Instigator / Pro
4
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#4280
Life is created at conception.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
14
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Life does not begin at conception. You can call it reproduction. Life existed before conception. That's why this term procreation is really just about confusion. Then there's needless controversy over where or when "life starts".
If you need to understand something prior to participating in the discussion, let it be known.
Round 1
This is a duplicate of the topic in which some finicky requests were made and so basically this one was established with a typo in the topic statement which can be compared to the debate description which appears incongruent.
The correct topic statement is "Life is not created at conception . " "Life is not created at conception".
I apologize for the confusion and this was again just a duplicate of the topic to the debate challenge I made previous.
I wanted to start with this :
Life does not begin at conception. You can call it reproduction. Life existed before conception. That's why this term procreation is really just about confusion. Then there's needless controversy over where or when "life starts".
Someone made a forum topic that brought on this response. Then I've been well aware that people have made this statement through the years of "life starting at conception".
This is where many pro lifers , not all but many that have the view that "life " ....."starts"...."begins" at conception. Just observe those individual words.
Now conception as we know is the stage of fertilization between the male and female reproductive cells.
So those making the statement "life begins at conception" are stating this thing of existence called life comes into existence when these cells meet.
But those cells obviously aren't dead. They have to be a lively functioning substance in order to fulfill the capacity accordingly within their ability.
If people use their words more carefully, their positions wouldn't be challenged. It's time to stop throwing words around.
Be specific and concise, logical and sound in your stance. Test it, verify it for consistency. Do not base it by consensus but by foundation of the natural laws of science, physics, biology. This is the criteria built upon the universe so it is universal standard.
Reiterate what I started with:
Life does not begin at conception. You can call it reproduction. Life existed before conception. That's why this term procreation is really just about confusion. Then there's needless controversy over where or when "life starts".
Now the word "procreation" I believe when we research the definition of this word, it means reproduce of a species or kind; produce offspring.
But what is noticable about the way the word is crafted you have "pro" and "creation". You can say that first part is short for produce. So we have "produce creation". Now when something is created, it didn't exist before. When something is created it means it just begun. Hence the statement "life is created" or "life has begun".
Now you can say this is just observation at terms and semantics. But I'm pointing all this out to look at the larger scope of the picture which I'm a champion of in many topics.
Life begins at conception. That's pretty much the nominal statement for a stance that people take.
I say life does not begin at conception. Certainly the reproduction of it has. Now maybe this is what people mean. But it's time to start saying what you mean as much as meaning what you say. This topic is to shed light on this fallacy .
Now where does life begin? When does life begin?
My position and answer is not all that complicated. In fact it's super elementary when you think about in terms of the word "life".
Where do you think ? After all what is life?
According to a Google search on the word, here's what we have.
"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."
Oh that's pretty detailed. That's good as we can't have a broad definition because then we can almost include any and everything under the term life, huh. Even inanimate objects that function and cease functioning like appliances and automobiles . Planes, trains and automobiles.
So something that has more than a function and dies.
So just keep this in mind when looking at the statement "life starts at conception ".
Keep it in mind when looking at this question.
So when does life start Mr. Mall?
Since the answer is so simple, I'll leave this chapter or round on a cliffhanger. Tune in to the next episode.
BOP is 100% on Pro. What precisely do you mean by ‘life?’
Round 2
"What precisely do you mean by ‘life?’"
I'll reiterate:
"According to a Google search on the word, here's what we have.
"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."
Oh that's pretty detailed. That's good as we can't have a broad definition because then we can almost include any and everything under the term life, huh. Even inanimate objects that function and cease functioning like appliances and automobiles . Planes, trains and automobiles."
Now I guess you're looking for a condensed version of this. You say precise but you didn't indicate if you read, understand or indicate what you took away from this.
I can only get precise but so much so nothing is broad.
Life is something with a state or condition that grows preceding death and is functional including or not of a reproductive capacity.
So despite what the title suggests, I dm’d my opponent before the debate. He clarifies this is just an error and his real position is, “Life begins before conception.”
*Insert metaphor of The Chicken and The Egg.*
So if the topic is concerning life beginning before conception, then that raises the question.:
The life of what?
Certainly not the life of a human being, as that contradicts 100% of everything we know of science.
The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.
Round 3
"So if the topic is concerning life beginning before conception, then that raises the question.:
The life of what?"
It's not really as deep as the "chicken or egg". For instance your progenitors existed before you did as you are.
The life of your progenitors for example. The meaning of the word life has anything that falls under that meaning that fits the description of that meaning.
"Certainly not the life of a human being, as that contradicts 100% of everything we know of science."
You're progenitors were or are human beings, were or aren't they not ?
What do you mean not the "life " of a human being? You just indicated in your statement that a human does have life.
Let us not fumble over something so straightforward.
"The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.
You provide some sort of report of data and forget your empirical sense in the process. You just said life of a human so you already knows this, we both know this without a report.
Being that a human has life , life exists in a progenitor which has to be before conception. A progenitor is human, isn't it so?
This is the whole point of this topic. We're throwing words around not realizing the language we're using. With this realization, everything else including this research report just adds to the confusion.
Perhaps it's just the way you and that report are defining , declaring , determining in which stage a thing is or can be legitimately called a human being.
This isn't the topic of when something is technically a human being which is called life.
It's the life in that human that clearly didn't start at conception as it took life somewhere else to get into the form of that human at fertilization or conception.
Conception, as clarified by empirical research, is the beginning of a human life. As the resolution deals with life beginning/not beginning with conception, it can only be inferred that Pro is referring to human life.
Anything else before conception like an egg or a sperm is not the beginning of a human life, so is technically not a qualifier for this discussion.
Round 4
"You're progenitors were or are human beings, were or aren't they not ?"
Being that you evaded the question, I'll answer it to show your position stands refuted.
Your progenitors are human. Your progenitors are alive. At least they were before you were conceived. Therefore their life existed before you being conceived. Therefore life existed before conception.
I believe you and others gloss over what constitutes life.
Life doesn't mean what starts at conception. No the definition is expanded to the point that covers or includes what exists before that stage.
Again , confusing this topic with another common debate about what do you consider at conception, is it human, so therefore should it have human rights, so therefore doesn't it factor in a constitution of murder ? That's the debate you're looking for and arguing for.
This doesn't look like it'll one of those communicating exchanges. From you it's basically "I'm here to say what I got to say. I ain't changing it so I ain't engaging".
You can ignore your issue of burden. It's still going to be there as I demonstrate each round.
Yes, a progenitor is human but they weren’t human until they were conceived. The same is said is true for their progenitors also.
Extend chicken and the egg metaphor and research about conception.
Round 5
"Yes, a progenitor is human but they weren’t human until they were conceived. The same is said is true for their progenitors also. "
But a progenitor comes before conception and a progenitor has life in order to reproduce it at conception. So therefore life exists before conception.
Think of it this way. Life has to exist first in order to cause conception. Doesn't matter if you call it human or not. The topic title doesn't say " human life", it's say "life" period. You kind of steered the topic specifically using the terms " human life".
I only pointed out that a progenitor is human and has life and is before conception to show contradiction in your statements.
You say the progenitor was conceived. But life existed first to cause the conception which ultimately brought the progenitor.
Also a progenitor is just an example. The definition of life is not summed up by that.
"According to a Google search on the word, here's what we have.
"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."
No where in here does it say it's matter that only starts at conception. We're talking about life itself now. It's the organic matter that existed before conception to cause it. It didn't start there at fertilization. It had to exist first to cause it. Take your mind out of the box and expand it.
For clarity, we can also go beyond the example of a progenitor because the definition allows beyond that. You mentioned the egg and sperm cell are not human life.
The topic or debate is not over what is human life. Just life period and is it before conception. Those male and female " progenerative "cells have to be alive, have to have life in order to make conception possible.
If we had more rounds we can go further into this but one or more of the rounds were rather wasted which could of been used for some of these points to go more in depth with.
Key take away. Something causes conception. Whatever you want to call it, it is something that is functional, that has growth preceding death.
That is life .
But a progenitor comes before conception and a progenitor has life in order to reproduce it at conception. So therefore life exists before conception.
So why then does Pro claim it’s not as deep as my metaphor of the chicken and the egg?
Either, I’m right and life does begin at conception or we are debating something that is unresolvable, as it’s impossible to know or prove and we are left at a tie.
Extend all previous arguments, quotes, and sources.
