It is inconsistent, because you exclude sperm, eggs, my arm, and the brain dead from human life while they are all alive and of human origin. Your simple minded definition claimed those were the only two conditions. You have not answered, you just evaded the questions and restated your unsupported definition of when life begins. You just did it again.
The sperm is human or of human origin. It is alive. It is genetically distinct. There I am pointing to it, dumbfuck. When can you point to the sperm and say it is not alive or not human?
No, you did not moron. For the unique human life HAS NOT BEEN CREATED UNTIL A SPERM CELL FERTILIZES AN EGG CELL. Therefore that unique human life DOES NOT EXIST at the time you foolishly are waving your arms saying 'the sperm cell is alive'... That sperm cell has a DIFFERENT genetic code.
The fact that you continue to spout your nonsense is amusing. Do you honestly believe a fertilized egg = sperm cell, 'your arm'etc??? Are you really that fucking retarded?
It is obvious that you are defining "human" as something more than of human origin.
What are you rambling about now? Something is either human or it is not. What part of that makes you spin off into the above nonsense?
But your simple minded definition fails to make that clear that and you evade the fact that you bring in your philosophy to arrive at the definition of "human."
LMAO... there is NO philosophy in my comment you fucking retard. YOU are the one that keeps trying to bring philosophy into this.
There is no hard science and no experiment that can be done to prove your definition of "human" or when human life begins, because science is not about definitions.
Except there IS... you cannot falsify either of the two points I made. It is impossible.
Yes, I can point to a time after fertilization when it is not human (prior to viability) or alive (the brain dead) and you have STILL failed to deal with these glaring holes in your very POLITICAL definition.
LMAO... no, you cannot, not using hard science. But lets play your game... what species do you think it is prior to viability? The brain dead are DEAD... NO chance to recover. Do you really want to keep making the ignorant argument that something that is alive and developing is equal to something that is dead?
I have not failed to address that. I have pointed out the ignorance in your argument many times. The unborn child is more like a person in a coma who is on life support, not like a brain dead person on life support. Even then the coma is a bad analogy as the coma patient was injured in some manner. Whereas the unborn child was not. That said, your brain dead analogy is moronic... at best.
Your argument is not made on biology or genetics alone.
Wrong again moron. It is. Which is why you are unable to falsify it. Do you honestly think any biologist or geneticist would take your position seriously? That a sperm cell is equal to a fertilized egg cell? Or that your ARM is equal to a fertilized egg cell? Your position not only is ignorant of the most basic of the sciences, but your desire to present it as the truth regardless of the facts laid in front of you shows that you are determined to compound your ignorance with stupidity.
It requires philosophical premises and you are extremely ignorant of all three subjects.
This should be amusing... what part of my comment is 'philosophical'?
Tell us genius... what part?
