Why does life begin at conception and not at ejaculation?

[Person Man]

No one really addressed the fact not every person alive today is the fusion of One Egg and One Sperm but rather that they did not become anything atomic themselves until perhaps as many as two weeks later. Twins.

Shh. That's too complicated.

There's also cloning.....which uses no sperm.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

You guys are way too liberal.

Life begins at arousal.

[Boobs]

You guys are way too liberal.

Life begins at arousal.

Technically, female fetuses already have all the eggs they're ever going to have while they're in their mother's womb. So technically, life begins at grandfather's arousal.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

You guys are way too liberal.

Life begins at arousal.

Technically, female fetuses already have all the eggs they're ever going to have while they're in their mother's womb. So technically, life begins at grandfather's arousal.

Dang, you got me good. I have been owned by facts and logic.

[ProudModerate2]

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?

To believe that "A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception" requires that God be wasteful and inefficient with human souls, going so far as to put souls in embryos that will die a week later apparently just for the sake of having more life regardless of the zygote's inability to do anything with it in it's brief existence.

Maybe there is a way that we can get Dean and Sam Winchester from Supernatural, to save these lost and forsaken souls.

[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.

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

The View you are expounding is based on philosophy and theology, not biology. If you want to adopt the religious teachings of the Catholic church or your new Christian right buddies that life begins at conception, feel free. But don't try to claim the high road of science in such beliefs.

Trust me, your new fan club will turn on you soon if you do. Or are you planning to start claiming that being homosexual is a choice and evolution is a myth to fit in as well?

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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

The View you are expounding is based on philosophy and theology, not biology. If you want to adopt the religious teachings of the Catholic church or your new Christian right buddies that life begins at conception, feel free. But don't try to claim the high road of science in such beliefs.

Trust me, your new fan club will turn on you soon if you do. Or are you planning to start claiming that being homosexual is a choice and evolution is a myth to fit in as well?

Nowhere in any of my arguments on here did I suggest anything related to philosophy or theology. In fact, nothing I said had anything to do with Christian beliefs whatsoever.

Do yourself a favor and actually read what I said before claiming something that has nothing to do with my argument. I know I say that a lot, but it really isn't that hard, Badger. You're old enough to know better.

[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.

The View you are expounding is based on philosophy and theology, not biology. If you want to adopt the religious teachings of the Catholic church or your new Christian right buddies that life begins at conception, feel free. But don't try to claim the high road of science in such beliefs.

Trust me, your new fan club will turn on you soon if you do. Or are you planning to start claiming that being homosexual is a choice and evolution is a myth to fit in as well?

Nowhere in any of my arguments on here did I suggest anything related to philosophy or theology. In fact, nothing I said had anything to do with Christian beliefs whatsoever.

Do yourself a favor and actually read what I said before claiming something that has nothing to do with my argument. I know I say that a lot, but it really isn't that hard, Badger. You're old enough to know better.

It came from somewhere, fhtagn. Don’t piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.

[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.

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

The View you are expounding is based on philosophy and theology, not biology. If you want to adopt the religious teachings of the Catholic church or your new Christian right buddies that life begins at conception, feel free. But don't try to claim the high road of science in such beliefs.

Trust me, your new fan club will turn on you soon if you do. Or are you planning to start claiming that being homosexual is a choice and evolution is a myth to fit in as well?

Nowhere in any of my arguments on here did I suggest anything related to philosophy or theology. In fact, nothing I said had anything to do with Christian beliefs whatsoever.

Do yourself a favor and actually read what I said before claiming something that has nothing to do with my argument. I know I say that a lot, but it really isn't that hard, Badger. You're old enough to know better.

It came from somewhere, fhtagn. Don’t piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.

Your inability to read isn't my problem.

[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.

The View you are expounding is based on philosophy and theology, not biology. If you want to adopt the religious teachings of the Catholic church or your new Christian right buddies that life begins at conception, feel free. But don't try to claim the high road of science in such beliefs.

Trust me, your new fan club will turn on you soon if you do. Or are you planning to start claiming that being homosexual is a choice and evolution is a myth to fit in as well?

Nowhere in any of my arguments on here did I suggest anything related to philosophy or theology. In fact, nothing I said had anything to do with Christian beliefs whatsoever.

Do yourself a favor and actually read what I said before claiming something that has nothing to do with my argument. I know I say that a lot, but it really isn't that hard, Badger. You're old enough to know better.

It came from somewhere, fhtagn. Don’t piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.

Your inability to read isn't my problem.

Your inability to not pull things out of your butt isn't mine. That makes two of us.

Let's recap- You said you knew of a beginning of personhood that wasn't arbitrary. You stated some facts to support your argument. Me, Badger, and a couple of others laid out counter-arguments of how your answer to the start of person is no less arbitrary than any other reasonable one. Namely that the event you describe is not reasonably certain to result in an adult person and that sometimes some adults did not originate from the event that you describe. Now you accuse us of not acknowledging your original premise.

Peanut gallery?

[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.

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

The View you are expounding is based on philosophy and theology, not biology. If you want to adopt the religious teachings of the Catholic church or your new Christian right buddies that life begins at conception, feel free. But don't try to claim the high road of science in such beliefs.

Trust me, your new fan club will turn on you soon if you do. Or are you planning to start claiming that being homosexual is a choice and evolution is a myth to fit in as well?

Nowhere in any of my arguments on here did I suggest anything related to philosophy or theology. In fact, nothing I said had anything to do with Christian beliefs whatsoever.

Do yourself a favor and actually read what I said before claiming something that has nothing to do with my argument. I know I say that a lot, but it really isn't that hard, Badger. You're old enough to know better.

It came from somewhere, fhtagn. Don’t piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.

Your inability to read isn't my problem.

Your inability to not pull things out of your butt isn't mine. That makes two of us.

Let's recap- You said you knew of a beginning of personhood that wasn't arbitrary. You stated some facts to support your argument. Me, Badger, and a couple of others laid out counter-arguments of how your answer to the start of person is no less arbitrary than any other reasonable one. Namely that the event you describe is not reasonably certain to result in an adult person and that sometimes some adults did not originate from the event that you describe. Now you accuse us of not acknowledging your original premise.

Peanut gallery?

Once again, your inability to read isn't doing you any favors.

I said comparing a zygote to individual gametes is an incredibly stupid argument. That is just a fact. Anyone trying to argue otherwise lacks a basic understanding of fetal development. Nowhere in this did I say anything about "beginning of personhood", which you would know if you actually bothered to read what I said.

Whether or not that zygote manages to make it to an adult human is irrelevant as far as the argument I laid out is concerned.  

Next time, I highly suggest actually reading. Like I said to Badger, it's not hard.

[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.

The View you are expounding is based on philosophy and theology, not biology. If you want to adopt the religious teachings of the Catholic church or your new Christian right buddies that life begins at conception, feel free. But don't try to claim the high road of science in such beliefs.

Trust me, your new fan club will turn on you soon if you do. Or are you planning to start claiming that being homosexual is a choice and evolution is a myth to fit in as well?

Nowhere in any of my arguments on here did I suggest anything related to philosophy or theology. In fact, nothing I said had anything to do with Christian beliefs whatsoever.

Do yourself a favor and actually read what I said before claiming something that has nothing to do with my argument. I know I say that a lot, but it really isn't that hard, Badger. You're old enough to know better.

It came from somewhere, fhtagn. Don’t piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.

Your inability to read isn't my problem.

Your inability to not pull things out of your butt isn't mine. That makes two of us.

Let's recap- You said you knew of a beginning of personhood that wasn't arbitrary. You stated some facts to support your argument. Me, Badger, and a couple of others laid out counter-arguments of how your answer to the start of person is no less arbitrary than any other reasonable one. Namely that the event you describe is not reasonably certain to result in an adult person and that sometimes some adults did not originate from the event that you describe. Now you accuse us of not acknowledging your original premise.

Peanut gallery?

Once again, your inability to read isn't doing you any favors.

I said comparing a zygote to individual gametes is an incredibly stupid argument. That is just a fact. Anyone trying to argue otherwise lacks a basic understanding of fetal development. Nowhere in this did I say anything about "beginning of personhood", which you would know if you actually bothered to read what I said.

Whether or not that zygote manages to make it to an adult human is irrelevant as far as the argument I laid out is concerned.  

Next time, I highly suggest actually reading. Like I said to Badger, it's not hard.

The point is that personhood beginning at conception is no less arbitary than it beginning at ejaculation. Your argument is that it was.

Of course you could just be an excessively literal person and this point mean nothing.

[T'Chenka]

I hate to admit it, but F.H. Taggin has a point. A haploid doesn't have a full human DNA sequence and every single gene is missing 50% of itself. It would be impossible to grow itself through cellular mitosis into anything resembling an earthworm or dandelion, let alone a mammal or human.

[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.

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

The View you are expounding is based on philosophy and theology, not biology. If you want to adopt the religious teachings of the Catholic church or your new Christian right buddies that life begins at conception, feel free. But don't try to claim the high road of science in such beliefs.

Trust me, your new fan club will turn on you soon if you do. Or are you planning to start claiming that being homosexual is a choice and evolution is a myth to fit in as well?

Nowhere in any of my arguments on here did I suggest anything related to philosophy or theology. In fact, nothing I said had anything to do with Christian beliefs whatsoever.

Do yourself a favor and actually read what I said before claiming something that has nothing to do with my argument. I know I say that a lot, but it really isn't that hard, Badger. You're old enough to know better.

It came from somewhere, fhtagn. Don’t piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.

Your inability to read isn't my problem.

Your inability to not pull things out of your butt isn't mine. That makes two of us.

Let's recap- You said you knew of a beginning of personhood that wasn't arbitrary. You stated some facts to support your argument. Me, Badger, and a couple of others laid out counter-arguments of how your answer to the start of person is no less arbitrary than any other reasonable one. Namely that the event you describe is not reasonably certain to result in an adult person and that sometimes some adults did not originate from the event that you describe. Now you accuse us of not acknowledging your original premise.

Peanut gallery?

Once again, your inability to read isn't doing you any favors.

I said comparing a zygote to individual gametes is an incredibly stupid argument. That is just a fact. Anyone trying to argue otherwise lacks a basic understanding of fetal development. Nowhere in this did I say anything about "beginning of personhood", which you would know if you actually bothered to read what I said.

Whether or not that zygote manages to make it to an adult human is irrelevant as far as the argument I laid out is concerned.  

Next time, I highly suggest actually reading. Like I said to Badger, it's not hard.

The point is that personhood beginning at conception is no less arbitary than it beginning at ejaculation. Your argument is that it was.

Biologically speaking, the zygote is genetically no longer just the mother's anymore, as it has taken in the necessary genetic information from the father to develop. At that point it starts to develop into something that is completely separate from the parents.

A sperm alone or an egg alone does not have the possibility of developing on it's own. Strictly from a scientific standpoint, it cannot be argued that "life" begins at ejaculation because it does not yet have what is needed for development to continue. Regardless of whether or not you agree with life beginning at conception, there is a very legitimate argument that supports why folks can believe this, that isn't solely based in theology.

[Boobs]

Anyway, the obvious answer to this question is that life begins at whichever point is most politically convient for me

[QAnonKelly]

Wouldn't men who masturbate be murders by this logic too?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

To believe that "A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception" requires that God be wasteful and inefficient with human souls, going so far as to put souls in embryos that will die a week later apparently just for the sake of having more life regardless of the zygote's inability to do anything with it in it's brief existence.

tbh God being wasteful and inefficient with human souls makes me worship Him more

[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.

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

The View you are expounding is based on philosophy and theology, not biology. If you want to adopt the religious teachings of the Catholic church or your new Christian right buddies that life begins at conception, feel free. But don't try to claim the high road of science in such beliefs.

Trust me, your new fan club will turn on you soon if you do. Or are you planning to start claiming that being homosexual is a choice and evolution is a myth to fit in as well?

Nowhere in any of my arguments on here did I suggest anything related to philosophy or theology. In fact, nothing I said had anything to do with Christian beliefs whatsoever.

Do yourself a favor and actually read what I said before claiming something that has nothing to do with my argument. I know I say that a lot, but it really isn't that hard, Badger. You're old enough to know better.

It came from somewhere, fhtagn. Don’t piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.

Your inability to read isn't my problem.

Your inability to not pull things out of your butt isn't mine. That makes two of us.

Let's recap- You said you knew of a beginning of personhood that wasn't arbitrary. You stated some facts to support your argument. Me, Badger, and a couple of others laid out counter-arguments of how your answer to the start of person is no less arbitrary than any other reasonable one. Namely that the event you describe is not reasonably certain to result in an adult person and that sometimes some adults did not originate from the event that you describe. Now you accuse us of not acknowledging your original premise.

Peanut gallery?

Once again, your inability to read isn't doing you any favors.

I said comparing a zygote to individual gametes is an incredibly stupid argument. That is just a fact. Anyone trying to argue otherwise lacks a basic understanding of fetal development. Nowhere in this did I say anything about "beginning of personhood", which you would know if you actually bothered to read what I said.

Whether or not that zygote manages to make it to an adult human is irrelevant as far as the argument I laid out is concerned.  

Next time, I highly suggest actually reading. Like I said to Badger, it's not hard.

The fact that you can dismiss alternative viewpoints as a simple lack of reading comprehension demonstrates not only grotesque obtuseness in not acknowledging the issue is far more complex you give it credit for, and frankly says poor things about you as a person

[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.

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

The View you are expounding is based on philosophy and theology, not biology. If you want to adopt the religious teachings of the Catholic church or your new Christian right buddies that life begins at conception, feel free. But don't try to claim the high road of science in such beliefs.

Trust me, your new fan club will turn on you soon if you do. Or are you planning to start claiming that being homosexual is a choice and evolution is a myth to fit in as well?

Nowhere in any of my arguments on here did I suggest anything related to philosophy or theology. In fact, nothing I said had anything to do with Christian beliefs whatsoever.

Do yourself a favor and actually read what I said before claiming something that has nothing to do with my argument. I know I say that a lot, but it really isn't that hard, Badger. You're old enough to know better.

It came from somewhere, fhtagn. Don’t piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.

Your inability to read isn't my problem.

Your inability to not pull things out of your butt isn't mine. That makes two of us.

Let's recap- You said you knew of a beginning of personhood that wasn't arbitrary. You stated some facts to support your argument. Me, Badger, and a couple of others laid out counter-arguments of how your answer to the start of person is no less arbitrary than any other reasonable one. Namely that the event you describe is not reasonably certain to result in an adult person and that sometimes some adults did not originate from the event that you describe. Now you accuse us of not acknowledging your original premise.

Peanut gallery?

Once again, your inability to read isn't doing you any favors.

I said comparing a zygote to individual gametes is an incredibly stupid argument. That is just a fact. Anyone trying to argue otherwise lacks a basic understanding of fetal development. Nowhere in this did I say anything about "beginning of personhood", which you would know if you actually bothered to read what I said.

Whether or not that zygote manages to make it to an adult human is irrelevant as far as the argument I laid out is concerned.  

Next time, I highly suggest actually reading. Like I said to Badger, it's not hard.

The fact that you can dismiss alternative viewpoints as a simple lack of reading comprehension demonstrates not only grotesque obtuseness in not acknowledging the issue is far more complex you give it credit for, and frankly says poor things about you as a person

You aren't presenting a legitimate alternative viewpoint. You are making false assumptions about what I actually said. That is why I can actually note your inability to read.

[dead0man]

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

[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.

The View you are expounding is based on philosophy and theology, not biology. If you want to adopt the religious teachings of the Catholic church or your new Christian right buddies that life begins at conception, feel free. But don't try to claim the high road of science in such beliefs.

Trust me, your new fan club will turn on you soon if you do. Or are you planning to start claiming that being homosexual is a choice and evolution is a myth to fit in as well?

Nowhere in any of my arguments on here did I suggest anything related to philosophy or theology. In fact, nothing I said had anything to do with Christian beliefs whatsoever.

Do yourself a favor and actually read what I said before claiming something that has nothing to do with my argument. I know I say that a lot, but it really isn't that hard, Badger. You're old enough to know better.

It came from somewhere, fhtagn. Don’t piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.

Your inability to read isn't my problem.

Your inability to not pull things out of your butt isn't mine. That makes two of us.

Let's recap- You said you knew of a beginning of personhood that wasn't arbitrary. You stated some facts to support your argument. Me, Badger, and a couple of others laid out counter-arguments of how your answer to the start of person is no less arbitrary than any other reasonable one. Namely that the event you describe is not reasonably certain to result in an adult person and that sometimes some adults did not originate from the event that you describe. Now you accuse us of not acknowledging your original premise.

Peanut gallery?

Once again, your inability to read isn't doing you any favors.

I said comparing a zygote to individual gametes is an incredibly stupid argument. That is just a fact. Anyone trying to argue otherwise lacks a basic understanding of fetal development. Nowhere in this did I say anything about "beginning of personhood", which you would know if you actually bothered to read what I said.

Whether or not that zygote manages to make it to an adult human is irrelevant as far as the argument I laid out is concerned.  

Next time, I highly suggest actually reading. Like I said to Badger, it's not hard.

The fact that you can dismiss alternative viewpoints as a simple lack of reading comprehension demonstrates not only grotesque obtuseness in not acknowledging the issue is far more complex you give it credit for, and frankly says poor things about you as a person

You aren't presenting a legitimate alternative viewpoint. You are making false assumptions about what I actually said. That is why I can actually note your inability to read.

You’re the one presenting the argument.

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.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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?

[dead0man]

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.

All the chemistry was available to make me 4 billion years ago.  "all the chemistry is available" is a stupid argument, if that's the only one, I must go back to "why is this idiotic attempt at a "gotcha" still going on?".


There are lots of good reasons to be pro-choice, there are lots of good arguments in defense of that position.  It's weird that you guys think this is one of them.