Abortion

Scott said:
I haven't 'evaded' any of your questions. I've responded to all of them
Click to expand...
You have EVADED all of my questions. You still have not honestly addressed a single one. You pretend to "disagree" with math and logic, you avoid directly avoid questions, and you chant the same debunked buzz phrases in the hopes that I will somehow forget that they were debunked.

You remain a killing supremacist who ardently advocates for fathers to be prohibited from saving the lives of their children ... a very shitty position indeed.

Scott said:
- some of them are questions with false assumptions
Click to expand...
Nope. You mischaracterize your rejection of math and logic as somehow being my fault in the form of "false assumptions."

You don't get to reject math and logic. You don't get to "disagree" with objective truth.
 
Scott said:
I ask the audience to notice that IBDaMann didn't respond to my point about how a human zygote is far removed from a born baby.
Click to expand...
Did you provide the "audience" a definition of "far removed"?

Scott said:
Everyone agrees that the deaths of human sperm and human eggs isn't such a big deal.
Click to expand...
Nope. To what everyone agrees is that something must be alive before it can be dead, otherwise it is simply "inanimate" or "non-motile" or "non-viable."

Everyone who has no problem reproducing agrees that non-motile sperm and non-viable eggs aren't such a big deal.

Scott said:
Why does that change for so many people once [a living human enters the picture]?
Click to expand...
FTFY. Because people who are not shitty care about whether society permits the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die. There aren't many people who want a society that legally and physically prohibits a father from rescuing his child from certain death.
 
Scott said:
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Click to expand...
There is no breadth of sense. Atheism means "lack of theism" and nothing else. There are theists and there are atheists.

I am an atheist. I do not have any theism, ergo I have no beliefs about the supernatural. I do not believe in anything supernatural or that there are any deities, and I do not believe that there aren't any deities or anything supernatural. I simply do not have any theistic beliefs.
 
Scott said:
... but with his own side here.
Click to expand...
I am not on a "side" except perhaps on the side of living humans. That places me on your side, by the way. If anyone comes to kill you, I will try to thwart the attempt.

Scott said:
gfm and Into the Night both apparently believe that a human life begins at conception
Click to expand...
You are very astute for having picked up on this. Christianity conceals this little detail, but you rooted it out.

Scott said:
- IBDaMann, on the other hand, believes that a human life begins once the embryo gets a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. My personal belief is that once a sperm fertilizes an egg, both the sperm and the egg are destroyed in a emergent transformation tht produces a living human, which many call a "zygote" at that moment in time. I simply do not use the word "conception."

Apparently you are becoming confused by my argument simply stating that when there is a heartbeat, no one can deny that there is life. I don't know why you are confused on this point, but nonetheless here we are. I am not yet able to formulate a rational basis for showing that the human is alive prior to having a beating heart, despite my firm belief that he is.

Scott said:
IBDaMann, gfm and Into the Night all like to ignore the fact that the first stage of human development is the Gamete stage,
Click to expand...
@Scott absurdly asserts that humans have life stages that somehow precede their existences. There is no "gamete" stage. Human life begins at on or after the emergent transformation (sperm fertilization of the egg) and does not exist prior; ergo there are no life stages prior.

... and you don't get to "disagree".
 
Scott said:
I'm not setting any [every relevant] thing aside. The fact that sex may result in pregnancy doesn't change the fact that any jurisdiction that doesn't allow abortions [contract killings] is forcing females [women who willingly chose to gamble] to be embryo and fetus growers [reap the gambling loss that they've sown]. The U.S. has come a long way in giving more rights to females [a minority of citizens who have been brainwashed into yielding unfettered killing supremacy to an even smaller minority of citizens, such as IOW, the right [of a mother] to vote [hire a professional killer to snuff every last bit of life out of her own unborn child],
Click to expand...
FTFY.
FETUS APPEARED.jpg
 
gfm7175 said:
Scott said:
gfm7175 said:
Scott said:
There is no requirement for living things to have heartbeats, so I see no logical reason why the definition of the compound term "living human" needs to include a heartbeat. The only thing that I think is required is that it be a stage of the development of a human being.
Click to expand...
In that case, under YOUR OWN framework, a sperm still isn't a "living human". A sperm, in and of itself, will only ever be a sperm, nothing more. It never goes through any stages of human development.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree. If a human sperm manages to unite with a human egg, it turns into a zygote.
Click to expand...
IOW, a human sperm is not actually a living human.
Click to expand...

As I've already stated, my definition of living human includes all stages of human development, beginning with gametes- that is, human sperm and human eggs. If you'd like a term that excludes gametes, I recommend "natural person".
 
gfm7175 said:
Scott said:
gfm7175 said:
... and the DNA of that zygote differs from the DNA of that sperm, correct?
Click to expand...
It's the combined DNA of the human sperm and the human egg.
Click to expand...
IOW, the zygote's DNA is NOT the sperm's DNA or the egg's DNA.
Click to expand...

The zygote DNA is a combination of both the sperm and the egg's DNA. If any generation ran out of either, the human species would have ended, making it clear that both are absolutely necessary to continue the human species, with the possible exception of the present and our new technologies.
 
gfm7175 said:
Scott said:
gfm7175 said:
Human development doesn't occur until "a zygote" has been formed.
Click to expand...
Even Wikipedia disagrees with you on this. If you take a look at their "human growth and development" series, the first in the series is Gamete- that is, the human sperm and egg (aka ovum) cells. See for yourself if you don't believe me:

Development of the human body - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The stages are listed on the right hand side, starting with Gamete.
Click to expand...
I've seen it. Wikipedia is, once again, wrong.
Click to expand...

What draws you to that conclusion?
 
IBDaMann said:
Scott said:
I suspect that you will find that a lot of people on the pro choice side of this debate place a fair amount of importance on things like the intelligence of pre born humans vs. humans after birth. I certainly do.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in any "sides".
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of that assertion.

IBDaMann said:
I have laid out my position
Click to expand...

I think I can agree with that. One part of your position is that you'd like to control what words like abortion mean. Your problem is that you can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top