of the sperm donor. Nothing about support, nor keeping in their pants.

To be fair depending upon the environment in which one was raised, pregnancy can be thought to be a ticket to matrimony and all of it's ensuing bliss. (bit of irony there of course)
 
Parasites are killed, along with animals, sperm, blood, plants, etc. I love how you only single out what lies within the female body.

"Other human beings" are only found within the female body? Nope.
 
"Other human beings" are only found within the female body? Nope.

I never said "human beings". I said "what lies within the female body". You're quite daft.

Now, cite me that textbook that says life begins at conception. I'm waiting.
 
I never said "human beings". I said "what lies within the female body". You're quite daft.

Now, cite me that textbook that says life begins at conception. I'm waiting.

Your lack of comprehension does not make me "daft."

I care about protecting the natural human rights of every human being.

When a born human being is killed in aggression, the perpetrator is punished. This is already the case.

There is no rational reason why this should not be the case when an unborn human being is killed in aggression. There is no rational reason why the penalty should not be the same.
 
You may not believe this but women have been having babies for some 200 thousand years now and religion had nothing to do with it. Nor does it have anything to do with the range of human emotion. It's no more normal for women to dispassionately kill their unborn than it is for men to encourage them to do so. Show me a woman that's had three or more abortions and I'll show you a woman destined for the nut-house.

It's my understanding Whoopi Goldberg has had 7 and she's doing okay.
 
Your lack of comprehension does not make me "daft."

I care about protecting the natural human rights of every human being.

When a born human being is killed in aggression, the perpetrator is punished. This is already the case.

There is no rational reason why this should not be the case when an unborn human being is killed in aggression. There is no rational reason why the penalty should not be the same.

there is no rational reason why each and every single abortion should be considered murder.

There is no rational reason to deny the woman the right to live too.

why should she have to die for the unborn?
 
there is no rational reason why each and every single abortion should be considered murder.

There is no rational reason to deny the woman the right to live too.

why should she have to die for the unborn?

Statistically speaking, almost no abortion is done for the purposes of life saving emergency medical triage - the number is statistically insignificant.

Every other instance is entirely a homicide done for the motive of personal convenience and/or net financial gain.
 
Back
Top Bottom