• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Where do we go from here?

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
From a recent exchange in another thread.

Anyway, (presuming ZEF = zygote/fetus) I believe human life begins at conception.
Then according to science you're wrong. Suck it up.
:shock: :confused:

My question (to everybody) is,... "where do we go from here?"

What is the means necessary to resolve this?
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
116,511
Reaction score
33,191
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Last edited:

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You prove how scientifically a ZEF is a new human life. Science is not very friendly towards abortion when you talk about life at the biological level.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
lets see, according to science, cells are alive, according to science, zygotes are cells, where's the confusion?
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
lets see, according to science, cells are alive, according to science, zygotes are cells, where's the confusion?
According to science, a ZEF is an organism which belongs to the human species. A ZEF according to science has a unique set of genes and is an individual human organism. Murder is killing of a human, and a ZEF is biologically human.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
lets see, according to science, cells are alive, according to science, zygotes are cells, where's the confusion?
My confusion is in "how do you convince someone who thinks they are right, and that the issue is settled",... when you (and possibly even they) know better?
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
My confusion is in "how do you convince someone who thinks they are right, and that the issue is settled",... when you (and possibly even they) know better?
with a cricket bat? :mrgreen:
or possibly with logic enough to prove them wrong, i suppose, but i do recommend the first option
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
According to science, a ZEF is an organism which belongs to the human species. A ZEF according to science has a unique set of genes and is an individual human organism. Murder is killing of a human, and a ZEF is biologically human.
well, techically, murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human, with the term 'unlawful' being the tricky part when it comes to the abortion debate.
 

The Uncola

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
718
Reaction score
255
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
From a recent exchange in another thread.





:shock: :confused:

My question (to everybody) is,... "where do we go from here?"

What is the means necessary to resolve this?
A fair enough question.

If a person is convinced that "life begins at conception" then by all means, they are completely within their rights to not have or support abortions. I would never support forcing someone who believed this way to abort their fetus.

On the other hand, there are others that don't buy into said premise, and as such, shouldn't be forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term when they decide not to.

All of the semantic arguments are really just cover for an unbending, almost psychotic desire to control others and make them conform to ones own way of thinking.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
well, techically, murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human, with the term 'unlawful' being the tricky part when it comes to the abortion debate.
Agreed, however the abortion debate doesn't usually resolve around "the ZEF is not human, therefore we can kill it." It usually revolved around a woman's rights, the rights of the unborn, sentience, and if it's ok to kill something that might not have a brain yet or isn't viable on it's own. Strictly by biological terms, the ZEF is just as human as any living person.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
All of the semantic arguments are really just cover for an unbending, almost psychotic desire to control others and make them conform to ones own way of thinking.
:shock:

Interesting take.

Can you please tell me how a person who believes that an abortion is the unjust killing of a child should behave differently than the way I myself and others are behaving?

I have had people tell me in debates past that if I truly believe children are being killed by abortions,... that I should be burning clinics, calling 911 and even taking matters into my own hands in other violent ways.

I prefer to fight it the way we have been, here.

With civility and respect for the fact that some people just don't understand what an abortion really amounts to.
 

Toothpicvic

Banned
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
462
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Where does science declare a human fetus is not also a human being?
Read my post ENTIRELY.

I said that according to science, a developed and viable fetus IS a human being and should not be allowed to be aborted for the woman's convenience.

A cell smaller than a fly's brain (embryo, early term) is not. This is what 90% of abortions are, FTR.

Most abortions aren't late term anyway, and late term abortions are only normally done when medically necessary to save a life.

So this is a moot point.
 

Toothpicvic

Banned
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
462
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You prove how scientifically a ZEF is a new human life. Science is not very friendly towards abortion when you talk about life at the biological level.
Life on the "biological level" isn't an issue. Cows are "biologically" alive, but we kill them to make hamburgers. Is that "murder"? Heh, an embryo smaller than a fly's brain may be biologically alive, but it's not a "human life" according to science. Developed fetuses are a different story however.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Read my post ENTIRELY.

I said that according to science, a developed and viable fetus IS a human being and should not be allowed to be aborted for the woman's convenience.

A cell smaller than a fly's brain (embryo, early term) is not. This is what 90% of abortions are, FTR.

Most abortions aren't late term anyway, and late term abortions are only normally done when medically necessary to save a life.

So this is a moot point.
Ecofarm made the claim that he believes that life begins at conception,...

Your response was that the science proves him wrong.

That is what this thread is about.

This thread is not about anything other than that.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Heh, an embryo smaller than a fly's brain may be biologically alive, but it's not a "human life",...
Well if a human in the fetal stage of his or her life and development is a 'human life' then what (prey tell) kind of life is it?

What you are suggesting is that 'human' morph out of something that is alive but is not human,... and into something which is.

I'm sure a lot of scientists would love to see the information that you gathered to support this theory of yours.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Science has not definitively concluded at which point a specific human life began. In retrospect, a particular human individual could not have existed without the exact gametes that were joined to create the zygote.

Cells are alive, including gametes.

Some gametes in other species will actually continue through full life from birth, to reproduction, to death wihtout being discernable form the joined gamete version of the same species.

Cells with haploid human DNA are still human cells.

The issue with the original statement is that it claims that there is a definitive beginning to human life. Science does not agree, as the evidence has not been fully compiled as to when a particular human life begins (but science also does not make the claim that this view is wrong, either).

That is not to say that a Zygote is not a living organism of the species Homo sapiens.

It is.
 
Last edited:

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The issue with the original statement is that it claims that there is a definitive beginning to human life. Science does not agree, as the evidence has not been fully compiled as to when a particular human life begins (but science also does not make the claim that this view is wrong, either).

That is not to say that a Zygote is not a living organism of the species Homo sapiens.

It is.
Good points, except!

"The issue with the original statement is that it claims that there is a definitive beginning to a specific human life." A new member of the species,... etc.

And the fact that it is a new, specific, individual 'human' life,.... is what Ecofarm was talking about.

Not "human life" in general which most of us agree is continual.
 
Last edited:

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Good points, except!

"The issue with the original statement is that it claims that there is a definitive beginning to a specific human life." A new member of the species,... etc.

And the fact that it is a new, specific, individual 'human' life,.... is what Ecofarm was talking about.

Not "human life" in general which most of us agree is continual.
I was talking about a specific human life as well.

It cannot come into existence without it's component parts existing prior to conception. If a different sperm or egg combine, a different individual is created.

So for any individual to exist, the gametes that are used to make that distinct individual must come into existence first.

For example, I, Tucker Case, came into total existence at the point where both the sperm and egg that combined to make me complete came into existence. All of me existed once that happened. It's just that all of me did not yet exist in a single place.

If either of those gametes had never come into existence, I could not have come into existence as living things distinct form my parents. Thus, I can make the claim that my existence began before conception occured.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I was talking about a specific human life as well.

It cannot come into existence without it's component parts existing prior to conception. If a different sperm or egg combine, a different individual is created.

So for any individual to exist, the gametes that are used to make that distinct individual must come into existence first.

For example, I, Tucker Case, came into total existence at the point where both the sperm and egg that combined to make me complete came into existence. All of me existed once that happened. It's just that all of me did not yet exist in a single place.

If either of those gametes had never come into existence, I could not have come into existence as living things distinct form my parents. Thus, I can make the claim that my existence began before conception occured.
I don't have the time to answer this in the way I would like.

But it's clear you are confusing potential, and actual circumstances.

I'll expound later.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that science has not adequately determined where the beginning point of an individuals life is. It's not nailed down to an exact moment. I'm not saying that at the point of conception, an individual human life doesn't exist yet.

It certainly does exist at that point. The only thing I'm challenging is that this is the definitive beginning of that individual's life.

I am suggesting it happens earlier than that.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I don't have the time to answer this in the way I would like.

But it's clear you are confusing potential, and actual circumstances.

I'll expound later.
No, I'm not confusing potential and actual. I actually exist. If my component parts had never combined, or if one of those component parts had combined with anothe rcomponent part that wasn't mine, I would have ceased to exist.

I would have still existed, in actuality, for the period time while both component parts still had the potential of combining.

It was only my continued existence that was dependent on the potential act of combination. My existence as my component parts was actual, though, prior to combination.
 
Last edited:

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No, I'm not confusing potential and actual. I actually exist. If my component parts had never combined, or if one of those component parts had combined with anothe rcomponent part that wasn't mine, I would have ceased to exist.

I would have still existed, in actuality, for the period time while both component parts still had the potential of combining.

It was only my continued existence that was dependent on the potential act of combination. My existence as my component parts was actual, though, prior to combination.
Like I said,.. your claims require more time and deserve more than a quick reply.

I only have seconds at a time as I am multi-tasking.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
116,511
Reaction score
33,191
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I understand what you are saying, Tucker, and I respect it; however, conception is as far back as I can go on the issue, personally, and feel intellectually comfortable.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,197
Reaction score
32,778
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A fair enough question.

If a person is convinced that "life begins at conception" then by all means, they are completely within their rights to not have or support abortions. I would never support forcing someone who believed this way to abort their fetus.

On the other hand, there are others that don't buy into said premise, and as such, shouldn't be forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term when they decide not to.

All of the semantic arguments are really just cover for an unbending, almost psychotic desire to control others and make them conform to ones own way of thinking.
hmmm.... well let's see how the logic holds up:

some people are convinced that Blacks are fully human, and deserving within their rights. I would never force someone believing this way to alter their opinion, or own a slave.

However, others don't buy into said premise, and as such, shouldn't be forced to give up their property when they decide it does not have said 'rights'.

..... no, i'm thinking the logic doesn't hold. basic human rights are not much of a "well take them or don't as you will" sort of matter. that's why they are rights.
 
Last edited:

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I understand what you are saying, Tucker, and I respect it; however, conception is as far back as I can go on the issue, personally, and feel intellectually comfortable.
That's absolutely reasonable. The real key to your statement was that you qualified it with "I believe" anyway, so my arugment wasn't really a refutation of it.

When people say, without qualification, that life begins at conception, they are making an unsubstantiated statement.

You didn't do that. You merely stated your beliefs which can neitehr be proven nor disproven.

I was just entering the debate from aphilosophical standpoint. I find the begining of the individual life to be a facinating subject. Most of my beliefs on the matter stem from the existence of gametes that go unfertalized, yet still develop into what nobody would deny is a living organisms of that species. It is a necessary part of determining the gender of certain insects, in fact.

These creatures, as well as other haploid creatures, have caused me to question the true begining point of "life" in general.

I also question what constitutes a living organism based on viruses and even prions.

Basicaly, I like to take some thought experiments to extreme ends, and often I end up completely redefining my perspective on things from doing so.

But I find you views perfectly reasonable. And a hell of a lot less bizarre than mine, too. :lol:
 
Top Bottom