Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Life begins at birth. It's ALIVE before birth, but until birth, it's on the PATH to life.Learn to differentiate before you continue please. By your rationale, bacteria is a life.
Bacteria is alive, so life technically exists even in the sperm and the egg. Human life begins at birth. (At least I think so)
Originally posted by crazylozer
Bacteria is alive, so life technically exists even in the sperm and the egg. Human life begins at birth. (At least I think so)
It's alive, it doesn't have A LIFE though does it? A tree is alive, it has no life. It's, as VVD said, an abuse of wording.
Originally posted by soleran30
lol ok put me down with your science it doesn't change the fact its alive just because you place the definition seperatly from science doesn't make it any less true.Funny little man you are.............
Doesn't change the fact that it's alive? Who the hell denied that it was ALIVE? Read my posts for crying out loud.
ALIVE doesn't equal having A LIFE.
A cell does not have a life, it's alive. There is a big difference.
Nobody is denying cells are alive. Feel free to join us here at anytime.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, you're wrong.It's alive inside the womb, on it way to life. It's not part of life until it comes into this world out of it's Mother's vagina.
-AC
That's what all die hard pro choicers say. If they said that it was a life while inside the mother, no abortions. 🙄
Originally posted by Makedde
That's what all die hard pro choicers say. If they said that it was a life while inside the mother, no abortions. 🙄
Stop being so foolish. A cell is not a life.
I swear KMC's general IQ has dropped recently, what the hell is going on? Was there a sale on idiot puffs or something?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's alive, it doesn't have A LIFE though does it? A tree is alive, it has no life. It's, as VVD said, an abuse of wording.Doesn't change the fact that it's alive? Who the hell denied that it was ALIVE? Read my posts for crying out loud.
ALIVE doesn't equal having A LIFE.
A cell does not have a life, it's alive. There is a big difference.
Nobody is denying cells are alive. Feel free to join us here at anytime.
-AC
A life isn't defined in a law now is it. How do you define a life for legal positions thats a very very broad legal standpoint and the more you explore it the more difficult your stance will be to defend.
Have fun AC you flip flop on how you defend abortions.
Originally posted by soleran30
A life isn't defined in a law now is it. How do you define a life for legal positions thats a very very broad legal standpoint and the more you explore it the more difficult your stance will be to defend.Have fun AC you flip flop on how you defend abortions.
Flip flop? You more or less did the boogaloo for all the posts you just made.
Word of advice: Don't come in here, eyes widened, finger pointing as if you're Hulk Hogan when you haven't even read the posts properly. You called me out and you f*cked up/didn't read what I said. Deal with it.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Flip flop? You more or less did the boogaloo for all the posts you just made.Word of advice: Don't come in here, eyes widened, finger pointing as if you're Hulk Hogan when you haven't even read the posts properly. You called me out and you f*cked up/didn't read what I said. Deal with it.
-AC
hey don't get carried away when your backed in a corner...........you have very narrowly defined your stance as this discussion has progressed from changing your opinion on what a "child" is and how to define that to cells..........................suck it up you f***** up and its buried in pages and pages of this discussion. Don't worry though AC not many people if any will go back and read your posts so your safe.
Originally posted by Makedde
A 20 week old fetus is a life because it has a heartbeat, a 4 week old embryo is a life because it has a heartbeat.
A) It's ALIVE, it doesn't have A LIFE. There is a difference. What the f*ck is wrong with your ability to read and learn?
B) Even by that rationale, it's not conception.
Boom. Bye.
-AC
Originally posted by soleran30
hey don't get carried away when your backed in a corner...........you have very narrowly defined your stance as this discussion has progressed from changing your opinion on what a "child" is and how to define that to cells..........................suck it up you f***** up and its buried in pages and pages of this discussion. Don't worry though AC not many people if any will go back and read your posts so your safe.
I expected more of you than the "You're backed into a corner" remark. You're the second person to disappoint me by saying that.
The thing about labelling someone a flip flopper is that they have to change their stance on something multiple times, which I never have. Glad we could wrap that one up with bows and ribbons.
Thirdly, finally: A cell is not a life, is it? No. It's alive, it's not a life. Therefore, life (as Makedde just unintentionally proved by proving herself wrong) does not begin at conception does it? No.
It doesn't have a life until it is born into this world. It's ALIVE from conception because the cells are alive, it does not have A LIFE though. Now if you can muster enough courage to reply without subliminally revealing how desperate you are, I'd be very thankful.
-AC
Originally posted by Makedde
So if it is ALIVE, what right does a woman have to LEGALLY kill something that is ALIVE?
The right that it's hers, the right that she has created it, the right that it's legal for good reason, the right to freedom of choice if it hurts and infringes upon nobody?
Any of those are good.
Again, point proven. This was all laid out for you pages back, but once again you've done the Homer Simpson of everytime you learn a new thing, it apparantly pushes everything else we've told you out of your head.
-AC
oh now flame off and keep your disappointment AC.
Like I said you narrowly define your stance. Enjoy its a law today that won't be kept in effect not to mention I already am pro-choice within reason. You take the route of pro-choice regarless and my opinion is that wrong.
You just like to debate semantics especially about "life" and having one but thats where your narrow sided definition kicks you. Don't believe me wati and see just don't get to disappointed with the results when things change.
Originally posted by soleran30
oh now flame off and keep your disappointment AC.
I can't take back what someone has rightfully earned.
Originally posted by soleran30
Like I said you narrowly define your stance. Enjoy its a law today that won't be kept in effect not to mention I already am pro-choice within reason. You take the route of pro-choice regarless and my opinion is that wrong.
Here we go again with the soothsaying. Where's my KMC clairvoyance? I swear lots of people got it when they signed up.
When/If the law changes, we will talk then. Until then, who's side is it on? I think you'll find it's mine. Keep YOUR morals and learn that whilst you are fully entitled to belief whatever you want, they are just that. Beliefs. Don't go infringing them upon everyone else when you so readily speak out against being infringed upon yourself. THAT'S flip flopping. That's borderline doing the worm.
Originally posted by soleran30
You just like to debate semantics especially about "life" and having one but thats where your narrow sided definition kicks you. Don't believe me wati and see just don't get to disappointed with the results when things change.
More "Will", "When" and hopeful predictions.
A cell isn't a life, and there is a clear difference between being alive and having a life. That's a fact. So unless you wish to continually try to wipe the pie off your face, or at least add something relevent and credible, I have no more to say and neither do you.
-AC