Political Crossfire Forums

[Mycroft147]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: im going to stop our deadly cycle of quotes and quote just this:

I thought you were writing a paper? Why did you arrive here pretending you wanted information when in fact all you want to do is promote female slavery?

As a matter of fact i am writing a paper, if you reaaally want then i can post the whole thing on here...if your gonna be that picky. Im pretty sure i havent said anything about promoting female slavery, thats just your twisted definition of pregnancy.

You promote the incarceration of women for their reproductive choices. I think people who attempt to legislate this sort of nonsense should be strung up by their reproductive organs. They would be in my house, legal or illegal.

I promote the incarceration of women for murder. You fail to bring up any logical arguments why it wouldnt be murder, all you do is twist my meanings with different terms. Say something new and relevant. Do you think everyone who has tried to make murder illegal should be subjected to your stringing?

I see. Yes you are one of those who rely on the shift of the burden of proof for their stance on abortion. Suppose you woke up one day, and your rights were gone. Would you not ask, “Why are my rights gone?” or would you say “Well, it is my place to tell you why I should keep my rights.”

You would say the former, because a person wants justification for the loss of their bodily autonomy. So provide this justification Mycroft.

Or you would look back and ask, where were rights first denied? when the embryos right to life was denied by the legalization of abortion. But, if you want my reasons as to why the embryo deserves this right then look in my thread where i just posted them.

[Citbulldog96]

The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

[Coral]

Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

[Mycroft147]

Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

[The Grandmaster]

Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

[Mycroft147]

Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: im going to stop our deadly cycle of quotes and quote just this:

I thought you were writing a paper? Why did you arrive here pretending you wanted information when in fact all you want to do is promote female slavery?

As a matter of fact i am writing a paper, if you reaaally want then i can post the whole thing on here...if your gonna be that picky. Im pretty sure i havent said anything about promoting female slavery, thats just your twisted definition of pregnancy.

You promote the incarceration of women for their reproductive choices. I think people who attempt to legislate this sort of nonsense should be strung up by their reproductive organs. They would be in my house, legal or illegal.

I promote the incarceration of women for murder. You fail to bring up any logical arguments why it wouldnt be murder, all you do is twist my meanings with different terms. Say something new and relevant. Do you think everyone who has tried to make murder illegal should be subjected to your stringing?


Get back to your paper kid. Nothing worse than listening to snot-nosed naivety.

Funny, through all of this you havent tried to argue that abortion isnt murder, you just sit back and insult me. maybe cus you dont have any good arguments. maybe cus there are no good arguments for abortion.

[Mycroft147]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

[Enoch]

Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

My hair contains DNA, as do my fingernails. Should, therefore, it be illegal to cut my hair or trim my nails? No, it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Just as it is ridiculous to use DNA as evidence of being "a living human being."

Also, you are making the same "arbitrary opinion" that those whom you are against are accused of doing. Saying that human life starts at conception is even more arbitrary than saying it doesn't. At least the other side offering medical evidence as to when the heart forms, brain wave activity begins, the nervous system develops, etc.

[Mycroft147]

UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

My hair contains DNA, as do my fingernails. Should, therefore, it be illegal to cut my hair or trim my nails? No, it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Just as it is ridiculous to use DNA as evidence of being "a living human being."

Also, you are making the same "arbitrary opinion" that those whom you are against are accused of doing. Saying that human life starts at conception is even more arbitrary than saying it doesn't. At least the other side offering medical evidence as to when the heart forms, brain wave activity begins, the nervous system develops, etc.

Hey good job taking the DNA thing out of context. the embryo has its own seperate DNA form the mother, unlike her hair or fingernails. It also has the potential to develop into a human life, unlike hair or fingernails. And i included the conception argument because it is the only option left that makes sense.

[Enoch]

Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

My hair contains DNA, as do my fingernails. Should, therefore, it be illegal to cut my hair or trim my nails? No, it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Just as it is ridiculous to use DNA as evidence of being "a living human being."

Also, you are making the same "arbitrary opinion" that those whom you are against are accused of doing. Saying that human life starts at conception is even more arbitrary than saying it doesn't. At least the other side offering medical evidence as to when the heart forms, brain wave activity begins, the nervous system develops, etc.

Hey good job taking the DNA thing out of context. the embryo has its own seperate DNA form the mother, unlike her hair or fingernails. It also has the potential to develop into a human life, unlike hair or fingernails. And i included the conception argument because it is the only option left that makes sense.

You specifically said "Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being." Are you denying this argument was made?

Now, you bring in potential to develop in to human life. Following that argument, any ejaculatory emission which did not result in the conception of a child could equally be taken to be "murder" by your logic. Also, I think it is interesting that you refer to it as potential to develop in to human life, which means that it is not human life yet. You are contradicting your own argument.

[Mycroft147]

UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

My hair contains DNA, as do my fingernails. Should, therefore, it be illegal to cut my hair or trim my nails? No, it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Just as it is ridiculous to use DNA as evidence of being "a living human being."

Also, you are making the same "arbitrary opinion" that those whom you are against are accused of doing. Saying that human life starts at conception is even more arbitrary than saying it doesn't. At least the other side offering medical evidence as to when the heart forms, brain wave activity begins, the nervous system develops, etc.

Hey good job taking the DNA thing out of context. the embryo has its own seperate DNA form the mother, unlike her hair or fingernails. It also has the potential to develop into a human life, unlike hair or fingernails. And i included the conception argument because it is the only option left that makes sense.

You specifically said "Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being." Are you denying this argument was made?

No, im saying you didnt look at the whole argument and take it into consideration. I said the fact that it has its OWN UNIQUE DNA SEPERATE from the mother is one fo the things that makes it human. you ignored the last part when countering that argument.

Now, you bring in potential to develop in to human life. Following that argument, any ejaculatory emission which did not result in the conception of a child could equally be taken to be "murder" by your logic. Also, I think it is interesting that you refer to it as potential to develop in to human life, which means that it is not human life yet. You are contradicting your own argument.

False. The ejaculate itself does not have the potential to develop into a human being. The embryo does.

[Mycroft147]

oops i screwed up the quotes in the last post, shouldnt be hard to figure out who said what though

[Enoch]

Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

My hair contains DNA, as do my fingernails. Should, therefore, it be illegal to cut my hair or trim my nails? No, it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Just as it is ridiculous to use DNA as evidence of being "a living human being."

Also, you are making the same "arbitrary opinion" that those whom you are against are accused of doing. Saying that human life starts at conception is even more arbitrary than saying it doesn't. At least the other side offering medical evidence as to when the heart forms, brain wave activity begins, the nervous system develops, etc.

Hey good job taking the DNA thing out of context. the embryo has its own seperate DNA form the mother, unlike her hair or fingernails. It also has the potential to develop into a human life, unlike hair or fingernails. And i included the conception argument because it is the only option left that makes sense.

You specifically said "Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being." Are you denying this argument was made?

No, im saying you didnt look at the whole argument and take it into consideration. I said the fact that it has its OWN UNIQUE DNA SEPERATE from the mother is one fo the things that makes it human. you ignored the last part when countering that argument.

Now, you bring in potential to develop in to human life. Following that argument, any ejaculatory emission which did not result in the conception of a child could equally be taken to be "murder" by your logic. Also, I think it is interesting that you refer to it as potential to develop in to human life, which means that it is not human life yet. You are contradicting your own argument.

False. The ejaculate itself does not have the potential to develop into a human being. The embryo does.

I am well aware of that.

But, the real point is why you have said that it is a life a conception, then say that it has the potential to develop in to life. So, which is it?

[Sailor Moon]

only the fertilized egg is what we are talking about. Knock off the semantics, people...

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: only the fertilized egg is what we are talking about. Knock off the semantics, people...

Just using semantics to point out logical fallacies in many pro-life arguments.

[The Grandmaster]

Sailor Moon wrote: only the fertilized egg is what we are talking about. Knock off the semantics, people...

Nope, you are either talking about potential or you're not.

[Coral]

Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

My hair contains DNA, as do my fingernails. Should, therefore, it be illegal to cut my hair or trim my nails? No, it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Just as it is ridiculous to use DNA as evidence of being "a living human being."

Also, you are making the same "arbitrary opinion" that those whom you are against are accused of doing. Saying that human life starts at conception is even more arbitrary than saying it doesn't. At least the other side offering medical evidence as to when the heart forms, brain wave activity begins, the nervous system develops, etc.

Hey good job taking the DNA thing out of context. the embryo has its own seperate DNA form the mother, unlike her hair or fingernails. It also has the potential to develop into a human life, unlike hair or fingernails. And i included the conception argument because it is the only option left that makes sense.

You specifically said "Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being." Are you denying this argument was made?

No, im saying you didnt look at the whole argument and take it into consideration. I said the fact that it has its OWN UNIQUE DNA SEPERATE from the mother is one fo the things that makes it human. you ignored the last part when countering that argument.

Now, you bring in potential to develop in to human life. Following that argument, any ejaculatory emission which did not result in the conception of a child could equally be taken to be "murder" by your logic. Also, I think it is interesting that you refer to it as potential to develop in to human life, which means that it is not human life yet. You are contradicting your own argument.

False. The ejaculate itself does not have the potential to develop into a human being. The embryo does.

So two full sets of chromosomes is the standard? Does it need to be full sets or are partial sets ok?

Male gametes naturally looks for an egg to fertilize. If it is not deposited in a manner where it has a chance to fertilize an egg you are denying it's right to life. The reproductive police might not like that. Masturbation equals murder. Incarceration nears.

[Mycroft147]

Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

My hair contains DNA, as do my fingernails. Should, therefore, it be illegal to cut my hair or trim my nails? No, it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Just as it is ridiculous to use DNA as evidence of being "a living human being."

Also, you are making the same "arbitrary opinion" that those whom you are against are accused of doing. Saying that human life starts at conception is even more arbitrary than saying it doesn't. At least the other side offering medical evidence as to when the heart forms, brain wave activity begins, the nervous system develops, etc.

Hey good job taking the DNA thing out of context. the embryo has its own seperate DNA form the mother, unlike her hair or fingernails. It also has the potential to develop into a human life, unlike hair or fingernails. And i included the conception argument because it is the only option left that makes sense.

You specifically said "Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being." Are you denying this argument was made?

No, im saying you didnt look at the whole argument and take it into consideration. I said the fact that it has its OWN UNIQUE DNA SEPERATE from the mother is one fo the things that makes it human. you ignored the last part when countering that argument.

Now, you bring in potential to develop in to human life. Following that argument, any ejaculatory emission which did not result in the conception of a child could equally be taken to be "murder" by your logic. Also, I think it is interesting that you refer to it as potential to develop in to human life, which means that it is not human life yet. You are contradicting your own argument.

False. The ejaculate itself does not have the potential to develop into a human being. The embryo does.

So two full sets of chromosomes is the standard? Does it need to be full sets or are partial sets ok?

Male gametes naturally looks for an egg to fertilize. If it is not deposited in a manner where it has a chance to fertilize an egg you are denying it's right to life. The reproductive police might not like that. Masturbation equals murder. Incarceration nears.

Once it is a developing embryo is when it becomes human. Male gametes have no right to life as they are not developing human beings. Dont be idiotic.

[Coral]

Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

My hair contains DNA, as do my fingernails. Should, therefore, it be illegal to cut my hair or trim my nails? No, it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Just as it is ridiculous to use DNA as evidence of being "a living human being."

Also, you are making the same "arbitrary opinion" that those whom you are against are accused of doing. Saying that human life starts at conception is even more arbitrary than saying it doesn't. At least the other side offering medical evidence as to when the heart forms, brain wave activity begins, the nervous system develops, etc.

Hey good job taking the DNA thing out of context. the embryo has its own seperate DNA form the mother, unlike her hair or fingernails. It also has the potential to develop into a human life, unlike hair or fingernails. And i included the conception argument because it is the only option left that makes sense.

You specifically said "Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being." Are you denying this argument was made?

No, im saying you didnt look at the whole argument and take it into consideration. I said the fact that it has its OWN UNIQUE DNA SEPERATE from the mother is one fo the things that makes it human. you ignored the last part when countering that argument.

Now, you bring in potential to develop in to human life. Following that argument, any ejaculatory emission which did not result in the conception of a child could equally be taken to be "murder" by your logic. Also, I think it is interesting that you refer to it as potential to develop in to human life, which means that it is not human life yet. You are contradicting your own argument.

False. The ejaculate itself does not have the potential to develop into a human being. The embryo does.

So two full sets of chromosomes is the standard? Does it need to be full sets or are partial sets ok?

Male gametes naturally looks for an egg to fertilize. If it is not deposited in a manner where it has a chance to fertilize an egg you are denying it's right to life. The reproductive police might not like that. Masturbation equals murder. Incarceration nears.

Once it is a developing embryo is when it becomes human. Male gametes have no right to life as they are not developing human beings. Dont be idiotic.

They are human DNA and they are living and they are created to fertilize eggs during heterosexual marriage. Masturbators are denying them God's work, therefore they need to be protected and sinners (murderers) incarcerated.

[Mycroft147]

Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

My hair contains DNA, as do my fingernails. Should, therefore, it be illegal to cut my hair or trim my nails? No, it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Just as it is ridiculous to use DNA as evidence of being "a living human being."

Also, you are making the same "arbitrary opinion" that those whom you are against are accused of doing. Saying that human life starts at conception is even more arbitrary than saying it doesn't. At least the other side offering medical evidence as to when the heart forms, brain wave activity begins, the nervous system develops, etc.

Hey good job taking the DNA thing out of context. the embryo has its own seperate DNA form the mother, unlike her hair or fingernails. It also has the potential to develop into a human life, unlike hair or fingernails. And i included the conception argument because it is the only option left that makes sense.

You specifically said "Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being." Are you denying this argument was made?

No, im saying you didnt look at the whole argument and take it into consideration. I said the fact that it has its OWN UNIQUE DNA SEPERATE from the mother is one fo the things that makes it human. you ignored the last part when countering that argument.

Now, you bring in potential to develop in to human life. Following that argument, any ejaculatory emission which did not result in the conception of a child could equally be taken to be "murder" by your logic. Also, I think it is interesting that you refer to it as potential to develop in to human life, which means that it is not human life yet. You are contradicting your own argument.

False. The ejaculate itself does not have the potential to develop into a human being. The embryo does.

So two full sets of chromosomes is the standard? Does it need to be full sets or are partial sets ok?

Male gametes naturally looks for an egg to fertilize. If it is not deposited in a manner where it has a chance to fertilize an egg you are denying it's right to life. The reproductive police might not like that. Masturbation equals murder. Incarceration nears.

Once it is a developing embryo is when it becomes human. Male gametes have no right to life as they are not developing human beings. Dont be idiotic.

They are human DNA and they are living and they are created to fertilize eggs during heterosexual marriage. Masturbators are denying them God's work, therefore they need to be protected and sinners (murderers) incarcerated.

You skipped the fact that they arent developing human beings and will never develop a brain etc. your grasping at straws.