Originally posted by dadudemon
If that would have been my point, I would have argued it, now wouldn't I? I simply disagreed on a scientific level that a sperm cell is just as valid as a fetus. That's not correct. If you want to argue about something else, by all means, go ahead, but that's not what I was saying. If you think that I was arguing about how many pairs of chromosomes comprise a human, you really missed the point. Those questions were rhetorical, obviously. It was to illustrate that a sperm cell is far removed from actually passing as human on a genetic level. I was showing that even a few short days shows, on a scientific level, a differentiation between a sperm cell and a fetus.
Well, if all you meant to say is "there's a difference between a sperm and a fetus", okay. I agree. Could have said it more clearly, but to come back to what you replied to, you could very well make an argument that, similarly to how abortion is in some people's opionion murder, so is killing sperm. Which I believe was the point of the person you said "no" to.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you want to go down the erroneous path you've concluded, then I would argue that the sperm cells are actually the possession of the male who made them, until they are out and about. When the egg becomes fertilized and begins the process of turning into a fetus, that clump of cells belongs to the women and she can do as she likes...including getting rid of that clump of cells. What I'm still on the fence about is when the clump of cells becomes a human with rights.
Yes, now I can see you arguing what I said, it was just very unclear after your denial of what Burning Thought said (who, I, admittedly, think is a moron). He is just going a step further and saying that even before that clump of cells first exists one might want to draw the line. Which is understandable, since the clump of cells is also just one stage in that whole chemical reaction
Originally posted by dadudemon
And how the hell can you determine when the clump of cells gains consciousness? I'm not even sure a baby is aware of "self" even after being born. It is a slow gradual process that is even different for each "subject". Sure, you could argue self-awareness on some level, but I'm talking about awareness on a complex level and not just pre-programmed behaviors. (queue the argument that those simple behaviors are complex or those complex behaviors are just as much of preprogrammed behaviors...bla bla bla...stop "missing" the point for the sake of argument.)
I have no idea, I was making a point. Not saying that what the point includes is a valid statement or even determinable.
Originally posted by inimalist
My bad, I confused what you said with what Alpha Centauri and I were talking about earlier
No problem.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, if all you meant to say is "there's a difference between a sperm and a fetus", okay. I agree. Could have said it more clearly,
Cool.
In my arrogance, I still think that it was rather clear what point I was illustrating.
Originally posted by Bardock42
but to come back to what you replied to, you could very well make an argument that, similarly to how abortion is in some people's opionion murder, so is killing sperm. Which I believe was the point of the person you said "no" to.
And I disagree, on a scientific level. Aborting/killing a fetus at three months does not equate to killing a sperm cell. They are very much different, biologically. The former is millions of times more complex. Of course, one could posit that it is exactly the same because it is simply the destruction of life, regardless of how complex. Since it was an argument of equation, they are not the same on a mathematical, biological, or even a moral level.
However, I have indicated that the once held belief was in a sacredness held of sperm, or as they called it, seed. I would find it hard to digest if any Christian/Jew still held such a belief despite modern science.
Since the argument was that an anti-abortionist would/should equate murder to extend to even the killing of sperm cells, I disagreed that the two are not similar enough, on a scientific level, to be equivalent enough to draw that conclusion. It is a strong possibility that what he posted was simply satirical spite, and not intended to be a sound thesis. I took that into consideration before I replied with what I deemed as a "light" comment. More for pontification and informational purposes than to create a lengthy disquisition.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, now I can see you arguing what I said, it was just very unclear after your denial of what Burning Thought said (who, I, admittedly, think is a moron). He is just going a step further and saying that even before that clump of cells first exists one might want to draw the line. Which is understandable, since the clump of cells is also just one stage in that whole chemical reaction
I see better what angle you were coming from, now. It should be quite obvious, considering my conversation with AC and my recent comments to Thought, that I hold a bias towards a complete human nucleotide sequence as more representative of "human". I alluded to the fact, to AC, that I hold this belief do to my indulgence into futurisms. I feel our future will lean more towards a "Gattaca" type of existence and, therefore, our complete DNA set will be more important than most people hold it as now.
Knowing that, do you now see why I cannot compute an equation between a 3 month old fetus and a sperm cell? The sperm cell is quite "lacking" on a biological level, to qualify as being called human, based on Thought's equation.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I have no idea, I was making a point. Not saying that what the point includes is a valid statement or even determinable.
My post was more epihanous than critical of your mentioning "consciousness". I apologize if it came off as critical.
Originally posted by inimalist
you can **** someone with their legs closed...try it from behind 😉
Exactly; it's sad he doesn't know that. He'd be better off advising whores women to take it up the ass, very low risk of becoming pregnant.
Then again, it's a fact that woman actively try and get pregnant for the pleasure of going through an abortion.
Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly; it's sad he doesn't know that. He'd be better off advisingwhoreswomen to take it up the ass, very low risk of becoming pregnant.
lol, I wasn't thinking about anal, but hey, more options are good
I agree though, pro-anal sex ed would be 1000 times more effective than abstinence. also, 1000 times hotter!
Originally posted by Robtard
Then again, it's a fact that woman actively try and get pregnant for the pleasure of going through an abortion.
ya, stupid women, and their inborn desire to see their children die
Originally posted by Robtardoh i know it can happen from behind just to bad youve never experience the moment from behind or the front without having to pay im sure
Exactly; it's sad he doesn't know that. He'd be better off advisingwhoreswomen to take it up the ass, very low risk of becoming pregnant.Then again, it's a fact that woman actively try and get pregnant for the pleasure of going through an abortion.
Originally posted by spidey-dude
oh i know it can happen from behind just to bad youve never experience the moment from behind or the front without having to pay im sure
Na, if you did, you wouldn't have said this little gem:
"LEARN TO KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED LADIES AND YOU WONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY ABORTION" -Spidey-dude
Well, I am married, so in a sense I do pay for it.
Originally posted by Robtardmarried and spends more time with the folks on here then you do your own wife. wow nice hubby shes got there.
Na, if you did, you wouldn't have said this little gem:"LEARN TO KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED LADIES AND YOU WONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY ABORTION" -Spidey-dude
Well, I am married, so in a sense I do pay for it.
Originally posted by Robtard
YouTube video
😆
so i have a question for pro-life supporters.
i assume that most people who are against abortion believe that potential human life equates to an actual human life because the fetus has the possibility of obtaining such an existence given that it is allowed to fully develop. if that is so, why is it morally acceptable (to a large degree of pro-life advocates) for a woman to have an abortion if the organism developing inside her was a result of rape or incest? if a fetus is just as valuable as a human being, why does it matter how it was brought into existence?
i fail to see the logic in why some christian doctrines accept this moral rationale when they argue that "life is a gift from god." so what if the "child" was consummated under conditions classified as a sin? the "child" itself is innocent. after all, by their very definition, the fetus is still a human being. why condemn it for something it had no control of? pro-life supporters argue, "its not the child's fault the parents were not being sexually responsible." well, its certainly not the "child's" fault it was created because its mother had sex with a relative or that the mother was raped. what makes this "child's" life less valuable? why is it permissible to abort this "child"?
i ask the same for a defective fetus. why does it matter if the "child" will be born with abnormalities? the fetus is still considered a human life, right?