Life is not created at conception.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
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.
""Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization...."[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo...."I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo."The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]"
The question you should focus on is where does life actually begin
Well I'll respond with another question, did it not start with the very first life form that had it?
Whether that life form was a person or single cell, what is life?
When we're talking about life and the beginning of it, it didn't exist before the beginning. Life existed before that offspring, life existed before conception, life existed before the progenitor of that conception.
Key term here is life. Now people may throw this word around to use it how they will. But I specifically used it in this debate apparently in agreement with how you are but yet hold the conflicting position.
This is my first vote. The topic of the debate is very clear, from a linguistic perspective. "Life is not created at conception". I must say, I am not in favour of Pro's style. There is an unnecessary, and condescending edge. A clear lack of respect, or courtesy. An example "I don't think you realize the question. Perhaps going over it too fast." If Pro was concerned about the issue being comprehended, Pro should have taken the opportunity to reframe their concern. That aside, Con is the one who defined Life. That definition was not contested. That definition included the aspect of death. Therefore the definition is not implying any metaphysical or ecclesiastical concept. As requested by Pro, "by foundation of the natural laws of science, physics, biology." , which is what Con did. Con made a clear statement, with sources about what life is, and how it in fact starts at conception, stayed engaged in the debate in a courteous manner, was easy to understand and straightforward..
Side note, "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."
I never saw the answer.
As is the case with most semantic debates, I get what PRO is trying to say here, but the way they phrased the resolution doesn't do them any favors. PRO continually argues that life exists before conception, and CON points out that a new life is created at conception. CON is arguing much closer to the resolution here, because some life existing already doesn't mean that new life can't be created. CON also establishes this framework pretty clearly, and PRO goes on to argue that life comes from other life. That's true, but not really relevant to this debate with everything that CON has pointed out. In short, CON does a better job of sticking to the topic of the debate.
Don't have voting qualifications yet, but CON sounds good here. They establish definitions early on, and by the end, PRO is basically just agreeing with them.
This is nothing but a circle-jerk semantics argument.
It’s premised upon the abortion debate, and that debate centers on when the life of a potential (not an actual) person (human being) begins. The obvious answer is successful conception, which meats the very basic criterion for biological “life.” It has NOTHING to do with what was or has been determined as the very first form of “life” on this planet.
Will probably vote on this
I am not sure how @ mention works but letting you know I asked a question.
I dont mind giving a go at this but I just accepted another debate with you. Would that be a problem?
can you define life
"Type: Standard" is unrated.
Make the debate unrated and I'm more likely to accept.