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.
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?
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?
you already asked me this question
mmjd can I ask you a question. how would you rate the quality of our orphanage and foster care systems?
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.
oh nice i knew that i was wondering what he meant on the last part
his phone broke down. he had to get a new one.
what do you mean?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
mmjd can I ask you a question. how would you rate the quality of our orphanage and foster care systems?
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.
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
you'll have to Google the process. but yes sperm is alive. every cell in you is alive.
can you explain me how zygote is formed by fusion of the sperm and ova? and also, is sperm a living organism?
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.
@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.
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.
Imagine it like a house being built around a man, makes more sense?
electrical waves at 12 weeks would you not call that brain activity
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.
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
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?
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
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.
we don't allow the soul to even come.
someone's got to build it. we see this as cells splitting.
sorry "consciousness "
your words: " but it does not have a conscious. " mine was opinion yours was a statement
your opinion is just an opinion, therefore, in your own words:
"well dont pretend to know the answer if you don't know"
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.
do you know the answer?
well dont pretend to know the answer if you don't know
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.
And how do you know it can't enter one that has just started to be built?
If consciousness is the question, the why don't we just kill all coma patients? Apparently they're not alive
its an open question not a settled question so dont say it doesn't hqve a soul when you dont even know
okay so when does you're soul come to you then?
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.
a baby has its own dna at conception
a person? consciousness.
what makes you a human being then historybuff?
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?
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.
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
Are children just hunks of flesh in the womb? Because you seem to think that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Would you kill a child of any age?
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?
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.
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.
its not being emotional watch this video and if youre still pro choice after this you have something wrong with you.
have you ever seen an abortion video the baby fights for his or her life its sad to watch
its facts lol its not showing emotions its facts so
dont go around saying 21 weeks
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.
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.
" 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.
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.
Who in the world would hold a tiny baby in their hand and just squish it and rip it apart?
Would you kill a one year old child?
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?
we are made by God. besides that life is precious and matters all the time.
of course my response is generalized, there are exceptions on both the left and right. I hope my opponent acknowledges that as well
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.
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.
20 weeks thats hilarious. no one values life anymore especially the left
This is getting a bit circular. Allow me to ask you a few questions.
Why are humans worthy of moral consideration?
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.
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.
we do not ever kill children like this though. this is bad.
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...
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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).
according to who?
big papa, heart beat signifies a life. Moment heart stops, we'll die.
why heart and not liver or kidney? what is the significance of a simple pump?
abortion should be made illegal after first heart beat
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.
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
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.
probably the dumbest thing i ever heard
so youre saying killing me right now would be the same as abortion to a child in the womb?
at what point before conception is anything dead?
The moment your heart pumps blood through auricles and ventricles.
so tell me when does life actually begin. you must know
lol. life doesn't begin at conception! at what point were any of the pre conception parts not alive?
life is continuous.