Why does life begin at conception and not at ejaculation?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

how is this, the worst "gotcha" I've seen in years, still going on?

It has a point. Development happens before the "Sacred Rite" of conception, it still doesn't mark when development into an adult is reasonably certain, and isn't necessary in the development process. There are more necessary and essential steps before and after. The only argument is that all of the chemistry is available at that point.

What conception creates is absolutely necessary, even if in rare instances like cloning it's accomplished another way besides the joining of an egg and sperm.  Otherwise there is no organism to develop.

[Person Man]

how is this, the worst "gotcha" I've seen in years, still going on?

It has a point. Development happens before the "Sacred Rite" of conception, it still doesn't mark when development into an adult is reasonably certain, and isn't necessary in the development process. There are more necessary and essential steps before and after. The only argument is that all of the chemistry is available at that point.

What conception creates is absolutely necessary, even if in rare instances like cloning it's accomplished another way besides the joining of an egg and sperm.  Otherwise there is no organism to develop.

Cloning occurs naturally. But the point is that the joining of gametes isn't this magical ceremony that instantly makes a citizen.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

how is this, the worst "gotcha" I've seen in years, still going on?

It has a point. Development happens before the "Sacred Rite" of conception, it still doesn't mark when development into an adult is reasonably certain, and isn't necessary in the development process. There are more necessary and essential steps before and after. The only argument is that all of the chemistry is available at that point.

What conception creates is absolutely necessary, even if in rare instances like cloning it's accomplished another way besides the joining of an egg and sperm.  Otherwise there is no organism to develop.

Cloning occurs naturally. But the point is that the joining of gametes isn't this magical ceremony that instantly makes a citizen.

Why are you bringing up citizenship?  I thought we were talking about when a new life begins.

[Person Man]

how is this, the worst "gotcha" I've seen in years, still going on?

It has a point. Development happens before the "Sacred Rite" of conception, it still doesn't mark when development into an adult is reasonably certain, and isn't necessary in the development process. There are more necessary and essential steps before and after. The only argument is that all of the chemistry is available at that point.

What conception creates is absolutely necessary, even if in rare instances like cloning it's accomplished another way besides the joining of an egg and sperm.  Otherwise there is no organism to develop.

Cloning occurs naturally. But the point is that the joining of gametes isn't this magical ceremony that instantly makes a citizen.

Why are you bringing up citizenship?  I thought we were talking about when a new life begins.

Killing is causing the death of a living thing. Murder or manslaughter is killing a person without a good reason. A citizen is a person who is born or naturalized into the jurisdiction a way that all of the laws of the jurisdiction apply to them.

[Badger]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Why persist with your intellectual disingenuousness? It only stains your soul.

I'm not wrong. I think that is a fundamental prerequisite to being disingenuous.

The argument made in the thread’s original post is transparently absurd, and the idea that abortion is the only measure of one’s commitment to equal rights is ridiculous. So why call her a misogynist or its political equivalent and label her motives suspect if you’re not simply lying to the crowd and yourself for popularity points?

My dear sir, I fear to say that you as well or engaging in the same unwillingness or inability to even address the hypothesis. To merely say it is. " patently absurd" is hardly a cogent argument.

I will leave aside the... Interesting... Thesis that opposing a woman's right to protect their reproductive and family raising Liberty at minimum, and often quite literally their health and lives, does not make a very strong indicator of supporting equal rights for women. I will simply note that fashgn has flipped her position on abortion rights quite recently in an obvious effort to complete her downward spiral towards chumming with religious right groups, to find a community that will  facilitate her desire to try bullying people, AKA " triggering the libs". Calling her out on this is hardly inappropriate.

Besides, surely you can concede that after all my years here the last thing I could be accused is ever worrying about " playing to the crowd for popularity points".

Finally, I will note that, after my post that has somehow so triggered you, fashgn did, in fact, at least attempt a reasonable attempt at explaining her argument in detail, rather than simply stating people who felt otherwise were merely functional illiterates. Of course, true to character (or lack thereof), she had to follow up said explanation with again stating anyone who disagreed her did so because they were unable to read.

[Person Man]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Why persist with your intellectual disingenuousness? It only stains your soul.

I'm not wrong. I think that is a fundamental prerequisite to being disingenuous.

The argument made in the thread’s original post is transparently absurd, and the idea that abortion is the only measure of one’s commitment to equal rights is ridiculous. So why call her a misogynist or its political equivalent and label her motives suspect if you’re not simply lying to the crowd and yourself for popularity points?

My dear sir, I fear to say that you as well or engaging in the same unwillingness or inability to even address the hypothesis. To merely say it is. " patently absurd" is hardly a cogent argument.

I will leave aside the... Interesting... Thesis that opposing a woman's right to protect their reproductive and family raising Liberty at minimum, and often quite literally their health and lives, does not make a very strong indicator of supporting equal rights for women. I will simply note that fashgn has flipped her position on abortion rights quite recently in an obvious effort to complete her downward spiral towards chumming with religious right groups, to find a community that will  facilitate her desire to try bullying people, AKA " triggering the libs". Calling her out on this is hardly inappropriate.

Besides, surely you can concede that after all my years here the last thing I could be accused is ever worrying about " playing to the crowd for popularity points".

Finally, I will note that, after my post that has somehow so triggered you, fashgn did, in fact, at least attempt a reasonable attempt at explaining her argument in detail, rather than simply stating people who felt otherwise were merely functional illiterates. Of course, true to character (or lack thereof), she had to follow up said explanation with again stating anyone who disagreed her did so because they were unable to read.

How else do you trigger teh snowflakes? If you have a better idea, I would like to hear it!

[fhtagn]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Why persist with your intellectual disingenuousness? It only stains your soul.

I'm not wrong. I think that is a fundamental prerequisite to being disingenuous.

The argument made in the thread’s original post is transparently absurd, and the idea that abortion is the only measure of one’s commitment to equal rights is ridiculous. So why call her a misogynist or its political equivalent and label her motives suspect if you’re not simply lying to the crowd and yourself for popularity points?

My dear sir, I fear to say that you as well or engaging in the same unwillingness or inability to even address the hypothesis. To merely say it is. " patently absurd" is hardly a cogent argument.

I will leave aside the... Interesting... Thesis that opposing a woman's right to protect their reproductive and family raising Liberty at minimum, and often quite literally their health and lives, does not make a very strong indicator of supporting equal rights for women. I will simply note that fashgn has flipped her position on abortion rights quite recently in an obvious effort to complete her downward spiral towards chumming with religious right groups, to find a community that will  facilitate her desire to try bullying people, AKA " triggering the libs". Calling her out on this is hardly inappropriate.

Besides, surely you can concede that after all my years here the last thing I could be accused is ever worrying about " playing to the crowd for popularity points".

Finally, I will note that, after my post that has somehow so triggered you, fashgn did, in fact, at least attempt a reasonable attempt at explaining her argument in detail, rather than simply stating people who felt otherwise were merely functional illiterates. Of course, true to character (or lack thereof), she had to follow up said explanation with again stating anyone who disagreed her did so because they were unable to read.

When your responses to me have nothing to do with what I actually said, claiming that you lack the ability to read is a very fair statement to make.

[afleitch]

Claiming 'you can't read' tends to be employed in a Jordan Petersonesque by someone who evidently hasn't made themselves clear in the first place.

[fhtagn]

Claiming 'you can't read' tends to be employed in a Jordan Petersonesque by someone who evidently hasn't made themselves clear in the first place.

When someone claims that my argument was purely based in theology and philosophy and a false claim about Christian beliefs when not a single post of mine on this thread had anything to do with those topics, then the person who made that claim clearly cannot read.

[Person Man]

Claiming 'you can't read' tends to be employed in a Jordan Petersonesque by someone who evidently hasn't made themselves clear in the first place.

When someone claims that my argument was purely based in theology and philosophy and a false claim about Christian beliefs when not a single post of mine on this thread had anything to do with those topics, then the person who made that claim clearly cannot read.

Again. Don't piss on us and tell us that it's raining. We know what you wrote. The question is "do you"?
If you do, the question is "why aren't you being honest?"


The circumstances surrounding your sudden lurch to the right and the reasoning you are making are heavily suspect. It isn't like you just learned where babies come from last year. You're what? A 26 year old upper middle class woman from a blue state that was until recently libertarian? Come on!

People can do and say whatever they want. This is America. It's a free country (at least for now).  This is just my $0.02.

[fhtagn]

Claiming 'you can't read' tends to be employed in a Jordan Petersonesque by someone who evidently hasn't made themselves clear in the first place.

When someone claims that my argument was purely based in theology and philosophy and a false claim about Christian beliefs when not a single post of mine on this thread had anything to do with those topics, then the person who made that claim clearly cannot read.

Again. Don't piss on us and tell us that it's raining. We know what you wrote. The question is "do you"?
If you do, the question is "why aren't you being honest?"


The circumstances surrounding your sudden lurch to the right and the reasoning you are making are heavily suspect. It isn't like you just learned where babies come from last year. You're what? A 26 year old upper middle class eoman from a blue state that was until recently libertarian? Come on!

Not a single post of mine in this thread had anything to do with Christianity, nor did it have to do with theology of any sort.  I clearly laid out a purely biological reason why one would support the idea of life at conception. Had you bothered to read, you'd know this.

My political transformation has absolutely nothing to do with the topic (and for the record, I have never at any point in my life been upper middle class). So first you made very clear you have no idea what I actually wrote, and then you presented an argument that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and nothing to do with anything I've posted here.

At this point, you are obviously grasping at straws because you aren't capable of coming up with a legitimate response to what I actually wrote.

[Person Man]

Claiming 'you can't read' tends to be employed in a Jordan Petersonesque by someone who evidently hasn't made themselves clear in the first place.

When someone claims that my argument was purely based in theology and philosophy and a false claim about Christian beliefs when not a single post of mine on this thread had anything to do with those topics, then the person who made that claim clearly cannot read.

Again. Don't piss on us and tell us that it's raining. We know what you wrote. The question is "do you"?
If you do, the question is "why aren't you being honest?"


The circumstances surrounding your sudden lurch to the right and the reasoning you are making are heavily suspect. It isn't like you just learned where babies come from last year. You're what? A 26 year old upper middle class eoman from a blue state that was until recently libertarian? Come on!

Not a single post of mine in this thread had anything to do with Christianity, nor did it have to do with theology of any sort.  I clearly laid out a purely biological reason why one would support the idea of life at conception. Had you bothered to read, you'd know this.

My political transformation has absolutely nothing to do with the topic (and for the record, I have never at any point in my life been upper middle class). So first you made very clear you have no idea what I actually wrote, and then you presented an argument that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and nothing to do with anything I've posted here.

At this point, you are obviously grasping at straws because you aren't capable of coming up with a legitimate response to what I actually wrote.

Why doesn't it? Don't tell me that you got tricked into going to one of those funny churches in an abandoned box store and let them indoctrinate you. They tried to do that to me when I was 17 and again when I was 21 and it didn't work!

I'm not grasping at straws because you keep deflecting or simply trying to tell us that we haven't addressed your argument when we have done so repeatedly. Yes. We know that the chemical machinery is there for a person to form is there when there is fusion. We can read. We just don't believe that to be important because there are equally important events in human development before and after that happens.

[fhtagn]

Claiming 'you can't read' tends to be employed in a Jordan Petersonesque by someone who evidently hasn't made themselves clear in the first place.

When someone claims that my argument was purely based in theology and philosophy and a false claim about Christian beliefs when not a single post of mine on this thread had anything to do with those topics, then the person who made that claim clearly cannot read.

Again. Don't piss on us and tell us that it's raining. We know what you wrote. The question is "do you"?
If you do, the question is "why aren't you being honest?"


The circumstances surrounding your sudden lurch to the right and the reasoning you are making are heavily suspect. It isn't like you just learned where babies come from last year. You're what? A 26 year old upper middle class eoman from a blue state that was until recently libertarian? Come on!

Not a single post of mine in this thread had anything to do with Christianity, nor did it have to do with theology of any sort.  I clearly laid out a purely biological reason why one would support the idea of life at conception. Had you bothered to read, you'd know this.

My political transformation has absolutely nothing to do with the topic (and for the record, I have never at any point in my life been upper middle class). So first you made very clear you have no idea what I actually wrote, and then you presented an argument that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and nothing to do with anything I've posted here.

At this point, you are obviously grasping at straws because you aren't capable of coming up with a legitimate response to what I actually wrote.

Why doesn't it? Don't tell me that you got tricked into going to one of those funny churches in an abandoned box store and let them indoctrinate you. They tried to do that to me when I was 17 and again when I was 21 and it didn't work!

I'm not grasping at straws because you keep deflecting or simply trying to tell us that we haven't addressed your argument when we have done so repeatedly. Yes. We know that the chemical machinery is there for a person to form is there when there is fusion. We can read. We just don't believe that to be important because there are equally important events in human development before and after that happens.

Claiming that my argument is based in religion when not a single post of mine had anything to do with it is an obvious indicator that you aren't addressing what I actually said. It's one thing to simply say "I don't agree with the reasoning that a zygote is equivalent to human life", it's another to argue it is the exact same thing as an individual gamete (which is false) and then claim the person strictly talking about the science behind it is basing their entire argument on Christianity (which is also false), the latter obviously being the route you took.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

how is this, the worst "gotcha" I've seen in years, still going on?

It has a point. Development happens before the "Sacred Rite" of conception, it still doesn't mark when development into an adult is reasonably certain, and isn't necessary in the development process. There are more necessary and essential steps before and after. The only argument is that all of the chemistry is available at that point.

What conception creates is absolutely necessary, even if in rare instances like cloning it's accomplished another way besides the joining of an egg and sperm.  Otherwise there is no organism to develop.

Cloning occurs naturally. But the point is that the joining of gametes isn't this magical ceremony that instantly makes a citizen.

Why are you bringing up citizenship?  I thought we were talking about when a new life begins.

Killing is causing the death of a living thing. Murder or manslaughter is killing a person without a good reason. A citizen is a person who is born or naturalized into the jurisdiction a way that all of the laws of the jurisdiction apply to them.

Most laws apply to non-citizens, and I fail to see how someone being a citizen makes any difference as to whether they are alive (life being the topic of this thread).

[Person Man]

how is this, the worst "gotcha" I've seen in years, still going on?

It has a point. Development happens before the "Sacred Rite" of conception, it still doesn't mark when development into an adult is reasonably certain, and isn't necessary in the development process. There are more necessary and essential steps before and after. The only argument is that all of the chemistry is available at that point.

What conception creates is absolutely necessary, even if in rare instances like cloning it's accomplished another way besides the joining of an egg and sperm.  Otherwise there is no organism to develop.

Cloning occurs naturally. But the point is that the joining of gametes isn't this magical ceremony that instantly makes a citizen.

Why are you bringing up citizenship?  I thought we were talking about when a new life begins.

Killing is causing the death of a living thing. Murder or manslaughter is killing a person without a good reason. A citizen is a person who is born or naturalized into the jurisdiction a way that all of the laws of the jurisdiction apply to them.

Most laws apply to non-citizens, and I fail to see how someone being a citizen makes any difference as to whether they are alive (life being the topic of this thread).

Not all of the laws. Anything can be alive. But Have we identified a person?

[Person Man]

Claiming 'you can't read' tends to be employed in a Jordan Petersonesque by someone who evidently hasn't made themselves clear in the first place.

When someone claims that my argument was purely based in theology and philosophy and a false claim about Christian beliefs when not a single post of mine on this thread had anything to do with those topics, then the person who made that claim clearly cannot read.

Again. Don't piss on us and tell us that it's raining. We know what you wrote. The question is "do you"?
If you do, the question is "why aren't you being honest?"


The circumstances surrounding your sudden lurch to the right and the reasoning you are making are heavily suspect. It isn't like you just learned where babies come from last year. You're what? A 26 year old upper middle class eoman from a blue state that was until recently libertarian? Come on!

Not a single post of mine in this thread had anything to do with Christianity, nor did it have to do with theology of any sort.  I clearly laid out a purely biological reason why one would support the idea of life at conception. Had you bothered to read, you'd know this.

My political transformation has absolutely nothing to do with the topic (and for the record, I have never at any point in my life been upper middle class). So first you made very clear you have no idea what I actually wrote, and then you presented an argument that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and nothing to do with anything I've posted here.

At this point, you are obviously grasping at straws because you aren't capable of coming up with a legitimate response to what I actually wrote.

Why doesn't it? Don't tell me that you got tricked into going to one of those funny churches in an abandoned box store and let them indoctrinate you. They tried to do that to me when I was 17 and again when I was 21 and it didn't work!

I'm not grasping at straws because you keep deflecting or simply trying to tell us that we haven't addressed your argument when we have done so repeatedly. Yes. We know that the chemical machinery is there for a person to form is there when there is fusion. We can read. We just don't believe that to be important because there are equally important events in human development before and after that happens.

Claiming that my argument is based in religion when not a single post of mine had anything to do with it is an obvious indicator that you aren't addressing what I actually said. It's one thing to simply say "I don't agree with the reasoning that a zygote is equivalent to human life", it's another to argue it is the exact same thing as an individual gamete (which is false) and then claim the person strictly talking about the science behind it is basing their entire argument on Christianity (which is also false), the latter obviously being the route you took.

So fine. You are just saying something based on a seventh grade science text book and claiming you have an answer that is somehow less arbitrary than the position from same text book brought in jest. Fine. I disagree.

[Badger]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Why persist with your intellectual disingenuousness? It only stains your soul.

I'm not wrong. I think that is a fundamental prerequisite to being disingenuous.

The argument made in the thread’s original post is transparently absurd, and the idea that abortion is the only measure of one’s commitment to equal rights is ridiculous. So why call her a misogynist or its political equivalent and label her motives suspect if you’re not simply lying to the crowd and yourself for popularity points?

My dear sir, I fear to say that you as well or engaging in the same unwillingness or inability to even address the hypothesis. To merely say it is. " patently absurd" is hardly a cogent argument.

I will leave aside the... Interesting... Thesis that opposing a woman's right to protect their reproductive and family raising Liberty at minimum, and often quite literally their health and lives, does not make a very strong indicator of supporting equal rights for women. I will simply note that fashgn has flipped her position on abortion rights quite recently in an obvious effort to complete her downward spiral towards chumming with religious right groups, to find a community that will  facilitate her desire to try bullying people, AKA " triggering the libs". Calling her out on this is hardly inappropriate.

Besides, surely you can concede that after all my years here the last thing I could be accused is ever worrying about " playing to the crowd for popularity points".

Finally, I will note that, after my post that has somehow so triggered you, fashgn did, in fact, at least attempt a reasonable attempt at explaining her argument in detail, rather than simply stating people who felt otherwise were merely functional illiterates. Of course, true to character (or lack thereof), she had to follow up said explanation with again stating anyone who disagreed her did so because they were unable to read.

When your responses to me have nothing to do with what I actually said, claiming that you lack the ability to read is a very fair statement to make.

And yet, in what is surely not a coincidence, you made the same snide bordering on pissy accusation towards several separate posters besides myself of simply being illiterate when they disagreed with you. Either we were all frighteningly and simultaneously obtuse, or you were being obnoxious. This is an money bet.

So tell us, until your recent pro-life conversion, where you too a functional illiterate for the 1st 20 + years of your life?

[Badger]

Claiming 'you can't read' tends to be employed in a Jordan Petersonesque by someone who evidently hasn't made themselves clear in the first place.

When someone claims that my argument was purely based in theology and philosophy and a false claim about Christian beliefs when not a single post of mine on this thread had anything to do with those topics, then the person who made that claim clearly cannot read.

Again. Don't piss on us and tell us that it's raining. We know what you wrote. The question is "do you"?
If you do, the question is "why aren't you being honest?"


The circumstances surrounding your sudden lurch to the right and the reasoning you are making are heavily suspect. It isn't like you just learned where babies come from last year. You're what? A 26 year old upper middle class eoman from a blue state that was until recently libertarian? Come on!

Not a single post of mine in this thread had anything to do with Christianity, nor did it have to do with theology of any sort.  I clearly laid out a purely biological reason why one would support the idea of life at conception. Had you bothered to read, you'd know this.

My political transformation has absolutely nothing to do with the topic (and for the record, I have never at any point in my life been upper middle class). So first you made very clear you have no idea what I actually wrote, and then you presented an argument that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and nothing to do with anything I've posted here.

At this point, you are obviously grasping at straws because you aren't capable of coming up with a legitimate response to what I actually wrote.

Why doesn't it? Don't tell me that you got tricked into going to one of those funny churches in an abandoned box store and let them indoctrinate you. They tried to do that to me when I was 17 and again when I was 21 and it didn't work!

I'm not grasping at straws because you keep deflecting or simply trying to tell us that we haven't addressed your argument when we have done so repeatedly. Yes. We know that the chemical machinery is there for a person to form is there when there is fusion. We can read. We just don't believe that to be important because there are equally important events in human development before and after that happens.

Claiming that my argument is based in religion when not a single post of mine had anything to do with it is an obvious indicator that you aren't addressing what I actually said. It's one thing to simply say "I don't agree with the reasoning that a zygote is equivalent to human life", it's another to argue it is the exact same thing as an individual gamete (which is false) and then claim the person strictly talking about the science behind it is basing their entire argument on Christianity (which is also false), the latter obviously being the route you took.

Point of order. I stated that your viewpoint was based on either theology or philosophy. By this I don't mean necessarily the specific teachings of St Augustine, Confucius, Rene Descartes, etc., would rather based on a specific personal moral code, as opposed to black and white biology as you claimed so simply resolve the issue. I never cleaned that you based your view from a particular religious denomination, no I left that option open because I don't know for sure.

What I was pointing out was that your facile argument that of course life begins at conception but a sperm cell doesn't count as living, because biology, was founded on it personal value Choice rather than black and white scientific evidence as you baldly insisted.

Now again, to give the devil her due, you did extrapolate on your argument in a way that, although I don't agree with, at least presented an actual argument. You unfortunately undermined it by needlessly taking the tone of a complete Prat, but B- for effort.

[Person Man]

Claiming 'you can't read' tends to be employed in a Jordan Petersonesque by someone who evidently hasn't made themselves clear in the first place.

When someone claims that my argument was purely based in theology and philosophy and a false claim about Christian beliefs when not a single post of mine on this thread had anything to do with those topics, then the person who made that claim clearly cannot read.

Again. Don't piss on us and tell us that it's raining. We know what you wrote. The question is "do you"?
If you do, the question is "why aren't you being honest?"


The circumstances surrounding your sudden lurch to the right and the reasoning you are making are heavily suspect. It isn't like you just learned where babies come from last year. You're what? A 26 year old upper middle class eoman from a blue state that was until recently libertarian? Come on!

Not a single post of mine in this thread had anything to do with Christianity, nor did it have to do with theology of any sort.  I clearly laid out a purely biological reason why one would support the idea of life at conception. Had you bothered to read, you'd know this.

My political transformation has absolutely nothing to do with the topic (and for the record, I have never at any point in my life been upper middle class). So first you made very clear you have no idea what I actually wrote, and then you presented an argument that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and nothing to do with anything I've posted here.

At this point, you are obviously grasping at straws because you aren't capable of coming up with a legitimate response to what I actually wrote.

Why doesn't it? Don't tell me that you got tricked into going to one of those funny churches in an abandoned box store and let them indoctrinate you. They tried to do that to me when I was 17 and again when I was 21 and it didn't work!

I'm not grasping at straws because you keep deflecting or simply trying to tell us that we haven't addressed your argument when we have done so repeatedly. Yes. We know that the chemical machinery is there for a person to form is there when there is fusion. We can read. We just don't believe that to be important because there are equally important events in human development before and after that happens.

Claiming that my argument is based in religion when not a single post of mine had anything to do with it is an obvious indicator that you aren't addressing what I actually said. It's one thing to simply say "I don't agree with the reasoning that a zygote is equivalent to human life", it's another to argue it is the exact same thing as an individual gamete (which is false) and then claim the person strictly talking about the science behind it is basing their entire argument on Christianity (which is also false), the latter obviously being the route you took.

Point of order. I stated that your viewpoint was based on either theology or philosophy. By this I don't mean necessarily the specific teachings of St Augustine, Confucius, Rene Descartes, etc., would rather based on a specific personal moral code, as opposed to black and white biology as you claimed so simply resolve the issue. I never cleaned that you based your view from a particular religious denomination, no I left that option open because I don't know for sure.

What I was pointing out was that your facile argument that of course life begins at conception but a sperm cell doesn't count as living, because biology, was founded on it personal value Choice rather than black and white scientific evidence as you baldly insisted.

Now again, to give the devil her due, you did extrapolate on your argument in a way that, although I don't agree with, at least presented an actual argument. You unfortunately undermined it by needlessly taking the tone of a complete Prat, but B- for effort.

What's a Prat? Is that another synonym for fhtagn?

[Badger]

Claiming 'you can't read' tends to be employed in a Jordan Petersonesque by someone who evidently hasn't made themselves clear in the first place.

When someone claims that my argument was purely based in theology and philosophy and a false claim about Christian beliefs when not a single post of mine on this thread had anything to do with those topics, then the person who made that claim clearly cannot read.

Again. Don't piss on us and tell us that it's raining. We know what you wrote. The question is "do you"?
If you do, the question is "why aren't you being honest?"


The circumstances surrounding your sudden lurch to the right and the reasoning you are making are heavily suspect. It isn't like you just learned where babies come from last year. You're what? A 26 year old upper middle class eoman from a blue state that was until recently libertarian? Come on!

Not a single post of mine in this thread had anything to do with Christianity, nor did it have to do with theology of any sort.  I clearly laid out a purely biological reason why one would support the idea of life at conception. Had you bothered to read, you'd know this.

My political transformation has absolutely nothing to do with the topic (and for the record, I have never at any point in my life been upper middle class). So first you made very clear you have no idea what I actually wrote, and then you presented an argument that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and nothing to do with anything I've posted here.

At this point, you are obviously grasping at straws because you aren't capable of coming up with a legitimate response to what I actually wrote.

Why doesn't it? Don't tell me that you got tricked into going to one of those funny churches in an abandoned box store and let them indoctrinate you. They tried to do that to me when I was 17 and again when I was 21 and it didn't work!

I'm not grasping at straws because you keep deflecting or simply trying to tell us that we haven't addressed your argument when we have done so repeatedly. Yes. We know that the chemical machinery is there for a person to form is there when there is fusion. We can read. We just don't believe that to be important because there are equally important events in human development before and after that happens.

Claiming that my argument is based in religion when not a single post of mine had anything to do with it is an obvious indicator that you aren't addressing what I actually said. It's one thing to simply say "I don't agree with the reasoning that a zygote is equivalent to human life", it's another to argue it is the exact same thing as an individual gamete (which is false) and then claim the person strictly talking about the science behind it is basing their entire argument on Christianity (which is also false), the latter obviously being the route you took.

Point of order. I stated that your viewpoint was based on either theology or philosophy. By this I don't mean necessarily the specific teachings of St Augustine, Confucius, Rene Descartes, etc., would rather based on a specific personal moral code, as opposed to black and white biology as you claimed so simply resolve the issue. I never cleaned that you based your view from a particular religious denomination, no I left that option open because I don't know for sure.

What I was pointing out was that your facile argument that of course life begins at conception but a sperm cell doesn't count as living, because biology, was founded on it personal value Choice rather than black and white scientific evidence as you baldly insisted.

Now again, to give the devil her due, you did extrapolate on your argument in a way that, although I don't agree with, at least presented an actual argument. You unfortunately undermined it by needlessly taking the tone of a complete Prat, but B- for effort.

What's a Prat? Is that another synonym for fhtagn?

prat
n. English term, primarily used in United Kingdom. The literal meaning is "bottom" or "rump"; aka backside, buttocks, sacrum, tail end. This lends itself to the slang meaning of "ass," or "clueless person of arrogant stupidity."

So, yes, kind of.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

A sperm, all alone, will never grow to be a human being.  It cannot.  A fertilized egg, left alone, with nothing else added to it, will pass through the stages of human development as I did.  

A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception.

That's Human Life in God's Eyes, and it's long been settled in Heaven, regardless of the nonsense on Earth.

The majority of  fertilized eggs don't make it the whole nine months. Do you think the afterlife is mainly populated by the "unborn"?

I don't believe so, but what's the significance of that if that's the case?

... But ... why not?

You say that all fertilized eggs have a soul, and everyone goes to Heaven if they did before their 12th birthdate.

So if 50% of fertilized eggs don't implant, then half of everyone in Heaven would be single-cells if all born humans made it to Heaven too. On top of that, you've made it VERY clear that no non-Christians go to Heaven, so we're now talking like a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of non-borns to borns in Heaven, probably more since you've also suggested that a lot of self-identified Christians don't make it there.

And I say this not to pick a fight about the belief, just to point out that you can't simultaneously believe that fertilized eggs have souls and go to Heaven AND disagree that most souls in Heaven would be non-implanting fertilized eggs.

Children under the age of 12 are saved.  Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu; all go to Heaven under the age of 12 (which is the Biblical Age of Responsibility).

But that Buddhist kid rural Burma, or the Muslim kid in the Bedouin lands of Saudi Arabia, turns 13 and doesn't immediately convert, he is going to burn in hell fire for all eternity!

Fuzzy, you can save the but the Bible says Jesus is the only way, I will spare you the many verses saying that salvation is based on Good Works. You just underlined why religious Fanatics like you should not be empowered with the ability to make legislation.

Sorry, but I won't spare you.  This is America, and you are not entitled to a life where you never have to be confronted with the Gospel again.  And, as an added bonus, I'm within the terms of the ToS.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Life beging when a man feels his pants suddenly getting too tight.

[Person Man]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

A sperm, all alone, will never grow to be a human being.  It cannot.  A fertilized egg, left alone, with nothing else added to it, will pass through the stages of human development as I did.  

A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception.

That's Human Life in God's Eyes, and it's long been settled in Heaven, regardless of the nonsense on Earth.

The majority of  fertilized eggs don't make it the whole nine months. Do you think the afterlife is mainly populated by the "unborn"?

I don't believe so, but what's the significance of that if that's the case?

... But ... why not?

You say that all fertilized eggs have a soul, and everyone goes to Heaven if they did before their 12th birthdate.

So if 50% of fertilized eggs don't implant, then half of everyone in Heaven would be single-cells if all born humans made it to Heaven too. On top of that, you've made it VERY clear that no non-Christians go to Heaven, so we're now talking like a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of non-borns to borns in Heaven, probably more since you've also suggested that a lot of self-identified Christians don't make it there.

And I say this not to pick a fight about the belief, just to point out that you can't simultaneously believe that fertilized eggs have souls and go to Heaven AND disagree that most souls in Heaven would be non-implanting fertilized eggs.

Children under the age of 12 are saved.  Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu; all go to Heaven under the age of 12 (which is the Biblical Age of Responsibility).

But that Buddhist kid rural Burma, or the Muslim kid in the Bedouin lands of Saudi Arabia, turns 13 and doesn't immediately convert, he is going to burn in hell fire for all eternity!

Fuzzy, you can save the but the Bible says Jesus is the only way, I will spare you the many verses saying that salvation is based on Good Works. You just underlined why religious Fanatics like you should not be empowered with the ability to make legislation.

Sorry, but I won't spare you.  This is America, and you are not entitled to a life where you never have to be confronted with the Gospel again.  And, as an added bonus, I'm within the terms of the ToS.

Wanting abortion to be illegal can be a biblical stance but not because the Bible says it is murder. I would totally be on board 100% if I already felt like I was a parent if I had a reasonable suspicion that I had just knocked someone up.

[HisGrace]

I am mostly pro-choice but this just isn't a very good argument. There's nothing inherently inconsistent about saying that life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg and not just with the sperm itself. This isn't any better than when pro-lifers ask why pro-choicers don't support killing babies after they're born, as if that's inconsistent with their position. The pro choice position is usually that life begins when the baby is born, not before or after, and the pro life position is usually that life begins at conception, not before or after.

The argument to make here is that a zygote is about the size of a marble and doesn't have any of the traits that would identify sentient human life.  Everything isn't about playing "gotcha" and trying to catch someone being hypocritical.