CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It's also a biological fact that an organism's aging process begins at conception as well. This further supports the fact that Conception is the birth of the organism.
"Aging is a very natural process. It begins at conception and continues throughout the life cycle."
Off course they are alive, but because of science. They would die without it. You cannot use them as a leverage or argument because they were alive before that condition.
But fetus is not until born... do you see the flaw?
I notice you often try to twist semantics to work to your favor.
If the definition of pro-abortion defines pro-choice people as pro-abortion, why does the definition of birth:The emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being. not qualify for it's true meaning?
Semantics goes beyond the scope of the question. I'm pretty sure that the creator was referring to parturition. This would make your biological fact actually go against this claim.
I'm sorry that you think it's only about semantics.
For me, these words have real meanings and that's the basis for my response.
It was an education for me to find this information and that's why I like to share it with others who may not know or realize that conception is the birth of an organism and how their aging begins at conception too.
You are applying only one definition of the word "birth."
I never said that parturition (delivery from the womb) is not also... a "birth" - but- parturition is not when the child "begins, originates, comes into existence... etc."
Those are some of the other definitions for the word birth. And they point to conception not to parturition as the birth of the child in THOSE respects.
Wait a second. Conception and birth are both synonyms of beginning. They are not synonyms of each other. Hey! You cheated in your original post too. Birth and conception are not synonyms.
No, that is not what that means. Conception is a synonym of beginning. Birth is a synonym of beginning. That does not mean that you can say those two are synonyms. Plus, in your post you claimed that those synonyms were under conception which is a blatant lie. Even if your view that those get to all be considered synonyms, you cheated in your post when you inaccurately list those synonyms under conception.
You misled us all by claiming that those synonyms appeared under conception. You are a liar and a deceiver. Regardless of the fact that you are misreading the thesaurus.
No, my post shows that you deceitfully put the synonyms of beginning under conception. You are looking at a digital thesaurus. When you search for the word conception it shows you everywhere it can be found in the thesaurus. If you were looking at a paper thesaurus and looked up the word all you would see is:
Notes: a concept is a more definite, more unitary, more complete type of notion than is a conception , which is more of an ideational structure with a potential for realization (rather like a schema)
Antonyms: being, concrete
And would not be able to link birth and conception. All you found is that birth and conception are 2 types of beginnings, not the those 2 are the same.
You are looking for synonyms under a differect defintion. (Idea as opposed to beginning)
Your hole keeps getting deeper and deeper.
Keep digging though, I want to see how far you can go before someone on your side of the issue feels sorry enough (or embarassed enough) to help pull your head out of your ass.
When someone on my side of the issue starts to believe you on that, I'll take into consideration what they might have to say about it.
But I would ask any pro-lifer who believes that "life begins at conception" - how that isn't the same thing as saying a child is born or first "comes into existence" at conception.
a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.
b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.
2.
a. The ability to form or understand mental concepts and abstractions.
b. Something conceived in the mind; a concept, plan, design, idea, or thought. See Synonyms at idea.
3. Archaic A beginning; a start.
birth (bûrth)
n.
1.
a. The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother.
b. The act or process of bearing young; parturition: the mare's second birth.
c. The circumstances or conditions relating to this event, as its time or location: an incident that took place before my birth; a Bostonian by birth.
2.
a. The set of characteristics or circumstances received from one's ancestors; inheritance: strong-willed by birth; acquired their wealth through birth.
b. Origin; extraction: of Swedish birth; of humble birth.
c. Noble or high status: persons of birth.
3. A beginning or commencement. See Synonyms at beginning.
tr.v. birthed, birth·ing, births Chiefly Southern U.S.
1. To deliver (a baby).
2. To bear (a child).
Their happy? or will you still claim i didn't post full definition?
You have managed to further undermine your own credibility.
Yes, he does, just being related to some kind of beginning does not make them synonyms. They need to still be related to the same kind of beginning. Otherwise, they are only synonyms to the word beginning and not to each other
Well I mean if you are the opposition and you truly care about the point you tried to make, maybe you could show me how these words are supposed to be used. I've never seen birth interchanged with those words before. Maybe birth of a new day, but that's about it.
Well I'm unconvinced that any synonym would work. I believe that as I proved, that the synonym only worked in that rare case.
Birth of a new day, is the same as a dawn of a new day. Yet the derivative of a new day does not work. Because synonyms are similar words not the exact same. The definition of birth is when a child becomes a separate entity from it's mother, the conception is when it is created.
You are making unwarranted claims you have yet to prove to me how birth is always replaceable with it's synonyms.
Again, you need someone more qualified in teaching English and the proper use of a Thesaurus than me.
You haven't shown any real consideration for anything that proves against your denials yet... so I doubt even an English professor could reason with you at this point.
If that is the case then we need someone more qualified in the teachings of english to make the claim that since birth is synonymous with conception that life begins at birth.
So conception of a new day is the same as birth of a new day?
If one rises for the pledge of allegiance, were they just conceived for it?
Was the english language conceived from latin?
If it won't work for every instance it doesn't count. When people say birth of a new day they are being poetic, a new day is not literally born, the sun just rose.
Conception is not literally birth, it's conception, that is all.
"According to the results of the studies, children who were conceived through IVF are no different from those children who were born at conception, "naturally."
The basis you are arguing on is that in the documents of the scientists, that they chose a word that suits your arguments. For instance the word 'child' being used to describe the fetus in the womb, calling it child in utero, and the word 'born' being used to describe conception, yet in the case of pro-life and pro-abortions' opposites, you chose to go with the basic definitions.
Your two arguments contradict each other because in this one you refuse to accept the definition while in the other one you claimed the definition is everything.
If the beggining of life is birth, then by definition when the child is born, it is now alive, and now has rights, but up until it is born abortion or any other means of killing it should be perfectly legal. So way to defeat your anti-abortion arguments.
First you claim that the definitions do not support my claims and then, when I show you that they actually do support my claims, you say that only proves that definitions are an unreliable source.
If the definitions are such an unreliable fucking source, why did you ask for them?
I never asked for definitions. Yet what you are showing me is a completely different definition than the one I've been reading. The definition you showed me is almost the opposite of the definition I showed you.
The issue we are arguing over is almost completely the point of semantics.
It is the moment of conception that a new organism originates or comes into existence and by that criteria, conception is the actual birth of the organism.
Parturition simply denotes the already existing organism's departure from the womb.
Any fool can see that you are trying to use a synonym of a synonym to base your claim and that I am not doing that.
Birth and Conception are already synonyms of one another... there is no need to go through all the contortions like you are (above) to make that point.
Any fool can see that you are trying to use a synonym of a synonym to base your claim and that I am not doing that.
Birth and Conception are already synonyms of one another... there is no need to go through all the contortions like you are (above) to make that point.
Conception is when the fertilization process is complete and a new life is formed. Birth is when that life is pushed out of mom's you know what and enters the world.
"The DNA mutation at conception gives birth to new species, and can bring both wonder for its variation and confusion for the explanation of its existence upon discovery. "
Of course life begins at birth! Even if you believe in reincarnation, that we are all born equal, and with this begins a new life, even if reincarnation exists, how do you prove it?
I don't think so personally I think that it begins when the brain is fully developed and working. If we are classed as dead when the brain stops working why not alive when the brain starts to work?
Because if the brain has stopped working then we're dead so that must mean it is our life-line and that life is likely to start when the brain has developed fully.
But I'm not talking about a car though am I? I'm talking about humans and the start of their life. Not exactly faulty when I'm only talking about humans I never said it applied to anything else.
I never thought of it this way, but come to think of it you seem very reasonable. Death is defined by when the brain stops working, so it makes perfect sense for life to be defined by when the brain starts working.
We don't know for sure if the life we have on Earth began here or was brought from another world by meteorites. Life on our planet has been literally the same since it began. We are the same first cell that we would consider to have been alive, which kept dividing for the past 3.5 billion years. We can be considered descendants from that cell, but in reality we are the same cell that kept dividing and changing gradually, working with its self, against its self, eating its self, etc. The sperm which fecundated the egg and the egg, which divided in your mother's womb for 9 months, are both descendants from that same original cell. What we call "birth" is something completely arbitrary which has meaning to us only because we reached that consensus. Without us to call it "birth", it would have no value. You didn't become alive today, nor 20 years ago, nor 20 years and 9 months ago.
tl;dr You became alive ~3.5 billion years ago, but you've only been aware of it for a few decades.
Actually, though the life doesn't end (reincarnation or whatever Buddhist believes happens after someone is shot through the brain), their family won't see the person for many, many years, and this would clearly cause some distress.
I'm not really agreeing with his position of life never starts or ends, but some info about what could be derived from his opinions always helps.
It depends on what your definition of "begin" means. Does that mean when a fetus is formed? When the baby is actually born? Or when the child is old enough to comprehend the world around them and adapt? I personally see it has when comprehension becomes prominent. No one's life truly begins until they start living it themselves.