Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Masturbation is a lot more [b]pleasurable than Abortion though droolioAnd not as violent.
You're also not actually killing anything when you masturbate. Your sperm dies within two days anyway, in or out of your body. [/B]
your sperm operate independantly, which makes them more of a life than a zygote, though i believe technically neither is considered a life form.
Originally posted by debbiejo
A zygote is a union which is then potential life. A sperm by it's self is nothing then a waste of joy...lol
wrong. a sperm has the potential to fertilise an egg, the same as a zygote has the potential of becoming a life. when dealing with the philosophy surrounding 'potential' you lack the authority to draw any indisputable lines. potential is simply what might possibly be.
Originally posted by Schecter
wrong. a sperm has the potential to fertilise an egg, the same as a zygote has the potential of becoming a life. when dealing with the philosophy surrounding 'potential' you lack the authority to draw any indisputable lines. potential is simply what might possibly be.
Potential to produce potential for life would seem to be rather below direct potential to create life.
Originally posted by SchecterNo. A zygote has the potential. A sperm or egg by it's self does not. Do you eat eggs? Are there widdle chickens in there? NO. The process has already begun. It never began until the union.
wrong. a sperm has the potential to fertilise an egg, the same as a zygote has the potential of becoming a life form. when dealing with the philosophy surrounding 'potential' you lack the authority to draw any indisputable lines. potential is simply what might possibly be.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Potential to produce potential for life would seem to be rather below direct potential to create life.
a sperm fertilising an egg seems pretty direct to me. take the case of protected sex. i fail to see how this is any less destroying of potential to create life. unless of course you consider a zygote to be a life, which is incorrect. in both cases the potential to create life is being willfully prevented.
Originally posted by debbiejo
No. A zygote has the potential. A sperm or egg by it's self does not. Do you eat eggs? Are there widdle chickens in there? NO. The process has already begun. It never began until the union.
the eggs we eat are already fertilised. wow...i cant believe i have to tell you this...not that its relevant to the topic, but...wow
I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it:
Every person has a right to life, so the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body, everyone would grant that. But surely, a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed, an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible, but now let me ask you to imagine this:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinist . . . a famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. Therefore, they have kidnapped you, and last night, the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.
The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you, we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months, by then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still?
What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but now you've got to stay in bed with the violinist plugged into you for the rest of your life, because remember this: All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted, you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body, so you cannot ever be unplugged from him."
I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
naaa i refuse to entertain the delusion that a zygote is a human being. the response you will likely recieve, however, is that the woman willingly had sex so she deserves her punishment of having an unwanted baby, as the future baby must be punished for first becoming a zygote in an unwanting mother's womb.
its just an invitation for more faith based responses of dimwittery, despite its well intention.
Originally posted by SchecterNow you are expanding on what I had said previously. I had said that a zygote is a potential life. And that the decision could be made to end it. You talked about only a sperm as a potential life, which is incorrect, just as an egg is.
naaa i refuse to entertain the delusion that a zygote is a human being. the response you will likely recieve, however, is that the woman willingly had sex so she deserves her punishment of having an unwanted baby, as the future baby must be punished for first becoming a zygote in an unwanting mother's womb.its just an invitation for more faith based responses of dimwittery, despite its well intention.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Now you are expanding on what I had said previously. I had said that a zygote is a potential life. And that the decision could be made to end it. You talked about only a sperm as a potential life, which is incorrect, just as an egg is.
fertilisation begins a process of a single embryonic cell growing into zygote/fetus, and eventually an infant human being. however the potential of fertilization, blocked by a wall of latex, is still a case of lost potential. i cant see how this is silly, yet declaring a single cell to be a human being is valid.
Originally posted by SchecterLook back. You stated that sperm was potential life.......It's not.
fertilisation begins a process of a single embryonic cell growing into zygote/fetus, and eventually an infant human being. however the potential of fertilization, blocked by a wall of latex, is still a case of lost potential. i cant see how this is silly, yet declaring a single cell to be a human being is valid.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Look back. You stated that sperm was potential life.......It's not.
if i actually said those words, which i doubt i did, let me rephrase it:
a sperm has the potential to create life, the same as a zygote has the potential to create life. the difference is that a zygote is the product of a sperm and egg, the same as a baby is the product of a zygote, and by extention a sperm and egg.
every sperm has the genetic code to fertilise, and is only meant for just that. it has the potential to create life. i never said that it does this on its own, and furthermore its rather silly if you intend to attempt to pin me down by suggesting just that.
Originally posted by SchecterAhh, which you did. Sperm does not have the effect to create life. It only has the CHANCE to create life, just as the egg does. The zygote is the union and already has the potential for a living being.
if i actually said those words, which i doubt i did, let me rephrase it:
a sperm has the potential to create life, the same as a zygote has the potential to create life. the difference is that a zygote is the product of a sperm and egg, the same as a baby is the product of a zygote, and by extention a sperm and egg.every sperm has the genetic code to fertilise, and is only meant for just that. it has the potential to create life. i never said that it does this on its own, and furthermore its rather silly if you intend to attempt to pin me down by suggesting just that.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Ahh, which you did.
ahh, which i didnt
Originally posted by debbiejo
Sperm does not have the effect to create life.
yes it does. without it life will not be created.
Originally posted by debbiejo
It only has the CHANCE to create life, just as the egg does. The zygote is the union and already has the potential for a living being.
while im happy that you acknowledge that a zygote is not a living being, i cant understand how you're able to draw a line between a wasted sperm/egg and a wasted zygote. all mentioned are part of the process of creating life. a man can choose to impregnate a woman as opposed to jacking off in a kleenex. we are discussing potential. this is a far-reaching concept which you are not properly grasping, imho.