kindly read the moderator announcement thread. resistance is futile.
Alaska survived a late-game rally by Ginebra to win 104-90, leading the series at 2-0 and now one win away from the title.read more
Check out which loveteams dropped and which ones came out on top this week!read more
The ADMU Lady Eagles overpowered UST in 4 sets, ousting the Golden Tigresses and advancing to the V-League finalsread more
Guess the theme! Have you seen Twilight, Sister Act and these other movies? Share your thoughts and reviews in here!read more
Visually breath-taking and action-packed, Star Trek: Into Darkness will please casual and hardcore fans alike.read more
kindly read the moderator announcement thread. resistance is futile.
"With great looks comes great responsibility"
Does God exist?
Tell us; why do a God need someone to argue for its existence?
I accept this challenge not to test Totnak's mettle because he said it has already been tested. I accept this because there is a need to provide information to our countrymen and women on the issue of the "beginning of life" and the status of the fetus. When people say that this is a hotly debated issue, actually it is NOT true in the Philippines; it is only so abroad. In the Philippines, we don't know what are the counterarguments to the Catholic doctrine that human life and personhood begins at the moment of conception/fertilization. Every school kid knows the formula as a mantra (i.e., life begins at conception); but, as a nation, we are totally ignorant of the scientific, moral, philosohical and religious arguments of the opposition to that mantra. Not many will or can openly oppose the RCC position in the Philippines without getting ostracized. Most knowledgeable persons in the Philippines would rather stay quiet and stay away from the RCC's line of fire. So, it is in this spirit that I offer myself to expand ROTer's understanding of the "other" side.
I accept this challenge with one minor request: that you follow this debate with an open mind and that you withold moral judgments until after the conclusion of the debate.
I look forward to clarifying the debate topic, making sure that we find suitably doable issues within the huge ambit of RH. We also need to agree on a moderator and the judges.
Let me assure you, guys. This is not going to be a debate between the "moral" side and the "liberal" side. This is debate between two moral imperatives. I will argue that pro-RH is moral and more pressing.
Last edited by Ateo; Dec 14, 2011 at 09:43 AM.
Now I have something to look forward to.
well, my position would be god doesnt exist, for the same reason that leprechauns do not exist.
i would like to accept this challenge. this is my first time to go on 1 on 1 debate on pex so i dont know how the technicalities work. i can proceed if someone can clearly tell me how the rules are set here.
I propose that we discuss under the proposition "LIFE begins at FERTILIZATION".....I'll take the AFFIRMATIVE and you can take on the NEGATIVE
also, I don't have plans to use theological arguments on this issue....I would be arguing on a scientific perspective....
While the "life begins at fertilization" sounds natural and perfectly understood by you because the phrase is almost a slogan, it actually is not very clear to us Pro-Choicers. The lack of clarity comes from the fact that the organisms that preceded fertilization - the sperm and egg cells - are also living things. When they join together, they form yet another living thing, which is medically called the zygote. If you are referring to this result of fertilization, the zygote, as a human being or a person, then the proposition should be slightly modified for clarity to this: "Personhood begins at fertilization". It is actually at that point in which you (and the RCC) believe that the fertilized cell acquired its status as a person with his/her full legal, moral and theological rights. That is why this cell is referred to by Pro-Lifers as the "unborn child". You are exhorting people to protect this "unborn person" from the RH proponents. The implication is clear -- you are referring to a person.
Personhood implies the government should protect his/her rights. It also explains why the RCC considers abortion as "murder of the unborn". All these slogans imply that indeed the RCC believes that personhood starts at fertilization.
I will argue otherwise. I will argue that that the result of fertilization -- the zygote -- does not have human rights and does not have the protection inherent to persons or human beings. I am prepared to argue that abortion and RH interventions that could cause an abortion of the embryo do NOT constitute murder. I will argue that the RCC slogan of equating the embryo as an "unborn child" is merely emotional positioning and is not supported by Science, Theology and Philosophy. I will argue that allowing women the full range of RH options -- even those that could risk the life of the zygote -- is the MORE moral position. RH itself is the more moral than the anti-RH position.
p.s. you are free to limit yourself to scientific arguments if that is your desire. I will use the Bible, RCC doctrines, and religious practices if they will help my position; in addition to standard science and philosophy.
however, anti-RH bill people like me is quite clear on our argument....that life, regardless of it's legal standing based on constitutional laws, begins at fertilization thus, should be protected....
I'm sorry but I cannot argue based on the limiting grounds of your proposition....everybody knows that the Catholic Church goes beyond the "legality" of the zygote as a "living form".....the church, using scientific facts, is standing on the argument that a zygote a.k.a. a fertilized egg already constitutes "life" thus, preventing it from being implanted constitutes to ending its "life" and its opportunity to become "a constitutionally-protected person"....
looking good, people. as soon as you agree on the proposition, you may now agree on a format and then on a moderator/s.
"With great looks comes great responsibility"
Para may pros and con: Gawin na lang nating - It is forbidden for Christians to use statues/images in a religious context.
And ok lang taglish my english isn't the impeccable either. Kaya nga ako nasa forum to improve my grammar lols. Magpatulong ka pa sa pastor mas maganda Jeric.
I accept the challenge. Sana may magnominate ng mga moderator doon na lang tayo pumili. Post the debate format - the shortest format is what I prefer.
After the holidays na lang ang schedule ng debate since I would be spending time with my family and loved ones kaya huag mo ko istorbohin Jeric. Bakasyon magpepex ka? Get a freaking life lols.
Suggested topic mo: "It is forbidden for Christians to use statues/images in a religious context".
pag iisipan ko muna, dapat salubong tayo. Hingi rin ako ng suggestion sa ibang forumers
Hindi ko gagawin to Elcid para lang sabihin na tama ako at ipipilit sayo ang beliefs ko. Exchanging of ideas ang gusto ko, and i hope na may matutunan ako mula sayo sa diskusyunan natin. At di mahalaga sakin kung sino man ang manalo at matalo, basta ang sakin maiparating ko yung alam ko, at mabahagi ito sayo. Alam kong magiging mas maayos ang flow ng debate kaya mas pinili ko ito.
@jeric92002 & @ElCid
That topic is ambiguous to both of you. NyahahahahahaIt is forbidden for Christians to use statues/images in a religious context.
jeric - inuutakan ka na ni ElCid, sinasabi ko lang baka kasi hindi mo pa napapansin hahahaha.
XIII vs. Frank_Macky please...
SmartDessa vs. Totnak please...
at saka yung mga ibang gustong magpapansin jan, labas na....eto na pagkakataon...bakit TUMAHIMIK kayo. andami dami papansin dito e.
It is forbidden for Christians to use statues/images in a religious context.
So either for or against ka diyan pano naging ambiguous yan? O umaamin ka na ngayon na puede gumamit ng imahe lols? Are you for images used in religious context or are you against? Ang ambiguous is if you take the middle ground tulad ng gusto mo gawin. Kung middle ground ano pagdedebatihan? Gamit ka nga ng utak lols.
Tutol ba kayo talaga sa paggamit naming mga catolico sa imahe o hindi? You people make up your mind. Kung di pala kayo tutol eh baket naghahamon pa kayo ng debate? lolz. Mga comediante hahaha.
So Jeric pinagbigyan na kita hamon ka ng hamon ng debate. Ito na hinihintay mo - I accept. So arrange for the debate. Get a moderator and I have already agreed to your terms. Mag-agree ka na sa topic so we could get the ball rolling. Nagmamadali ka di ba?
I've also been waiting for debate between cedric_Errol and Pyros regardign the angelhood of Manalo! There's a talk about it last year (2010) but it did not materialize.
Banned by Admin
@Totnak, now that the FrankMacky-XIII debate on the existence of God is seriously stranded, ours seems to be the remaining prospect that ROTers have in having a debate. Besides, they have been debating about God for thousands of years now, while ours is "napapanahon".
So, let us try to agree on the theme. Don't get worried if I tweak the theme. I was simply trying to make the contention clear to all. You see, there are things that we don't have contention -- the zygote is a living thing, that it is a developing human being, that it needs care and protection to become a human being. Those things are easy to stipulate/accept. What we don't agree on are something else. About the right of that unborn human. If we cannot find something that we don't agree on, there is nothing to debate about.
When you worry too much you end up making wrong conclusion. For instance, you were wrong in saying that "the Constitution does not support the notion of the 'unborn child.'" Surprise! The Cory Constitution has this: "The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception." (Ref. http://proliferesources.blogspot.com...tion-life.html) Gee, it even used the term "unborn" right out of the CBCP propaganda; thanks to Santa Corazon and Father Bernas of the Constitutional Commission. In fact, that is the RCC position. That zygote is an unborn human, all it lacks is getting born but it already has all the theological and legal status of a human being.
You have all the constitutional things going for you my friend. All I have for me are science, logic and common sense. And in the interest of getting this debate moving, I even accept your original theme palabra por palabra. Thus, the debate shall be to resolve the proposition that "Human Life Begins at Conception". Cool. I am on the negative... and, man, I have a homework to do here, hehehehe.
Of course, the caveats are what I stated earlier; i.e., that what we are debating is the implication of that fact. What does it imply to RH and to our people if human life starts in conception. Should it invalidates the RH Bill? Should the State protect that zygote as an unborn human being? Is IUD murder? That sort of stuff... The pro-RH people are delicately reassuring us that the Pill is such that it PREVENTS CONCEPTION. They say that it is not something that would PREVENT IMPLANTATION THUS KILLING THE ZYGOTE. BUT if that unfortunate thing happens, is it murder, according to what the Cory Constitution says? These types of things -- the gray areas -- are what we are debating, my friend. It is to those shaded areas in the field of ethics that our debate should let the light shine through.
Assuming, of course, that you are okay with YOUR original theme, let us try to agree on the moderator and the judges. I suggest that let us have Moochie as moderator. And let us three judges. We can ask for volunteers. The volunteer judges must intellectually and emotionally be neutral on the issue of RH. How's that?
p.s. You initially seemed to exhibit a confusion between fertilization and conception. They are just one and the same thing. It is that split-second moment in which the sperm cell enters the egg cell and deposits its load of chromosomes to form the first-cell zygote. Henceforth, let us call that event as conception to minimize the confusion.
Last edited by Ateo; Dec 19, 2011 at 06:53 AM.
Thanks for your very keen interest in having this discussion to push through....and like you, I am also very much raring to go on this one since I believe that this issue, should at least, give us some sort of a breather from the undying religious bickering that RoTers always engage in....
also, I stand corrected on the "constitution thing" as I believe I framed my statement quite "wrongly"...what I was trying to state on that "wrong post" was that our constitution doesn't clearly state at which stage of "conception" does life begins....apologies for my sloppiness....
from your last post, it's quite clear that you are trying to argue on the morality and legality of "preventing the implantation" of a fertilized egg, right? I believe that your point is valid to a certain extent IF WE ARE TO ACCEPT that the fertilized egg isn't a "living being" yet.....unfortunately, this is not what I stand for...
also, I'm not confused between "fertilization and conception"......under medical terms, fertilization is part of the conception process BUT according to this conception isn't complete until after implantation has occurred....
In 1965, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology redefined conception, saying, "Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum."
this is what I'm arguing against...that Fertilization, something scientifically distinct from Conception, is where life begins....an unborn child is created the moment a fertilized egg is produced....
after reviewing your recent post, I guess we won't achieve perfect clarity on the issue if we would stick it out with my original proposition......how about tweaking the proposition a bit come up with something clearer?
how about any of the following:
- Oral contraceptives and IUD are "Abortifacients" under the premise that human life begins at fertilization
- Preventing the implantation of the fertilized egg is killing a human life
feel free to add your suggestions so that we can have this one move forward.....
In most literature, and other ROTers may correct me in this, fertilization is the exact same event as conception. But if you are worried that I would equate conception only with implantation, then let me stipulate this: Fertilization is when the living zygote is formed. Okay, I won't use the term "conception". Let us use "fertilization".
How about this theme:
Human life begins in fertilization and killing it at any stage after fertilization constitutes murder.
That, by the way, is closely aligned to the Catholic Catechism item 2274, which states, "Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being."
So, as you can see, the teaching of your Church clearly states that the result of conception must be treated like any human being.
By the way, ignore that the Catechism mentions "conception". Let us stick to your "fertilization" as you prefer.