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.
Scientific advances enable us to know the moment an egg is fertilized, when the embryo attaches to the lining of the uterus, and when a baby’s heart first beats in its mother’s womb. All the genetic information you and I possess existed at the moment of conception.
All we will become is present from the first instant that the mother’s egg is fertilized by the father’s sperm. This includes personality, body size, color of eyes and hair, basic intellect, etc.
Science indicates that the baby’s brain begins functioning enough to generate measurable brain waves (electroencephalographic [EEG] impulses) at 40 days. Additionally, the baby’s facial muscles move, even appearing to form “smiles” as early as 12 weeks.
yes. but they are all before birth. they all go back to when the egg is fertilized. and he makes a valid point. all genetic information. the person we will become. becomes the person we are at the moment the egg is fertilized
The grandeur of our awesome Creator is reflected in the way He has made each of us, regardless of how we are conceived or the environment into which we are born. God chose to create every single individual in His likeness and endows each of us with “glory and honor” (Psalm 8:5). A being so special and precious should, from the time of conception on, be welcomed into the world and protected by our laws.
The grandeur of our awesome Creator is reflected in the way He has made each of us, regardless of how we are conceived or the environment into which we are born. God chose to create every single individual in His likeness and endows each of us with “glory and honor” (Psalm 8:5).
Assuming this to be true absent any actual evidence, we can conclude then that the grandeur of God is limited to the creation of imperfect, flawed, and destructive creatures... and that this in turn makes God imperfect, flawed, and destructive. Some glory and honor.
A being so special and precious should, from the time of conception on, be welcomed into the world and protected by our laws. Life beings at conception.
So you claim. I fail to see a compelling argument as to why.
Abortion is murder.
Assuming this to be true, again without evidence, why is that necessarily a bad thing? Lethal self-defense is also murder. Wartime killing is murder. The death penalty is murder. There are and always have been exceptions to what is and is not acceptable; what makes abortion unacceptable (other than your religious beliefs, which you cannot prove)?
The individual organisms life begins at conception; the zygote itself is alive, biologically speaking.
There is a difference between life and personhood; a simple fertilized egg has no capacity for consciousness whatsoever, as neurons themselves have not even formed yet. It is merely potential, many of which never even successfully implant.
Your dispute of this vote for conception casts a vote to the side that claims life begins some time after conception.
To that end- can you provide an objective definition for life? This definition should be applicable to all currently known forms of life?
I don't believe there is a set of objective criteria for 'life' that would include plants, unicellular life forms, and their ilk while excluding a zygote.
Biologically speaking, a zygote is alive. The individual sperm and egg prior to conception are also alive, but they are at that point still a part of the parent organisms tissues; at conception, the living cell becomes a unique organism with its own DNA- distinct from both of its parents.
I'll acknowledge that not all scientists agree that life starts with conception- but I question how objective their criteria are, and what other forms of life are excluded under that definition.
It should also be noted that life (being biologically alive) and personhood (having human capabilities first and foremost being self awareness) are different things entirely.
Your dispute of this vote for conception casts a vote to the side that claims life begins some time after conception.
That is incorrect. One may dispute an assertion without advancing an alternative.
To that end- can you provide an objective definition for life? This definition should be applicable to all currently known forms of life?
I do not need to, nor do I consider that possible. All language is an inherently subjective representation of objective reality. This is particularly true of "life" which is defined in terms of science, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc.
I don't believe there is a set of objective criteria for 'life' that would include plants, unicellular life forms, and their ilk while excluding a zygote.
Nor is there an objective set of criteria for defining life at conception.
Biologically speaking, a zygote is alive. [...]
Philosophically or legally or ethically or pragmatically (etc), though, the zygote may not be alive. This is the issue with defining life.
I'll acknowledge that not all scientists agree that life starts with conception- but I question how objective their criteria are, and what other forms of life are excluded under that definition.
As do I. The only difference is that I extend my skepticism to the other scientists too.
It should also be noted that life (being biologically alive) and personhood (having human capabilities first and foremost being self awareness) are different things entirely.
Yes, the two are commonly held in semantic distinction from one another.
That is incorrect. One may dispute an assertion without advancing an alternative.
I am specifically referring to your selection of the 'dispute' link, and the fact that using such a response casts a vote to the other side on this particular debate site, causing the 'score' for the 'Some Time Later' side to increment. I use the 'clarify' link when I wish to dispute an assertion without casting a vote to either side.
I do not need to, nor do I consider that possible. All language is an inherently subjective representation of objective reality. This is particularly true of "life" which is defined in terms of science, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc.
...
Nor is there an objective set of criteria for defining life at conception.
I think this is dissembling. There certainly are objective criteria. There is some dispute as to what these criteria are, but there is a generally accepted consensus with some dissent:
Homeostasis- The zygote, even prior to developing into a blastocyst, does engage in regulatory action internally in regards to the surrounding fluid.
Organization- The zygote is composed of one or more cells- specifically one.
Metabolism- The zygote undergoes metabolic processes with stored energy from the original ovum, as well as some supplementation from the surrounding fluid prior to implantation
Growth- Growth and cellular division begin almost immediately; by the time the zygote is ready to implant it is already a blastocyst composed of many cells.
Adaptation- Even at the zygote stage, responses to conditions can be observed both in the way the zygote orients itself within its environment prior to adaptation, and the pattern in which the cells grow initially.
Response to stimuli- See Adaptation. A zygote does not respond to the same stimuli that a fully developed human does (lacking the structures necessary for such), but it does have the capability to receive and respond to stimuli in the same manner that most unicellular life does.
Reproduction- See growth. Even if one doesn't consider the cellular division of a zygote to be a form of reproduction, one can certainly consider the process of forming a monozygotic twin to be a form of reproduction.
Philosophically or legally or ethically or pragmatically (etc), though, the zygote may not be alive. This is the issue with defining life.
When we're talking about these, we aren't generally talking about life so much as personhood. I believe the term 'life' to be misused in this case.
As do I. The only difference is that I extend my skepticism to the other scientists too.
I never claimed I didn't- But the generally accepted criteria that I noted do a generally good job of separating what I consider to be alive from what I don't, with admittedly some gray areas. For example, the above criteria would exclude viruses as life forms for several reasons. I would tend to consider a virus alive, personally, but that in particular is heavily disputed.
It's not perfect, I'll give you that- but criteria that excluded a zygote would also seem to exclude almost all unicellular organisms, plants, and such. I can't personally accept such criteria.
I am specifically referring to your selection of the 'dispute' link [...]. I use the 'clarify' link when I wish to dispute an assertion without casting a vote to either side.
That is nice. I do not. I indicate dispute when I am disputing an argument, clarify when I am clarifying, and could give a frack about the vote score.
You indicated that because my vote incidentally cast to the other side that I should provide an argument in defense of that side, rather than adhering to the actual argument I advanced. This is presumptive, at best.
I think this is dissembling. There certainly are objective criteria. There is some dispute as to what these criteria are, but there is a generally accepted consensus with some dissent: [long list of biological terminology with definitions.
I am not hiding behind any pretense, and you have not actually refuted my analysis. Presenting a set of definitions does not prove that they are objective, particularly when you must qualify them as "generally accepted" but "with some dissent".
More to the point none of these represents an objective definition of life.
When we're talking about these, we aren't generally talking about life so much as personhood. I believe the term 'life' to be misused in this case.
These issues can and do address both life and person-hood. Nice try though.
(P.S. Biology tends not to address either specifically - see your own definitions.)
I never claimed I didn't [...] It's not perfect, I'll give you that- but criteria that excluded a zygote would also seem to exclude almost all unicellular organisms, plants, and such. I can't personally accept such criteria.
In short, you: (1) extrapolate a definition of life from a set of definitions that do not once use the term "life"; and (2) openly admit that this definition excludes what you would consider to be life. Forgive me, but a definition like that is more than "not perfect" and is ultimately just as arbitrary as the next.
That is nice. I do not. I indicate dispute when I am disputing an argument, clarify when I am clarifying, and could give a frack about the vote score.
You indicated that because my vote incidentally cast to the other side that I should provide an argument in defense of that side, rather than adhering to the actual argument I advanced. This is presumptive, at best.
Not really. Choosing to 'clarify' rather than 'dispute' would allow you to communicate the same message without skewing the overall debate scores. It's not presumptive to ask you to support the side you voted for- It's rather presumptive to cast a vote for one side and then not only refuse to actually support the side you've voted for, but assert that there is no reason to do so. Is having that little glowy orange 'Disputed' text next to your name really that important?
If you don't care about the score, thats fine- but you should show some consideration to those who do. That's all I'm saying.
I am not hiding behind any pretense, and you have not actually refuted my analysis. Presenting a set of definitions does not prove that they are objective, particularly when you must qualify them as "generally accepted" but "with some dissent".
More to the point none of these represents an objective definition of life.
It's called intellectual integrity. Some prefer intellectual honesty. I'm not going to present something as a unanimously accepted fact when it is not one. These criteria are generally accepted by the majority, but there is a sizeable dissenting minority. The same can be said for the theory of evolution- I'll touch more on that later.
You didn't make an analysis- you made a false claim that these were not objective criteria. The criteria I listed are in fact objective and can be measured empirically if you want to take the time to actually look over them. I should probably specify that in that post, I listed the 'label' for each criteria, followed by how said criteria applies to a zygote. The criteria themselves can be reviewed if you follow the link that prefaced that section. If you'll take a look, they are quite objective. There are no grounds for calling their objectivity into question- only their validity as criteria for life. You know better than this. Unless there is some subjective way to determine whether, say, a given sample is composed of zero, one, or more cells. I'm not aware of one.
You're right that none of these represent an objective definition of life. They represent, as a whole (not individually) a set of objective criteria for determining whether or not an individual specimen constitutes a life form. Criteria, rather than definitions, are typically used in cases like these. But, if you want a dictionary definition...
dictionary.com entry 1.the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
Bam. Zygotes qualify for that one. I suppose you'll contest that as well?
These issues can and do address both life and person-hood. Nice try though.
(P.S. Biology tends not to address either specifically - see your own definitions.)
Yes, 'these issues' do address both life and person-hood. But the debate at hand is specifically asking 'When does life begin?' not 'When does personhood begin' or 'When does self awareness begin.'
Biology can address both of these, with a few caveats. We know that there is insufficient development of the nervous system in the first trimester for the growing fetus to experience anything akin to our emotions and sensations; the basic physical infrastructure to support these forms during the second trimester. We can also measure the overall development of the brain in numerous ways- biologically speaking, we can indeed identify where both life and personhood begin; the kicker is that the actual stage in development where these happen depend heavily on the criteria used to determine life and personhood.
In short, you: (1) extrapolate a definition of life from a set of definitions that do not once use the term "life"; and (2) openly admit that this definition excludes what you would consider to be life. Forgive me, but a definition like that is more than "not perfect" and is ultimately just as arbitrary as the next.
First, I'll address point one. [I] extrapolate a definition of life from a set of definitions that do not once use the term "life" Yes. I do. If the word 'life' has to be used to define 'life,' then what does the term 'life' mean within 'lifes' definition? Is it turtles all the way down? Would it not be somewhat akin to a tautology to use the term 'life' in part of the definition of 'life?'
And next point two. [I] openly admit that this definition excludes what [I] would personally consider to be life.
The fact that I am not entirely in accord with the criteria is not a mark against it. I am not a virologist, and my understanding of how they work is not perfect. From what I do know, it seems intuitive to classify them as a life form- but per the generally accepted criteria for life, they don't qualify. The fact that considering a virus alive is rather intuitive is one of the reasons that there is a sizeable minority that dissents from these criteria.
My views on it are irrelevant. Compare evolution- there is a sizeable minority that dissents from that, as well. If I were personally to detail the theory of evolution, and then follow it by saying that I didn't personally believe in it because it was not intuitive within my worldview, would you then label the theory of evolution as being arbitrary?
I generally expect better from you- you're not bringing your A-game tonight. Are you drinking a little, distracted? There are a number of ways one could pick this apart that might make for an interesting debate, but your analysis fails to even pick this apart, really. Shall we call it an evening for now and pick up in the morning?
Not really. Choosing to 'clarify' rather than 'dispute' would allow you to communicate the same message without skewing the overall debate scores.
Actually, no, the terms "clarify and "dispute" are not mutually interchangeable. I could not indicate one while meaning the other and say the same thing.
It's not presumptive to ask you to support the side you voted for-
Yes, it is; you are assuming my stance based not upon what I said but upon a potentially incidental vote attribution.
It's rather presumptive to cast a vote for one side and then not only refuse to actually support the side you've voted for, but assert that there is no reason to do so.
How is that presumptive? It does not presume anything.
Is having that little glowy orange 'Disputed' text next to your name really that important?
Your issue is systemic, though for whatever reason you are insisting upon making it personal. If there were a way for me to dispute without ascribing a vote to any side, I would do it. However, at present there are two options: be inaccurate with respect to the relatively meaningless vote tally, or be inaccurate about the nature of my response to the person I am immediately engaged with.
If you don't care about the score, thats fine- but you should show some consideration to those who do.
It's called intellectual integrity. Some prefer intellectual honesty. I'm not going to present something as a unanimously accepted fact when it is not one. These criteria are generally accepted by the majority, but there is a sizeable dissenting minority.
I recognize why you made the caveat. My point was that the necessity of those caveats for definitions demonstrates their subjective nature.
You didn't make an analysis [...]. Unless there is some subjective way to determine whether, say, a given sample is composed of zero, one, or more cells. I'm not aware of one. & You're right that none of these represent an objective definition of life. They represent, as a whole (not individually) a set of objective criteria for determining whether or not an individual specimen constitutes a life form. Criteria, rather than definitions, are typically used in cases like these.
You accused me of being dissembling, without actually ever proving this to be the case.
You dislike my argument that language is a subjective representation of objective reality, and assert it as a false claim. Yet you have failed to demonstrate any actual objective definition (indeed you now admit that there is no objective definition of life), which rather demonstrates my point. Asking me to prove that objective definitions do not exist is like asking me to prove that God does not exist; it misplaces the burden of proof.
You have attempted to refute my argument by asserting that subjective definitions may be informed by objective criteria, but this does not make the definitions any less subjective. Further, I contend you have not actually provided objective criteria at the point where those criteria themselves are definitions which you yourself profess to be contested (albeit with "general consensus"). The commonly accepted definition of the criteria may well set out absolute standards (e.g. no cell, one cell, more cells), but that does not make the criteria objective since the standards were incorporated on a subjective basis.
But, if you want a dictionary definition... & dictionary.com entry 1.the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Bam. Zygotes qualify for that one. I suppose you'll contest that as well?
It appears that no amount of reiteration gets through to you. I do not care if the subjective definition of a zygote matches the subjective definition of life.
Yes, 'these issues' do address both life and person-hood. But the debate at hand is specifically asking 'When does life begin?' not 'When does personhood begin' or 'When does self awareness begin.'
I am entirely aware of what this debate concerns. That was a direct reply to your false assertion that issues such as philosophy do not address what constitutes "life", conflating it instead with "person-hood". My point was that this was incorrect; I am glad to see you have come to your senses and now agree on the matter. To return you to the original context, this means that my point stands: "Philosophically or legally or ethically or pragmatically (etc), though, the zygote may not be alive. This is the issue with defining life."
Biology can address both of these, with a few caveats. [...] we can indeed identify where both life and personhood begin; the kicker is that the actual stage in development where these happen depend heavily on the criteria used to determine life and personhood.
Biology cannot and generally does not define life or person-hood, since doing so would overstep the bounds of scientific observation (crossing over, instead, into the realms of philosophical speculation as to what physical phenomenon constitute the idea of life). You actually seem to acknowledge this when you refer to "the kicker"; how we interpret biological knowledge is dependent not upon biology itself but upon the criteria we ascribe onto that knowledge. As I have already argued above, these criteria are innately subjective which renders the process of definition of "life" subjective as well.
First, I'll address point one. [...] If the word 'life' has to be used to define 'life,' then what does the term 'life' mean within 'lifes' definition? Is it turtles all the way down? Would it not be somewhat akin to a tautology to use the term 'life' in part of the definition of 'life?'
Except that that is not what I am critiquing or suggesting. Using the term life in defining a zygote is not using the word zygote in its own definition. There is nothing in the terminology you have shared indicating that a zygote actually represents life; that association is your pure assertion.
And next point two. [I] openly admit that this definition excludes what [I] would personally consider to be life. & The fact that I am not entirely in accord with the criteria is not a mark against it. [...] My views on it are irrelevant.
It is at the point where your main argument against any alternative definition is that it does not fit your feelings as to what life should be. I am glad to see you now recognize that your personal views on the matter do not represent actual substantiation.
Compare evolution- there is a sizeable minority that dissents from that, as well. If I were personally to detail the theory of evolution, and then follow it by saying that I didn't personally believe in it because it was not intuitive within my worldview, would you then label the theory of evolution as being arbitrary?
This is a fallacious comparison; while a definition is inherently subjective a scientific theory is relatively objective (in fact, arguably as objective as the human mind is capable of approaching). A minority in dissent of a subjective idea is not the same as a minority in dissent of an objective idea. The theory of evolution is not arbitrary because it is derived from objective reality (though, arguably, the term evolution is arbitrary).
I generally expect better from you- you're not bringing your A-game tonight. Are you drinking a little, distracted? There are a number of ways one could pick this apart that might make for an interesting debate, but your analysis fails to even pick this apart, really. Shall we call it an evening for now and pick up in the morning?
I do not consume mind altering substances and am actually quite focused. I am also well aware that there are other arguments against the life-at-conception stance. Recall that you were the one who introduced this present line of dispute, not me. My first post observed that the OP claims were not substantiated; nothing more. For some reason you then challenged me to provide a definition of life for a side you assumed I held (even though I never remotely indicated support for that side through anything I said). This aside, that other arguments could be made does not invalidate that one I am making at present.
I would say you were not on your A-game yourself, but that would imply you have one.
Actually, no, the terms "clarify and "dispute" are not mutually interchangeable. I could not indicate one while meaning the other and say the same thing.
You're right- they aren't. But it is not your clicking of 'dispute' versus 'clarify' that constitutes a dispute of the argument you are disputing. It is the content of your post. Selecting clarify vs dispute does two things- It places either Orange 'Disputed' text or grey 'Clarified' text next to your name, and either casts a vote to the other side or casts no vote.
There is nothing stopping you from posting the exact same content, and rebutting your opponents statement in the exact same way.
Again- that shiny orange 'Disputed' text does not constitute your dispute- the body of your argument does.
Yes, it is; you are assuming my stance based not upon what I said but upon a potentially incidental vote attribution.
...
How is that presumptive? It does not presume anything.
It is not incidental. It is one of the features of this site. By ignoring it, you aren't just skewing things for you- you are skewing them for everyone. It is presumptuous of you to feel that it does not matter, when your choice effects everyone who does feel it matters. Again- you are skewing things for EVERYONE just because YOU don't care.
Your issue is systemic, though for whatever reason you are insisting upon making it personal. If there were a way for me to dispute without ascribing a vote to any side, I would do it. However, at present there are two options: be inaccurate with respect to the relatively meaningless vote tally, or be inaccurate about the nature of my response to the person I am immediately engaged with.
There is. It's called the 'Clarify' button. Again- it is the body of your argument that constitutes a dispute. If I click 'dispute' and then enter 'I would like a double bacon cheeseburger, please' as my argument, I have that shiny orange dispute text and a vote for the other side, but i have not actually disputed anything. Why do you have difficulty understanding this?
Why?
Well for one, NOT skewing the vote does not hurt you or limit you in any way. Skewing the vote does not benefit you in any way. Nobody stands to gain by you skewing the vote- there are simply those who don't care, and those who lose out. It is rude and presumptuous and self-centered of you to feel this way.
Do you really need a reason to show some basic courtesy to others?
I recognize why you made the caveat. My point was that the necessity of those caveats for definitions demonstrates their subjective nature.
Subjective again. I don't always drop quotes and memes, but when I do, I say that you keep using that word- I do not think it means what you think it means.
Those caveats do not render the criteria subjective. The criteria are wholly objective. Does the fact that some people believe the earth is flat suddenly change our ability to physically measure the curvature of the earth subjective?
You accused me of being dissembling, without actually ever proving this to be the case.
I stated that I believed you were dissembling- I never made any claims that I could prove such, or directly accused you of such- mainly because I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, generally speaking.
You dislike my argument that language is a subjective representation of objective reality, and assert it as a false claim. Yet you have failed to demonstrate any actual objective definition (indeed you now admit that there is no objective definition of life), which rather demonstrates my point. Asking me to prove that objective definitions do not exist is like asking me to prove that God does not exist; it misplaces the burden of proof.
The problem is, if we work under the premise that language itself is subjective, then any discussion at all is fruitless- if we can't simply accept that the general meaning of any given word will be understood, then communication is rendered impossible. I never asked you to prove that objective definitions do not exist.
I did not claim that there was NO objective definition of life. I claimed that there was no unanimously adopted objective definition of life. There are several different definitions of and criteria for life, and many of these are objective. Again- the fact that some dissent from a definition do not render objective criteria subjective. Any subjectivity here is at a meta level.
You have attempted to refute my argument by asserting that subjective definitions may be informed by objective criteria, but this does not make the definitions any less subjective. Further, I contend you have not actually provided objective criteria at the point where those criteria themselves are definitions which you yourself profess to be contested (albeit with "general consensus"). The commonly accepted definition of the criteria may well set out absolute standards (e.g. no cell, one cell, more cells), but that does not make the criteria objective since the standards were incorporated on a subjective basis.
You're wrong here. I have asserted that there can be numerous objective criteria or definitions for a term. The fact that there are multiple possible definitions does not mean that any or all of them are necessarily subjective.
Take, for example, the first criteria I listed- 'Organization.' This criteria boils down to whether or not the prospective life in question is composed of one or more cells or not. This criteria is objective- there is no room for 'opinion' on whether or not something is composed of one or more cells- either it is composed of zero, one, or more cells. That is objective, and is one of the criteria that that viruses fail at- being primarily genetic material encased in a protein sheath, and having very little in common with cells.
If I were to disagree with 'organization' as a criteria for life, that would simply mean dissenting from the criteria. It does not suddenly render the number of cells that a sample is composed of subjective- the sample still contains zero, one, or more cells, and is entirely objective and empirical in nature.
It appears that no amount of reiteration gets through to you. I do not care if the subjective definition of a zygote matches the subjective definition of life.
It doesn't appear that reiteration gets through to you either. You obviously do not fully understand what the terms 'objective' and 'subjective' actually mean. See the interesting man/princess bride hybrid meme above.
I am entirely aware of what this debate concerns. That was a direct reply to your false assertion that issues such as philosophy do not address what constitutes "life", conflating it instead with "person-hood". My point was that this was incorrect; I am glad to see you have come to your senses and now agree on the matter. To return you to the original context, this means that my point stands: "Philosophically or legally or ethically or pragmatically (etc), though, the zygote may not be alive. This is the issue with defining life."
It was not a false assertion. Life is a biological term, as opposed to that which is dead (formerly alive), or unliving (inert matter). Philosophy does not deal with 'life.' Philosophy deals with person-hood. This is primarily due to dilution and misuse of the term life, which I guess is a mark in favor of your assertion that language tends to be subjective. That doesn't mean that I can accept that, however, as communication requires a general accord concerning what each word means, even if allowing for disagreements regarding nuances and minutiae.
Biology cannot and generally does not define life or person-hood, since doing so would overstep the bounds of scientific observation (crossing over, instead, into the realms of philosophical speculation as to what physical phenomenon constitute the idea of life). You actually seem to acknowledge this when you refer to "the kicker"; how we interpret biological knowledge is dependent not upon biology itself but upon the criteria we ascribe onto that knowledge. As I have already argued above, these criteria are innately subjective which renders the process of definition of "life" subjective as well.
Do you not understand that your usage of the term subjective renders literally everything subjective? Do you not understand how that renders communication useless, and is completely contrary to what all sciences are predicated on?
You don't understand subjective/objective. Your interpretation of them is wrong. That's all I can say on the matter.
Except that that is not what I am critiquing or suggesting. Using the term life in defining a zygote is not using the word zygote in its own definition. There is nothing in the terminology you have shared indicating that a zygote actually represents life; that association is your pure assertion.
You're dissembling here. Not a belief this time- you are in fact dissembling. You stated that my definition of life lacks the word life, and is therefore invalid. Defining 'zygote' was never a part of the debate. This is pure dissembling, and there is no excuse for it, and no room for interpretation here.
Every biological definition I have seen for life would include a zygote within its definition. If you must assert that this is incorrect, please provide a definition or criteria- any definition or criteria- that would exclude a zygote. A zygote meets all of the objective criteria noted for life- both the ones I've listed, and several other alternate sets. I am not 'defining' a zygote by using the term life. I am using objective criteria to classify a zygote as life. Given your difficulty with the terms subjective and objective, I can understand why this confuses you. I hope I have clarified that for you.
This is a fallacious comparison; while a definition is inherently subjective a scientific theory is relatively objective (in fact, arguably as objective as the human mind is capable of approaching). A minority in dissent of a subjective idea is not the same as a minority in dissent of an objective idea. The theory of evolution is not arbitrary because it is derived from objective reality (though, arguably, the term evolution is arbitrary).
Not at all- it's exactly my point. Dissent from objective criteria is not dissent from a subjective idea. You keep insisting that the criteria I detailed for life are subjective- they are not. They are objective, and each one can be measured empirically. Those who dissent are quite akin to those who dissent from evolution.
I do not consume mind altering substances and am actually quite focused. I am also well aware that there are other arguments against the life-at-conception stance. Recall that you were the one who introduced this present line of dispute, not me. My first post observed that the OP claims were not substantiated; nothing more. For some reason you then challenged me to provide a definition of life for a side you assumed I held (even though I never remotely indicated support for that side through anything I said). This aside, that other arguments could be made does not invalidate that one I am making at present.
I did not intend to offend by asking that- I asked because you normally seem pretty focused and overall balanced when you debate, and you seemed off. I believe part of this may have been due to my assumption that you properly understood objective vs subjective- I figured the discrepancies there might be due to being intoxicated or distracted by other events. I do not know you, and I would not hold it against you if you were to imbibe occasionally; most do, and it doesn't say anything bad about them so long as it's done in moderation and safely.
My perception was that you were not at your best, and i was merely suggesting delaying further discussion until you were. My intent was not to insult or offend.
The reason for my dispute was because it's become a pet peeve of mine when people arbitrarily misuse the system because they simply don't care about a part of it- the main reason I asked you that was to drive home the point that you were casting a vote for something that did not necessarily represent your actual position, and that that effects everyone who may be interested in the vote. The discussion has since gotten rather long-winded, but that was my main intent.
I would say you were not on your A-game yourself, but that would imply you have one.
Do we really need to go ad-hom? If you're going to make personal attacks, I see no reason to continue this line of discussion with you.
You have two homework assignments for our next debate:
1) Study the terms 'objective' and 'subjective' and refine your understanding of their meaning.
2) Spend some time with some people in the real world, and work on your ability to respect others even if you disagree. It's an important life skill, even if you don't believe that now.
I will now be bowing out of this discussion- I leave the last word to you.
I considered wasting more of my time on this pointless farce, and then decided against it. Your accusations are unfounded, hypocritical, and presumptive and did not warrant the attention I already gave them. Your arguments are flawed on account of your misunderstanding of the concepts (not mine). I do not anticipate posting here again, nor engaging with you further for some time henceforward as it is consistently futile.
There was not a single rant there. The first link alone is a comprehensive research of how all scientist declare that life begins at fertilization. It's the very basics of biology
Mmm.... I'd love to see a court case where a woman is charged with murder for having an abortion... I really wonder how the case would go... Atrag anyone?
No it's not. There is only one rule for morality: "Don't do to others what you do not want others to do to you"
The only reason why people insists that a fetus is not a human is because of the opinions of the masses. And if there's anything that history taught us, it is the fact that democracy isn't justice.
But on the day that mankind finally accepted the truth, there shall be no turning back.
Yes it is. There are numerous debaters on this site who agree with me.
There is only one rule for morality: "Don't do to others what you do not want others to do to you"
You mean the golden rule? That rule is complete BS. Example:
WWII soldiers fought to kill Hitler and his "evil" regime. According to the golden rule, the soldiers should not have killed Nazis because they do not want to die themselves.
Hitler is oppressing people and trying to take over the world. Since he is doing this, we should do the same to him by oppressing people and trying to take over the world.
In conclusion, your "one rule for morality" is stupid.
WWII soldiers fought to kill Hitler and his "evil" regime. According to the golden rule, the soldiers should not have killed Nazis because they do not want to die themselves.
What? Do you honestly expect people to follow the golden rule?
As so goes the saying: "The rules of being a good man are so easy any child can learn it, but so difficult, no man can master it"
While the past may have been cruel, the misdeeds done in history is not a reason to say that that is how human life should be
You missed the point. Can you help us all out by telling us one thing? Was killing Nazis in World War II immoral for American soldiers?
(Note: Since you are too afraid to talk to me, can you reply with your answer to someone else, or if you respond to this post, I will not respond to it.)
The first link alone is a comprehensive research of how all scientist declare that life begins at fertilization. It's the very basics of biology
The first link was a grammatically incorrect Google search. That is hardly comprehensive research. More importantly, the results were not unanimous as you claim them to be.
There was not a single rant there.
Your second reference was to another CD debate where the OP posted an unsubstantiated, irrational rant.
Just give up. Abortion and Murder are synonyms.
The only thing I give up on is expecting you to make a legitimate argument and actually substantiate your claims.
The first link was a grammatically incorrect Google search
I was referring to the first study that came up after the Google search. It was backed by respected scientists and written without any hint of bias. So goes the same thing to the rest of the links
Your second reference was to another CD debate where the OP posted an unsubstantiated, irrational rant.
"The information comes from Medical textbooks, Medical dictionaries…from universities such as Harvard and from such medical institutions as Mayo Clinic. Others come from Scientific Encyclopedias. NOTHING CHRISTIAN ABOUT THE SOURCES."
Thankyou for proving that you did not read it.
The only thing I give up on is expecting you to make a legitimate argument and actually substantiate your claims.
I know I said I was done, but no one else has replied with anything and I am bored out of my mind... so here it goes.
I was referring to the first study that came up after the Google search.
Then maybe you should have cited that blog to begin with instead of trying to be clever.
It was backed by respected scientists and written without any hint of bias.
There is not a single scientist cited in the blog (Dr. Robert George and Christopher Tollefson, the only referenced sources, got their doctorates in philosophy and/or law). As for bias, the blogger in question runs "The Radical Life: Adventures in Christian Living". Enough said.
So goes the same thing to the rest of the links
You either cannot read or are in delusional denial. This is empirically untrue. Try the third hit, for instance, which soundly refutes just about every other one supporting your view.
Thankyou for proving that you did not read it.
Nice claims, wholly unsupported by a single direct citation. Thank you for proving that you do not know what substantiation means.
Then maybe you should have cited that blog to begin with instead of trying to be clever.
Oh im sorry, I didn't know that you were asking to be spoon-fed
There is not a single scientist cited in the blog.(Dr. Robert George and Christopher Tollefson, the only referenced sources, got their doctorates in philosophy and/or law)
On December 8, 2008, George was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal by President George W. Bush.[2] On May 4, 2010, in Warsaw, he received the Honorific Medal for the Defense of Human Rights of the Republic of Poland. He is a recipient of the Canterbury Medal of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and he was one of four winners of the 2005 Bradley Awards for Civic and Intellectual Achievement. He is also a recipient of the Sidney Hook Memorial Award of the National Association of Scholars and the Philip Merrill Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Liberal Arts of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. In 2007, he gave the annual John Dewey Lecture in Philosophy of Law at Harvard University, on the subject of natural law. He has given the annual Judge Guido Calabresi Lecture at Yale University, the Sir Malcolm Knox Lecture at the University of St. Andrews, and the Frank Irvine Lecture at Cornell University. George holds honorary doctorates of law, letters, science, civil law, humane letters, ethics, divinity, and juridical science
What were you saying again?
As for bias, the blogger in question runs "The Radical Life: Adventures in Christian Living"
Ohh... judging someone based on religion. Whose the biased one now?
You either cannot read or are in delusional denial. This is empirically untrue.Try the third hit, for instance, which soundly refutes just about every other one supporting your view.
Indeed. Then check out her next blogpost. It appears that she went under fire for what she posted. Gee, I wonder why.
Nice claims, wholly unsupported by a single direct citation
Oh im sorry, I dont know that you were asking to be spoon-fed
Clarity is hardly an unreasonable expectation.
George holds honorary doctorates of law, letters, science, civil law, humane letters, ethics, divinity, and juridical science
I could give a flying fuck what a good guy he is or what honorary degrees he has. He has not studied the science, and he is consequentially not a reputable or reliable source on scientific matters.
Ohh... judging someone based on religion. Whose the bias now?
Not the person, the ideas. And in that respect, yes, I am biased towards reason.
Indeed. Then check out her next blogpost. It appears that she went under fire for what she posted. Gee, I wonder why.
I do not; people like you abound. That she went under fire does not mean she was incorrect, and it does not prove your case at all.
Nice attempted side-step, but I am still going to hold you to account. You claimed all the links supported your view. They do not. Your proclivity for exaggeration does not behoove you well, and it does no favor to your credibility.
Citation: delivered
Forgive me, I failed to read through the entire other debate from the offset. Though regarding those regurgitated arguments (they are direct copy-pasts from elsewhere) that you are now also regurgitating in a fine display of original thought:
1. Most of the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions actively disprove your claim; they reference the embryo developing into a member of the species. The few which actually reference the embryo as a life are woefully outdated (circa 1970), are conveniently redacted, and do not expressly state that the embryo is a human life or a person (only that vague "life" has been initiated).
2. The rest of the quotations date mostly from the 1970s, and no earlier than 1981; science and philosophy have both grown since then (why else cite nearly half-century old sources?). These sources are also partial references to whole testimonies and documents which doubtless included opinions against, and make no indication as the actual resolution of the committees or general scientific community's sentiment then or now.
3. The final "white paper" has a broken link, with no further identifying information to reference it by.
I rest my case. No actual substantiation, though plenty of evidence provided there against your point.
I already underlined that he has a doctorate in science but you still missed it.
If you are gonna make yourself look stupid, at least show some efforts.
I am biased towards reason
Then I suppose that you can prove him false?
That she went under fire does not mean she was incorrect
Actually, considering that her audiences are fellow biologists and doctors, mistakes are not tolerated. Guess you know what that means
1. Most of the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions actively disprove your claim; they reference the embryo developing into a member of the species. The few which actually reference the embryo as a life are woefully outdated
Unless you can prove the research false, it will remain.
2. The rest of the quotations date mostly from the 1970s, and no earlier than 1981; science and philosophy have both grown since then
What are you talking about? Over half of the first post had its sources from 1994 and over.
3. The final "white paper" has a broken link, with no further identifying information to reference it by.
I already underlined that he has a doctorate in science but you still missed it.
And I already explained that this was an honorary doctorate, which means he has no educational background in science. Trust me, the only one who looks stupid right now is you.
Then I suppose that you can prove him false?
He has not proven anything, so there is nothing to disprove.
Actually, considering that her audiences are fellow biologists and doctors, mistakes are not tolerated. Guess you know what that means
Prove the former, then prove that the criticism was actually from those parties, then prove that it was scientifically valid.
Unless you can prove the research false, it will remain.
I do not need to prove it false because it does not actually prove what you think it does. In fact, it proves the opposite: life does not begin with conception.
What are you talking about? Over half of the first post had its sources from 1994 and over.
I give up. You clearly cannot read. Even were that true, anything published prior to 2010 is questionable and anything before 2000 is definitely outdated.
And I already explained that this was an honorary doctorate, which means he has no educational background in science
An honorary doctorate isn't something that you can just give to anyone. And considering how much he has contributed to the field of science and how respected he is, how long do you plan to reject the evidence?
He has not proven anything, so there is nothing to disprove.
"Did we catch that? Human embryos only need a suitable environment and nutrition to become more mature human beings. Hey, that’s kind of like humans at any stage – at least for our biological maturity. Unfortunately, the culture outside of the womb is seemingly a less and less “suitable environment” for bringing about other kinds of maturity. But that’s another issue entirely.
But despite our maturity, biological or otherwise, we are “whole” members of the human species – human beings. And with that comes an inherent dignity and right to life.
One of the great powers of science is that it is able to help clarify moral issues like this for us. It’s a powerful tool. Science is clear on this one. If you are a fan of science, then consider also being a fan of human life – at all of its stages"
Playing the role of the fool wouldn't get you anywhere far
Prove the former, then prove that the criticism was actually from those parties, then prove that it was scientifically valid.
Easy. Check out the comments.
Having an account on their site wouldn't give you any rights to post a comment (see for yourself). First, you need to gain respect.
Hell, ever noticed how her post have over 120 responses but her next post merely have 11?
And while at it, which one would you listen to: a man who owns countless of medals and awards and a Presidential recognition for his contributions to the field of science, or the blog post of an ordinary biologist?
I do not need to prove it false because it does not actually prove what you think it does. In fact, it proves the opposite: life does not begin with conception.
If you will claim that he proves the opposite, then it is only necessary for you to back your words. But where is it?
Stop trying to make a fool out of yourself. It was never funny to begin with.
anything published prior to 2010 is questionable and anything before 2000 is definitely outdated.
Your personal opinion has no place here.
On average, a scientific study takes over 15 years to be considered fit for publication (some even takes hundreds). Each one costs millions but are ensured to be free of flaws.
An honorary doctorate isn't something that you can just give to anyone.
"The degree is not recognized by employers as having the same stature as a corresponding earned doctorate degree and should not be represented as such."
Yes, you can give it to anyone. You don't have the reason it was given.
Heartbeats for the human fetus start before 8 weeks after fertilization and life does not begin at fertilization. You facts are not backed up by science.
Look science doesn't actually support you either. Imagine, at 11:00 and 2 seconds the baby was in the birth canal and his life had not begun. Then at 11:00 and 3 seconds the top of his head is visible and suddenly life has now begun? There was no physiological difference between the baby at 11:00:02 and the baby at 11:00:03 but yet to you you're so absolutely sure that this second is the difference between being alive and not.
Your opinion on this is just as subjective as anyone elses. I don't think you should be so cock sure of yourself.
When life begins is a purely religious question not backed up by science. You as a doctor in training know that pregnancy begins at implantation, not before like the forced birthers say and I hardly think me expressing an opinion is "cocksure" but its totally hot to imagine you saying that with your British accent. Do go on. ;)
I am not being hostile. If I was, you would know it. I presented my argument in a logical way and provided proof for my claims. That is hardly hostile. Also, it is really sexist to say that to me when you would not say that to a man. Besides, having a heartbeat does not obligate a women to gestate or give birth. Don't be so uptight.
Bullshit. I told a man on here that he was being hostile. Or at least I think he is a dude. You are the one being up tight by correcting someone who says heartbeats happen early in pregnancy by telling him heartbeats happen even earlier. His overall claim is backed by science. It was weird to claim he wasn't backed by science.
The fact that the existence of a heartbeat doesn't change your opinion also makes it sound weird that you ate correcting him.
I would have to care what you say to be uptight and I dont and Im not. Expressing an opinion does not = hostilty, rage, hatred, or any other adjective. Im actually fairly satisfied lately with life with a few exceptions. If you want to debate my persona, shoot me a message, otherwise stay on topic or I shall ignore you. Having a heartbeat does not a person make. Dead bodies have cardiac activity. It is some level of sentience that makes a person. Even coma patients respond to stimuli. Regular brain activity is what is used to tell if someone is dead or not, and that happens about 6 months after conception. Now sugar buns, if I can depart without seeming "hostile" that would be awesome. Toodles. And science does not say that cardiac activity doesnt happen until 8 weeks after conception. Look at my original link, sugar buns.
I would have to care what you say to be uptight and I dont and Im not.
You cared what the other person said, so you could have been uptight towards them.
Expressing an opinion does not = hostilty, rage, hatred, or any other adjective.
But, you didn't just express an opinion.
If you want to debate my persona, shoot me a message, otherwise stay on topic or I shall ignore you. Having a heartbeat does not a person make. Dead bodies have
You are the one who ignored my statement that was on topic and attacked my question that wasn't on topic. If you wanted to stay on topic you would have done it the other way around.
Having a heartbeat does not a person make.
An argument you didn't make until I called you hostile.
Dead bodies have cardiac activity.
Not for very long.
Even coma patients respond to stimuli.
Coma patients are alive. And, fetuses respond to stimuli. What was the point of this statement? That the early stages before it is an actual fetus isn't?
And science does not say that cardiac activity doesnt happen until 8 weeks after conception.
You are the one who ignored my statement that was on topic and attacked my question that wasn't on topic. If you wanted to stay on topic you would have done it the other way around. The drama is not needed. But, you didn't just express an opinion. Yes I did. Are you saying it is before or after now? Before like I have said many times and I am also reminding you that regular brain waves are what is used to determine life or the lack there of and that dont happen til later.
I would have to disagree since your post was basically only drama.
Before like I have said many times
One time directly, and one time obscurely does not count as many times. The context of your statements made it sound like you could have gone either way.
and I am also reminding you that regular brain waves are what is used to determine life
But, you keep bringing up the heartbeat thing which confuses the issue. Brain activity could be a good place to make a cut off.
I would have to disagree since your post was basically only drama. I think youre amazing, but I disagree. It is not dramatic to say "I disagree because" or "science does not back you up". If I am wrong, debate me on the content I provide. This is the last time I provide an answer to this back anmmd forth over alleged drama. On this site, I behave better than any other site. Brain activity could be a good place to make a cut off. Thank you sir Cartman. I shall post a debate now.
I believe that human life begins at conception. All of you people saying that, in order to be human, you have to be out of your mom's stomach and be able to support yourself, make no sense. A (fetus) human cannot be taken out of mom's stomach because it is still growing and not physically able to live. They need the mom's nutrients to help just as a newborn baby. You wouldn't expect a newborn to lift 50 pounds because it is not physically strong enough, because it is still growing and developing, just as a fetus. In addition, a newborn cannot live without the help of another. If a newborn was left out on the street, it would die. So why is everyone saying that a human needs to be able to live without mom? That's impossible. Every human has 46 chromosomes: 23 from mom, 23 from dad. That transfer takes place the moment the sperm latches onto the egg. So, the fetus doesn't need anything else to be a human; it just needs to grow, like we all do! There is life in blood and abortion is the shed of innocent blood. A man can live without breathing but cannot live without blood.
When the naked eye can see a life. Is a car a car before being assembled? Is the blueprint of a car, a car? Is the idea of a car, a car? Are the many pieces that it takes to make a car, a car?
"Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger portion of the truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant." Edgar Allan Poe
So what is it? Does your car grow by itself? Does your blue print magically turn into a tiny tonka truck? No. This is an organism. A sappling is still a plant. A fetus is still a human. If you disagree then please tell me what it is.
One could say that the egg and sperm are the makings of life, therefore should a murder be convicted of 2 murders for every single person that is killed? Is the seed of a plant, a plant? Seeds are just seeds and just because someone has sowed some wilds oats, doesn't make a life.
For one a seed that hasn't even grown yet is the same as a dormant egg in a females body. It's just a human and the same as the seed is a plant seed. As soon as that egg/seed begins to grow and develop I will call it a plant or a human.
I don't understand the rest of your argument. Wild oats? What are you talking about? I'm only using seeds for comparisons. What are you trying to say?
no seeds are not plants. the sprout that comes out of a seed is. the "seed" in this case would be the sperm and the "soil" the egg. the fetus being the "sprout". sprout is life. fetus is life
