Life begins at contraception.

anonymous
March 2, 2017, 3:31 am

Agree26 Disagree10

72%
28%

The debate "Life begins at contraception." was started by an anonymous person on March 2, 2017, 3:31 am. 26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

mmjd14 posted 32 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 15 arguments, Ematio posted 8 arguments, neveralone posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 24 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.

mmjd14, TheExistentialist, sabrina, thereal, Ematio, neveralone, Suco_169, EthanTReilly, makson and 17 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, Yanksxx21, InksEvermore, historybuff, tony, danielle and 4 visitors disagree.

mmjd14
replied to...

yes i think we should defunned planned parenthood like what is happening right now. and make sure our tax dollar is doing some good instead of taking a life. im confused on what you're saying though give tax money to mothers or foster care. hmm quite odd someone like you name our founding fathers quote when we don't follow it at all. when you say completely destroying chances of a normal life so destroy a life? its also the pursuit of happiness which mean you're in control. you can reach your dream based on your actions. right to LIFE, liberty, andthe pursuit of happiness. is one of my favorite quotes. its brilliant. but women choose to have sex i think other people help them out fine especially colleges with scholarships for being a mother tax returns for claiming her son or daughter daycare at colleges. i mean like how else would you want to help them?

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

of course it sucks that they can't live with their parents, even if the orphanages were able to provide them with sufficient care, a decent education, and not be faced with constant neglect... but I wasn't comparing them to home life.

how do you rate our orphanages and the care they provide? do you think they are adequately funded? the current system may be better than nonexistence, but what about when you increase the burden on that system 4x or 5x or many times more? how will the outcome be then?

considering the same people who push to ban abortion are often the same people who are against almost all forms of social spending, including on orphanages and foster care, would you be willing to make that compromise? we will give you the abortion issue if you adequately support the funding of these organizations or assistance to mothers so they can keep their child without completely destroying any chances of a normal life, the American dream, or the pursuit of happiness?

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

you already asked me this question

2 years, 9 months ago

mmjd can I ask you a question. how would you rate the quality of our orphanage and foster care systems?

2 years, 9 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

sell this debate seems to have gone off for quite a bit and I didn't want to flood the app with answers to all asked towards me and thought it would be simpler if u told me which u wanted me to continue on.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

oh nice i knew that i was wondering what he meant on the last part

2 years, 9 months ago
blue_rayy
replied to...

his phone broke down. he had to get a new one.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

what do you mean?

2 years, 9 months ago

hey guys sorry I haven't been on my phone broke. I'm guessing u don't want me to answer everything on here that u have asked so just tell me which and I'll go with them.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

you're just a bad person lol you're comparing a human life to a caterpillar, rats, and bacteria. 2/3 of abortion are happening at 8 weeks tell me what a baby has at 8 weeks at try to me its cells

2 years, 9 months ago

you cannot judge things by potential. a fetus might become a person, that is true. but at the point it is aborted it is not. if you were to kill a caterpillar would I be accurate I'm saying you killed a butterfly?

a fetus is not yet a person. it is a cluster of cells. you cannot say it is a person because it may become one.

2 years, 9 months ago
Ematio
replied to...

There is a missing point there. The brain dead individual has almost no potential, while a fetus is a developing person that has so much potential. Murder can also be defined as cutting off a persons potential.

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

if you weren't taking to me why did you reply to my post. your new to the app where you hit the reply button matters.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

i wasnt talking to you nemiroff i was talking to existentialist. and a lot of people are saying its okay to kill that. and i dont know. i feel bad for kids that are in foster homes there whole childhood but at least they have a childhood of some kind and a whole life to live rather then to be killed in the womb.

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

mmjd can I ask you a question. how would you rate the quality of our orphanage and foster care systems?

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

what are you responding to!
the post you click reply to was just me saying every cell is alive.

I guarantee you any baby that actually fights for its life has an active and functioning brain. and no one is saying it's OK to kill that.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

did you not watch the abortion video? the baby fights for his life. you people disgust me honestly abortion is morally wrong. its taking away a life. the people on the left don't value life at all its killing a human being. were living in a Holocaust right now and you are the nazis. you say the baby doesnt feel pain and it does why do you think they try to give them a shot. electrical waves is brain activity. a beating heart just like you and me. hands like you and me. a tongue like you and me thats just at 8 weeks

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

you'll have to Google the process. but yes sperm is alive. every cell in you is alive.

2 years, 9 months ago
blue_rayy
replied to...

can you explain me how zygote is formed by fusion of the sperm and ova? and also, is sperm a living organism?

2 years, 9 months ago

Sorry, I missed a bunch of this debate due to life. I'm not likely to be around on a regular basis for a few days. I'll jump in every once in a while though. I hope to get to responses for your inquiries (@neveralone, @ematio, and @mmj) soon.

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

@mmjd14 brainwaves at 12 weeks don't mean sentience. Just Because you electrical activity in the brain doesn't mean you automatically have brain function. You're missing the fact that no communication can occur because at that age no synapses are formed yet.

Synapses-the points where two neurons come together to interact-form in large numbers during the 17th and following weeks, allowing for communication between individual neurons. Synaptic activity underlies all brain functions. Synaptic growth does not skyrocket until around week 28. Nonetheless, at around week 23 the fetus can survive outside the womb, with medical support.

We also still don't have complete thalamic projections until week 23 or so. Therefore a fetus cannot possibly be conscious before week 23, nor can it possibly feel pain. It is, by the most crass analysis, a simple parasite until this age. In fact, in most countries, the brain activity of a 23 week old baby, if present in an adult, would constitute brain death.

How could you argue for moral status for a fetus with the same brain function as a brain dead individual when we deny moral status to the brain dead?

An excerpt from 2005 journal of bioethics:


If a grown adult had suffered massive brain damage, reducing the brain to this [23 week only fetus] level of development, the patient would be considered brain dead and a candidate for organ donation. Society has defined the point at which an inadequately functioning brain no longer deserves moral status. If we look at the requirements for brain death, and examine how they compare with the developmental sequence, we see that the brain of a third-trimester baby could be analyzed as to meeting those requirements.

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

absolutely... except at day one they haven't even laid the support structures or dug the whole for the base... you can certainly enter a partially built house and let the rest be built around you, but you can stand in the middle when they digging into the ground to build the support or the basic groundwork structures.

I'm not sure of the exact days, but yes, when you have brain activity it is a person. it can think. it can feel pain. the brain is the one organ that is us, the rest is maintenance machinery.

2 years, 9 months ago
Ematio
replied to...

Imagine it like a house being built around a man, makes more sense?

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

electrical waves at 12 weeks would you not call that brain activity

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

I'm sure you just missed it but the first sentence in my last paragraph explicitly stated this is my belief if the soul is real.

"i definitely do not believe the soul is present at conception. do you not think that the divine soul would have some sort of physical manifestation upon entering the body? how about kickstarting the most complex and important part of our body? the brain."

and it's not when the brain begins to develop, but when it shows activity. that is my final point. under few circumstances do I agree with abortion after that. I'm still open to convincing on a time before that. I definitely think it's not a person when it's a ball of cells. the time between those 2 points idk.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

also im not changing anything you said "but it has no consciousness. " made it sound like a fact. im not changing anything thats what you said. which is a false fact

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

and another thing do you think the soul comes at week five after conception? tjats when the brain is developed didn't you say something to kick start a soul?

2 years, 9 months ago

i said in my opinion i think the soul comes at conception. you on the other hand made sound like a fact that your soul isn't there lol. i have no problem people making opinions. i just dont like false facts

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

those words were nowhere in the statement you replied to, don't try to change it up now. it was towards my analogy of the soul being unable to enter a ship before anything is built.

we both stated equal opinions about when the soul enters the body, except you told me to shut up if I don't know, but didn't appreciate the same words used against you.

2 years, 9 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

we don't allow the soul to even come.

someone's got to build it. we see this as cells splitting.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

sorry "consciousness "

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

your words: " but it does not have a conscious. " mine was opinion yours was a statement

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

your opinion is just an opinion, therefore, in your own words:

"well dont pretend to know the answer if you don't know"

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

my opinion is that the soul is right there at conception. from my own experience im a father my wife knew she was pregnant before any signs she was before her monthly before morning sickness it was weird. i just think having a baby is the most beautiful gift anyone can ever receive. and after having a child going through the ultra sounds watching my baby boy grow inside. its just amazing to me someone can kill something so innocent thats alive and ready to take the test of life , and crush its opportunity to have a life to have children of his own. to end a life that just began.

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

do you know the answer?

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

well dont pretend to know the answer if you don't know

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

some have come back, thus we often wait. some we do allow to die.

and I dont. no one does. I'm just saying it doesn't seem logical for it to enter a solid ball of cells. it's like entering a soon to be ship when it is just a pile of lumber.

2 years, 9 months ago
Ematio
replied to...

And how do you know it can't enter one that has just started to be built?

2 years, 9 months ago

If consciousness is the question, the why don't we just kill all coma patients? Apparently they're not alive

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

its an open question not a settled question so dont say it doesn't hqve a soul when you dont even know

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

okay so when does you're soul come to you then?

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

yes. but it does not have consciousness. if I can make an analogy with a soul.

the body is traditionally
thought of as a vessel for the soul. you can definitely enter an incomplete vessel, but not one that hasn't even started being built.

at conception, all you have is the DNA, the blueprint for the vessel. you haven't even gathered the materials yet. once you have constructed some of the basic features (like a floor for example) then one can enter the structure even before full completion.

i definitely do not believe the soul is present at conception. do you not think that the divine soul would have some sort of physical manifestation upon entering the body? how about kickstarting the most complex and important part of our body? the brain.

2 years, 9 months ago

a baby has its own dna at conception

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

human? dna.
a person? consciousness.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

what makes you a human being then historybuff?

2 years, 9 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

I do care. that's what the cat is for. unless the rat has toxoplasmosis then it will smell it and stay away. the other way is natures course.

so when I'm building a plane what do u call it before it's done?

2 years, 9 months ago

does a heartbeat make it a person? rats have heart beats. they aren't people. we kill creatures every single day that are much closer to being conscious than a fetus, but you don't care about that.

a fetus doesn't feel pain. it has no consciousness. it doesn't know it's alive. at some point it might. but at the point it is terminated it is not. therefore it isn't a person. it isn't a baby. and it isn't murder to terminate it.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

this guy doesnt want to believe thats a baby he wont listen hes just trying to find every little excuse there is he cant deny the facts how a baby has a heart beat at 18 days just like you and youre gonna compare it to bacteria you should be ashamed of yourself

2 years, 9 months ago

Are children just hunks of flesh in the womb? Because you seem to think that.

2 years, 9 months ago

why on the bacteria? there's no need

depends. most parasites go through u without ever hurting u so yes on them. on the bad ones no they will kill u.

if it can kill no. if it can't why would u?

I have a cat for that. either to scare or be a meal. so I would rather get it to leave.

yeah. killing should never be simple or just for pleasure.

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

@ematio
You asked almost the same exact question before. Except you said "would you kill a one year old?".

I already answered that question, but I'll paste it here again:

No, I've states that even abortions post 21 weeks of gestation is questionable; although I'd like to expand on that and say they should only occur if the life of the mother is at stake.

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

@neveralone
I'll pose these questions to you:
Is killing a harmless bacteria morally wrong?

Is killing a harmless parasite morally wrong?

Is killing an insect morally wrong?

Is it morally wrong to kill a mouse if it is living in your walls?

Is it more wrong to kill a person or a dog for pleasure?

Bare with me, I'll get to a point soon.

2 years, 9 months ago

I believe life is precious. that has nothing to do with my faith.

and will be a person. if we do not touch that baby it will become a human even though u believe it isn't now.

again it's not based on my "superstitious" as u call it beleif. it's on morals. u simply are saying it's not murder because of time. I say it's a person either way and need to be helped just like the parents will likely need to be.

2 years, 9 months ago

Would you kill a child of any age?

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

Only because you invoke God and rely on an unproven concept of the soul to justify your position. I get that it makes you feel passionate about this issue, but you must check your biases when talking legislation.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that a fetus is anything mora than a "parasite" of sorts. It has none of the qualities we associate with personhood, it's not conscious, it can't suffer or feel pain, it can't "want" to live. It simply is.

Since you must invoke superstitious thinking to come up with reasons that harm is somehow being done with abortions; why, as a society, must we succumb to your particular superstitious beliefs but not others?

2 years, 9 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

when did we get to choose when a child should be murdered? in the situations u put it is because their is no other way.

it's immoral

2 years, 9 months ago

how sad

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

The lifenews article states "It becomes capable of experiencing pain between 20 and 30 weeks of gestation"

Did you even read the article or just the headline? The fetus has motor reflexes to painful stimulus, but even your article states this is a reflex, not the sensation of pain.

Now, let's talk about this nonsense film "the silent scream". It was released in 1984.

The first thing that's wrong here is that it's been 33 yrs and we understand a lot more about pain and embryology, so the new research supersedes this questionable video.

Even when the film was released, it was immediately questioned by the scientific community. Critics of the film argued that the fetus could not truly scream or feel pain, as its brain was not yet well developed; medical specialists distinguished between the simple muscle reflexes shown in the video and subjective cognitive behavior, which does not arise until the twenty-fourth week of development. Robert Eiben, who was at the time president of the US National Child Neurology Society, attributed the fetus's movements during the video to reflex, not subjective experience. Similarly, other leading pediatric neurologists and specialist likened the actions of the fetus to the reflexes of brain-dead individuals, whose feet recoil when touched.

Despite overwhelming dissent from medical professionals regarding the scientific accuracy of the video and the statements made by Nathanson, anti-abortion advocates offered the work as evidence that the fetus was completely capable of feeling pain.

New research makes it even more clear that the claims made in this video are not accurate.

2 years, 9 months ago

http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/13
its not being emotional watch this video and if youre still pro choice after this you have something wrong with you.

2 years, 9 months ago

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/02/04/scientific-studies-show-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-as-early-as-8-weeks/

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

have you ever seen an abortion video the baby fights for his or her life its sad to watch

2 years, 9 months ago

its facts lol its not showing emotions its facts so
dont go around saying 21 weeks

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

Mmjd14 you're just quoting bible verses and spouting "mother Jones" nonsense. Stop being so emotional. It's a debate; what the hell did you expect when you downloaded the app? Maybe you need to rethink being here if you're so easily flustered by an opposing argument. I'll try to reason with you one more time, but if you keep this emotional nonsense and name calling up, I'm not really gonna be interested in engaging with you. Take a page out of @neveralone's book and try to argue instead of insult. At least he's trying to engage on a reasonable line of debate.

The research is pretty conclusive here. Your statement is based on a paper which states that at 10 weeks. The paper states:
"An intact spinothalamic projection might be viewed as the minimal necessary anatomical architecture to support pain processing, putting the lower limit for the experience of pain at seven weeks' gestation."

So, they're only taking into account anatomical structure. However, we know that Neuro transmission can't occur at that age, so pain cannot possibly be felt.

What is being left out in the articles you're reading is that NO laminar structure is evident in the thalamus or cortex, a defining feature of maturity. There are also no thalamic projections. Without thalamic projections, these neuronal cells cannot process noxious information from the periphery.

Glover V, Fisk NM. Fetal pain: implications for research and practice. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106: 881-6.

Ulfig N, Neudorfer F, Bohl J. Transient structures of the human fetal brain: subplate, thalamic reticular complex, ganglionic eminence. Histol Histopathol 2000;15: 771-90

thalamic projections into the cortical plate are the minimal necessary anatomy for pain experience. These projections are complete at 23 weeks' gestation. The period 23-25 weeks' gestation is also the time at which the peripheral free nerve endings and their projection sites within the spinal cord reach full maturity. By 26 weeks' gestation the characteristic layers of the thalamus and cortex are visible, with obvious similarities to the adult brain.

Coghill RC, McHaffie JG, Yen YF. Neural correlates of interindividual differences in the subjective experience of pain. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 2003;100: 8538-42

There are even studies that would put this further out, but I'd say 21 weeks is pretty conservative as a limit.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

Jeremiah 1:5 and what about the babies right ****** quit saying 21 weeks the baby has a heartbeat 18 days. 8 weeks all organs function. 10 weeks a baby can feel pain.

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

" Who in the world would hold a tiny baby in their hand and just squish it and rip it apart?"
Nobody does this. What kind of nonsense are you going on about? Did you watch some fake videos on the internet and thought they were real?

"Would you kill a one year old child"
No, I've states that even abortions post 21 weeks of gestation is questionable; although I'd like to expand on that and say they should only occur if the life of the mother is at stake.

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

Essentially, you want to remove the freedom of choice for women because of your religious beliefs.

Let me ask you this. If you remove the concept of a soul, and the concept of God, is there a viable argument for granting personhood to a fetus before 21 weeks?

Essentially, how do you grant personhood without personhood.

2 years, 9 months ago

Who in the world would hold a tiny baby in their hand and just squish it and rip it apart?

2 years, 9 months ago

Would you kill a one year old child?

2 years, 9 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

why? why when it has such potential. I don't mean at the time before fertilization. such time the likely hood of becoming human is minimal but once fertilized the chance rises expontionaly does it not?

2 years, 9 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

we are made by God. besides that life is precious and matters all the time.

2 years, 9 months ago

of course my response is generalized, there are exceptions on both the left and right. I hope my opponent acknowledges that as well

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

the left is the moral one for everyone already born. the right cried foul over unborn people, but forgets every lesson of humanity for those already in this world.

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

if I may interject. a human is worthy of moral consideration above any other animals because it is a human who is doing the considering. just like your family is worthy of more consideration then someone else's to you, even though your family is not that important to someone else.

we feel kinship to others of our species to a much greater degree than to any other form of life.

the question is, is the fetus a full fledged human. I mean it does have human dna, but so does a severed fingered. a severed finger is not a human.

the fetus has the potential to become a human, therefore it has the potential to have rights. until then, it's not and it doesnt.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

20 weeks thats hilarious. no one values life anymore especially the left

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

@neveralone
This is getting a bit circular. Allow me to ask you a few questions.

Why are humans worthy of moral consideration?

2 years, 9 months ago

because it is human. it is alive. I would rather help single mothers or poor families than even having a chance of murdering children.

how many times was that to directly kill children? also are u comparing abortion to war and death? we as any good nation do not just go around murdering children.

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

@neveraolone.
You really need to stop making claims by assertion and start making arguments.

You have still not demonstrated why a fetus with none of the capacities of a person nor consciousness is worthy of consideration.

We do in fact kill children all the time. How many children have been killed by bombings during times of war? We consider their value, their personhood and make the determination that the loss of their life is less valuable than the defeat of our enemies. So your assertion here is not even grounded in reality.

2 years, 9 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

we do not ever kill children like this though. this is bad.

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

I never said that we don't kill them. I simply said they are worthy of consideration. So we consider their worth, their suffering, the benefit vs suffering when we kill them etc...

We of course, grant humans higher consideration (because they have personhood and consciousness), however, that doesn't mean we don't kill humans either. We most certainly do.

Consideration doesn't mean that we can't kill something or harm it, it simply means that we must consider whether the act of harming them is beneficial, necessary, or just vile (if done for pleasure with no regard for the suffering of the individual being harmed). I doubt, for example, that you'd say killing a dog just for the pleasure of it is morally right. I also doubt that causing unnecessary suffering when slaughtering cows is morally just in your moral code.

We can demonstrate this further by looking at the outrage over videos showing us the practices of industrial cattle farming.

Consideration doesn't mean we have to abstain from killing or harming an entity deemed worthy of consideration. It simply means we have to consider their life and its value before acting in a way that affects its quality of life or its status of life. The amount of consideration increases as our understanding of an entities consciousness and intellect increases (as intellect is the foundation of personhood). So we grant more consideration to animals like apes than we do to animals like cows, etc...

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

we don't really think all conscious life is worth consideration. you listed dogs and cats, but cattle and pigs are equally mammals yet we slaughter them with barely a thought. the real distinction is in the human aspect.

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

@mmjd14

"what about the consideration of the baby you inconsiderate prick"

Haha, ad hominem attacks are a great start to a constructive debate. You really must be an intellectual powerhouse to immediately stoop to such low levels.

I have already stated, that a baby is worthy of consideration since it has consciousness. However, an embryo isn't a baby, it's a cluster of cells. A fetus before 21 weeks also can't possibly be conscious

"youre okay with it just getting vacuumed out of a womb killing its heartbeat spine brain taking off arms legs removing the eyes tongue and fingers and you call it a fetus when the child has everything you have"

This is a sad appeal to emotion rather than a rational argument. What abortion procedure involves removing the eyes, tongue, fingers, etc...? That's just a ridiculous statement designed only to cause an emotional reaction since you obviously lack the ability to defend your position through logic and support your claims with actual evidence.

"this world we live in is pathetic with week people who cant step up and be a man. to have the will power to raise a child that would love so much of being born and having a life to live"
This is where you display your sexism and projecting your own feelings rather than analyzing the reality of the situation.

First, abortions aren't a man's choice. I don't know where you live, but in most free societies, abortions are a woman's choice.

Second, a fetus has no capacity to desire anything before 21 weeks of gestation. You're projecting your own desire to live onto something which isn't capable of having a desire.

You are way too emotional about this topic to argue rationally. Sit back, figure out how to justify your claims and stop using personal attacks and appeals to emotion to make your case. These are not convincing tactics in debate since they actually fall under logical errors called fallacies.

This is a clear case of an inability to rationally look at the opposing side and engage in a constructive an interesting debate. Grow up.

2 years, 9 months ago

we arnt machines. we have worth by simply being here. the thought process of having different amount of worth is usually associated with Hitler

why would it not? this is a child we are talking about. if we don't mess with it it will grow up and have a life. who are we to take something like that away?

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

No, you have to prove their worth before consciousness. I have demonstrated that we don't have special consideration for life without consciousness. Otherwise, it wouldn't be socially acceptable to kill ants, spiders, etc...

I'm asking you, why does potential automatically mean something is worthy of consideration? You keep repeating that it simply is without justification. Justify your position. You just keep making claims without supporting your claim.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

what about the consideration of the baby you inconsiderate prick. thats a human and youre okay with it just getting vacuumed out of a womb killing its heartbeat spine brain taking off arms legs removing the eyes tongue and fingers and you call it a fetus when the child has everything you have. this world we live in is pathetic with week people who cant step up and be a man. to have the will power to raise a child that would love so much of being born and having a life to live

2 years, 9 months ago

worthy of consideration? they have to prove their worth before they get a chance to live?

I don't think that is definitive is it not?

because unlike any other these "cells" will be children. I don't approve of child murder.

I would believe any being alive would want to be considered. certainly would take an interest.

2 years, 9 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

That's a false analogy since a child not having undergone puberty is still conscious and capable of personhood, so that child would be worthy of consideration.

I would also say that a baby has consciousness and thus is worthy of consideration. However, a fetus does not have consciousness or personhood.

So what makes a cluster of cells more special than another cluster of cells. Why does the potential for consciousness affect pre-conscious consideration?

Let's put it this way: if I make a decision, but you have no vested interest in the decision making or the outcome of my decision, why are you worthy of consideration in my decision making? A fetus has no vested interest in being born, it has no ability to feel pain (before 21 weeks), so why should it be worthy of consideration when it come to the decision to terminate a pregnancy? At the early stages of embryonic development a tapeworm has a more vested interest in living than a fetus does.

2 years, 9 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

which a baby has the potential of getting. what ur saying is like if u do not gain puberty at such and such time then it's my right to kill u. would u eventually go through it? yes. should that affect our choice? most definitely.

2 years, 9 months ago

What does probability of developing consciousness or personhood have to do with consideration? Again, we don't value life, we value consciousness and personhood. Can you demonstrate a single instance where we value unconscious life?

We do value conscious life however, not just human. We value the life of dogs, horses, monkeys, apes, etc... but I doubt you'd say we extend the same consideration to fungi, bacteria, plants, Amoebas, etc....

2 years, 9 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

but such a process of awareness starts at fertilization. at that point u could leave the egg and the likely hood of it becoming a full child is extremely high. unlike before hand where there is zero chance. this is why I do not believe abortion should be legal but before we make it illegal we need to set up education and financial help for the parent or parents.

2 years, 9 months ago

Since the topic states at contraception, not conception, I actually assumed this was a troll topic at first.

If this is supposed to be a debate about abortion, then I'd say it's irrelevant when life begins. Life is not in any way special or worthy of consideration. The only thing that is worthy of consideration is consciousness. We don't consider bacteria to be worthy of special consideration, nor are fungi, ants, flies, etc...

Since consciousness is really the only thing we care about, and to a greater degree personhood, it only makes sense to stop abortions at about 21 weeks of gestation (the earliest brainwaves can be detected). This would be the most conservative way to avoid killing an entity with consciousness and perhaps even personhood (although, I'd argue personhood happens much later).

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

according to who?

2 years, 9 months ago
Blu_Ray
replied to...

big papa, heart beat signifies a life. Moment heart stops, we'll die.

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

why heart and not liver or kidney? what is the significance of a simple pump?

2 years, 9 months ago
Blu_Ray
replied to...

abortion should be made illegal after first heart beat

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

I'm stating a fact. whether you feel abortion on day 1 is wrong or right the cells that make up the fetus were very much alive before conception therefore, no, life does not begin at conception. how is stating reality dumb? if you can tell me when any of the relevant components of the fetus were not alive then it is your question which is dumb.

life began over a billion years ago, whether from the breathe of God or the combination of molecules, and it has been an unbroken continuous chain since then there have been no other beginnings.

the question is when does it become an individual with rights.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

well sayings its continuous is dumb im confused are you pro life or pro choice you're saying there is no beginning. but when the egg and sperm meet i believe life starts right there a beautiful child being created and abortion is killing an innocent child

2 years, 9 months ago

I didn't say that.... I said life doesn't have a beginning. it's continuous.

how the hell are twisting my words so much. it's a simple concept, and no it doesn't mean anything else.

I am saying literally.... the sperm and the egg were both alive before conception, and at no point was anything in the chain of life not alive.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

probably the dumbest thing i ever heard

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

so youre saying killing me right now would be the same as abortion to a child in the womb?

2 years, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

it doesnt.
it's continuous.

at what point before conception is anything dead?

2 years, 9 months ago
Blu_Ray
replied to...

The moment your heart pumps blood through auricles and ventricles.

2 years, 9 months ago
mmjd14
replied to...

so tell me when does life actually begin. you must know

2 years, 9 months ago

lol. life doesn't begin at conception! at what point were any of the pre conception parts not alive?

life is continuous.

2 years, 9 months ago
Discuss "Life begins at contraception. " life politics
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.