Originally posted by SchecterGo back and read. You said that sperm has the potential to create life. It doesn't. It's only a seed. It's only a half. The chances without it are zilch,...nada.......
YouTube video
Zygotes on the other hand have the chance.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
Can you do it with a rock guitarist?
More readable.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Go back and read. You said that sperm has the potential to create life.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Sperm does not have the effect to create life. It only has the CHANCE to create life, just as the egg does.
make up your mind. what, exactly did i say, since you obviously refuse to have a debate and insist on trying to pin me down with misquotes. you are attempting to quote me as saying that a sperm, alone, creates life. i never said this, and you need to get over that or else ill lose interest in this exchange.
Originally posted by SchecterYou stated that sperm had the potential to create life.........But it doesn't. Nor does an egg. it's only the union that does...........Okay?
make up your mind. what, exactly did i say, since you obviously refuse to have a debate and insist on trying to pin me down with misquotes. you are attempting to quote me as saying that a sperm, alone, creates life. i never said this, and you need to get over that or else ill lose interest in this exchange.
Originally posted by debbiejo
You stated that sperm had the potential to create life.........But it doesn't. Nor does an egg. it's only the union that does...........Okay?
a sperm has the potential to fertilise an egg, thus creating life.
can you just accept perhaps the most profound law of nature and we can move on?
the same way that the owner of the sperm has the potential to create life, the same as the owner of the egg and eventual zygote. its a series of events all based on potential...and such is life, really.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Okay, this is an abortion. You take out something that has potential life. In fact it does have life, but you just ended it.
QUOTE=9575300]Originally posted by Schecter
as is male masturbation. whats you're point? [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by debbiejo
No, I mean that it's potential life after the egg and sperm meet. Not before they do.
Originally posted by debbiejo
I think everyone knows that one half does not make a whole...ie..life..
I believe that everyone understand that it does take two parts to make a whole.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Stumped man! 🙄Eat your words.......
wtf is your malfunction?
Originally posted by debbiejo
I met saw Tyson in a restaurant here........... 🙄 😂Now that I think of it, it was Tommy Herns.
Originally posted by schecter
wtf is your malfunction?
Originally posted by debbiejo
Don't be. It'll ruin you night........
Originally posted by schecter
wtf is your malfunction?
Originally posted by debbiejo
Oh, that you think sperm alone can make life, just as an egg can?..ie potential?
you're just trying to misquote me. its very immature...especially for a senior citizen. please stop. you dont want to read and participate in a debate. accepted. since i cant get the last few minutes of my life back ill just beg you to stfu and go to sleep.