Instigator / Pro
0
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#4278
Life is not created at conception.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
YouFound_Lxam
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Con
2
1472
rating
32
debates
48.44%
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
Pro
#1
I want to give a shout out to people asking for definitions. That's good, pay sharp attention to words, the usage of words .
I thought of this topic based on what people say .
People argue over when does "life" begin .
Some say this is a semantic argument/debate.
Well 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.
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.
Con
#2
This debate intrigued me as I am one of the many people on this website to argue that life does indeed start at conception.
So, before we begin, I will start out by laying out my definitions that I believe that are important to this debate.
These definitions are basic and have no other meanings in the debate at hand, so I am confident in laying them out.
Definitions:
Life: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death"
Conception: "The union of the sperm and the ovum."
Reproduction: "the production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process"
Pro-creation: "the production of offspring; reproduction"
Pro's goal is to try and prove to you that life does not start at conception, rather it starts before conception.
My goal is to try and prove to you the listener/reader, that life does indeed start at conception, not before.
What is conception?
Conception as stated in the definitions, is "The union of the sperm and the ovum." This statement is true, given that at the moment of conception, the sperm and ovum unite, and that creates a life, whether it be human, or other types of life. We can prove this through a little research into the topic:
""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]"
This is my starting argument, it is simple concise, and to the point.
Rebuttal:
All I can say for Pros argument, is that they seem to be playing with the definition of procreation using the prefix and suffix of the word, but fails to understand that the American language is confusing and does not always live up to its rules.
Round 2
Pro
#3
"All I can say for Pros argument, is that they seem to be playing with the definition of procreation using the prefix and suffix of the word, but fails to understand that the American language is confusing and does not always live up to its rules. "
You pretty much missed the main point and question. My mention of the term "procreation " was just an observation to consider.
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?
I believe we both used the same definition of life. It didn't say offspring.
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.
Con
#4
Rebuttals:
The question you should focus on is where does life actually begin
Biologically life starts at conception for all living creatures.
Well I'll respond with another question, did it not start with the very first life form that had it?
No, every life form is different, so their own personal life started at their conception.
Now if you're talking about all life in general, like where did living material originate, science can't even prove that, so you are asking a question that is not debatable, unless you are making a claim.
If you are indeed talking about all life in general, then you are not living up to your own standards in this debate. You asked a question for yourself, and I and I answered you didn't.
Whether that life form was a person or single cell, what is life?
We literally answered this in the definitions:
"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death"
That 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.
Well, you did not tell me in the description or first argument, that you were referring to all life in general. Not personal life, for one being.
Like for instance your life started at conception.
All life started somewhere else.
Which are you arguing?
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.
If you are indeed arguing the conflicting position, what is that position?
That personal life starts before conception. I can easily beat that with biology.
Or is it that all life starts before conception. Which I can also agree with, because your conception did not originate all life.
Or any of the single celled organisms that are alive.
So, do you really have an argument here?
What position are you taking that in conflicting from me?
Round 3
Pro
#5
"Biologically life starts at conception for all living creatures."
Come on pay attention to the words. If life didn't start before conception, what caused the conception?
See what I mean.
"No, every life form is different, so their own personal life started at their conception. "
I don't think you realize the question. Perhaps going over it too fast.
Did not LIFE start with the very first LIFE form?
The answer is in the question.
"Now if you're talking about all life in general, like where did living material originate, science can't even prove that, so you are asking a question that is not debatable, unless you are making a claim. "
All we have to do is follow logic towards the cause and effect of conception. We know life exists before conception from whence it came unless you're making the claim the very first life form started as conception. Then we run into a problem. We already know as well how individual reproductive cells are made .
The sperm and egg cell existed before conception, hence life existed before conception.
"If you are indeed talking about all life in general, then you are not living up to your own standards in this debate. You asked a question for yourself, and I and I answered you didn't.
Whether that life form was a person or single cell, what is life?
We literally answered this in the definitions:
"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death"
That is life. "
My friend, my friend, my friend, show me how anything I'm saying is contradicting to this entire last response I quoted. This thing is so deep , but high enough to go over your head.
"Well, you did not tell me in the description or first argument, that you were referring to all life in general. Not personal life, for one being."
I'm sorry you're having difficulty but you have to be sharp. Pay close attention to what is said. I believe you and everyone else that does, comes with a common viewpoint on the term life and life at conception. This is why I shared the definition of life. If you notice, it doesn't use the word conception.
"Like for instance your life started at conception.
All life started somewhere else. "
This is kind of fun. Think sharp, "my life " consists of what ? For one thing, genetics that existed when? They existed before they came into the form I am now.
That's why I say as an observation, something to think about, it's the reproduction of life at conception. It's the arrangement or rearrangement of what has already been here, already been created. Life started before conception and has recycled or reproduced itself since. Just as the definition describes of reproductive capacity.
"Which are you arguing?"
I'm arguing that life existed before conception.
Key term here is life. I didn't say personal or exclusive. The word life is more broad than what people mean to use it for. I'm just shedding light on that occurrence in this topic.
"If you are indeed arguing the conflicting position, what is that position?"
I believe you hold the conventional or typical stance about life meaning an embryo or fetus which that obviously has a starting point in the womb or the initial stage.
My position is life in that fetus existed before it did or before a zygote, gamete.
"That personal life starts before conception. I can easily beat that with biology."
You're statement. The topic: Life is not created at conception.
"Or is it that all life starts before conception".
I don't or didn't use "all life ". It's so absolute. I just make the immediate observation that life does indeed exist before conception. Basically my progenitors, your progenitors are examples of my point. It's really that cut and dry.
"So, do you really have an argument here?
What position are you taking that in conflicting from me?"
Hopefully I've given enough for clarification and that those questions were answered.
Just a side note to the debate art community in that this debate thus far is an example of debaters communicating with one another. That's the basic non foreign concept.
Con
#6
Ok so what your argument is asking, is basically the age-old question of what came first, the Egg or the Chicken.
I understand the question but am confused on what you believe in this situation. You have not yet claimed that.
Round 4
Pro
#7
I'll reiterate the position. Life is not, is not created at conception because it already exists before conception.
For example your progenitors, my progenitors.
If you agree with that, case closed really.
Con
#8
Life in general, does exist before conception.
If your talking about a single human life, then no.
But all life for all of history, yes it does start before conception.
Round 5
Pro
#9
"But all life for all of history, yes it does start before conception. "
Life existed before conception, we're in agreement. I would trust you believe that your progenitors had to be alive in order for you to be conceived.
People often look pass the constitution of life and specify it to be no less than a person. Every part and cell of you has life. People specify to be just what's growing in the womb. But what's growing in there came from somewhere just as life itself. It didn't start there.
For instance, your mother and father.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
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.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
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.