how is anyone gonna confine her from going to the clinic/hospital? tie/lock her up?
again i agree a father has a right but...she is the one who needs to go through with the pregnancy for 9 months not the male.
No, the decision does not ultimately come down to her. It's not fair at all for a woman to just decide to kill a man's child simply because … moreshe doesn't want it. I'm talking about in cases of consensual sex, not rape. If she doesn't then the father should be able to have the choice to raise the baby himself if that bitch doesn't want it.
how is anyone gonna confine her from going to the clinic/hospital? tie/lock her up?
again i agree a father has a right but...she is the one who needs to go through with the pregnancy for 9 months not the male.
Everybody fucking dies. Most egg and sperm don't fucking make it, who cares if some do but the mother doesn't want it. If never fertilised, the egg and sperm would've been flushed out anyway.
So just because everyone dies at some point, just go ahead and kill whoever, right?
Most egg and sperm don't fucking make it, who cares if some do but the mother doesn't want it. If never fertilised, the egg and sperm would've been flushed out anyway.
"If" never fertilized. There is a huge difference between a developing human and an egg that never got fertilized.
Everybody fucking dies. Most egg and sperm don't fucking make it, who cares if some do but the mother doesn't want it. If never fertilised, the egg and sperm would've been flushed out anyway.
If it can't live outside the mother's body, it is essentially a parasite. There isn't really that big a different, both the unfertilised and fertilised are potential lives. Jerking off and having an abortion are effectively the same thing.
If it can't live outside the mother's body, it is essentially a parasite. There isn't really that big a different, both the unfertilised and fertilised are potential lives. Jerking off and having an abortion are effectively the same thing.
Everybody fucking dies
So just because everyone dies at some point, just go ahead and kill whoever, right?
Most egg and sperm … moredon't fucking make it, who cares if some do but the mother doesn't want it. If never fertilised, the egg and sperm would've been flushed out anyway.
"If" never fertilized. There is a huge difference between a developing human and an egg that never got fertilized.
If it can't live outside the mother's body, it is essentially a parasite.
Because it can't yet live on it's own? What does that even matter? Either way, it's a human being. Obviously it has to start somewhere. It's stage of development doesn't justify killing it, not by any means what so ever.
Jerking off and having an abortion are effectively the same thing.
Not even a little. In one case you're clearly killing a human being, no matter how you want to downplay it. There is no comparison.
If it can't live outside the mother's body, it is essentially a parasite. There isn't really that big a different, both the unfertilised and fertilised are potential lives. Jerking off and having an abortion are effectively the same thing.
If it can't live outside the mother's body, it is essentially a parasite. There isn't really that big a different, both the unfertilised and… more fertilised are potential lives. Jerking off and having an abortion are effectively the same thing.
lol. basic Biology says otherwise, research your statement before posting it.
If it can't live outside the mother's body, it is essentially a parasite. There isn't really that big a different, both the unfertilised and fertilised are potential lives. Jerking off and having an abortion are effectively the same thing.
lol. basic Biology says otherwise, research your statement before posting it.
If it can't live outside the mother's body, it is essentially a parasite. There isn't really that big a different, both the unfertilised and fertilised are potential lives. Jerking off and having an abortion are effectively the same thing.
If it can't live outside the mother's body, it is essentially a parasite. There isn't really that big a different, both the unfertilised and… more fertilised are potential lives. Jerking off and having an abortion are effectively the same thing.
lol. basic Biology says otherwise, research your statement before posting it.
It isn't yet a human being, not until it is born. It is a fetus. Just like the egg and sperm aren't human beings, the fetus isn't either. They both have the potential to be, but aren't yet.
My other post dissapeared:
If it can't live outside the mother's body, it is essentially a parasite.
Because it can't yet live… more on it's own? What does that even matter? Either way, it's a human being. Obviously it has to start somewhere. It's stage of development doesn't justify killing it, not by any means what so ever.
Jerking off and having an abortion are effectively the same thing.
Not even a little. In one case you're clearly killing a human being, no matter how you want to downplay it. There is no comparison.
You're insulting your own intelligence, pal. Of course I didn't mean they were literally the same thing, hence the word "effectively". They are both the same in that they are disposing of a potential life, hence they are effectively the same thing.
If it can't live outside the mother's body, it is essentially a parasite. There isn't really that big a different, both the unfertilised and… more fertilised are potential lives. Jerking off and having an abortion are effectively the same thing.
lol. basic Biology says otherwise, research your statement before posting it.
They are both the same in that they are disposing of a potential life, hence they are effectively the same thing.
Again, research before you post. Your argument can't be taken seriously because they're not even close to being effectively the same thing. If it is not fertilized it is not a life. If it is fertilized it is a life. We're arguing that it is wrong to take away a human life in development. Unfertilized eggs and sperm have no place in this argument, because it isn't a human life you are disposing of in that case. It's very simple.
You're insulting your own intelligence, pal. Of course I didn't mean they were literally the same thing, hence the word "effectively". They are both the same in that they are disposing of a potential life, hence they are effectively the same thing.
You're insulting your own intelligence, pal. Of course I didn't mean they were literally the same thing, hence the word "effectively". They are both the same in that they are disposing of a potential life, hence they are effectively the same thing.
In your desperate attempt to sound intelligent, you completely misread what I said. They both have the potential of life. My argument cannot be taken seriously? A fetus is no more "life" than an egg or sperm cell. The fertilisation is irrelevant in this respect.
But why is it wrong only in development? Why not as an egg and sperm as well? They are both capable of being a living breathing human being.
Fetus' are more like a parasite or a virus, leeching off of the host body's resources. Until it can live on its own, it is no different than a egg or sperm cell.
They are both the same in that they are disposing of a potential life, hence they are effectively the same thing.
Again, research be… morefore you post. Your argument can't be taken seriously because they're not even close to being effectively the same thing. If it is not fertilized it is not a life. If it is fertilized it is a life. We're arguing that it is wrong to take away a human life in development. Unfertilized eggs and sperm have no place in this argument, because it isn't a human life you are disposing of in that case. It's very simple.
You're insulting your own intelligence, pal. Of course I didn't mean they were literally the same thing
Who even said otherwise..? A… morell that is being argued here is that the two things aren't comparable, and are certainly not effectively the same thing.
What evidence needs to be provided? Either something is a developing human being or it isn't. In one case someone would be born if nothing were to interfere, in the other nothing happens, period. There is a difference in the potential to create life and actually killing a living human being.
That's simply false. Just because it is at it's lowest stage of human development does not mean it isn't a human being. There is no sense to that argument at all. And the argument is irrelevant anyway, as you're still taking away human life in the sense that it would otherwise obviously be born if left to naturally develop.
Just like the egg and sperm aren't human beings, the fetus isn't either. They both have the potential to be, but aren't yet.
Like I said above, no matter how you want to argue this point, it is irrelevant. In one case you are actively taking away the life of a human being.
It isn't yet a human being, not until it is born. It is a fetus. Just like the egg and sperm aren't human beings, the fetus isn't either. They both have the potential to be, but aren't yet.
No one misread what you said at all. You're arguing that the human fetus has only the potential of life, opposed to us arguing that the fetus is in fact living. It is indisputable that the fetus is living, but I understand those who are pro-choice* have their own set definition for what they will consider as living, so I won't even debate the point, as it's irrelevant anyway. Regardless of you refusing to accept the fetus as a living human being, the fact doesn't change that you are still taking away it's life in the sense that you are stopping it's development and actively stopping it from entering the world. If you were to do nothing, the fetus would obviously be born, so by you aborting the fetus, it's the same thing as stealing it's life. This is obviously not the same thing as simply not conceiving.
A fetus is no more "life" than an egg or sperm cell.
Again, ignoring the fact that a fetus is in fact living, this comparison is still ridiculous considering we're still talking about a developing human being opposed to nothing more than the potential for conception. There is nothing to compare.
Until it can live on its own, it is no different than a egg or sperm cell.
There is no rational basis for that line of thinking.
In your desperate attempt to sound intelligent, you completely misread what I said. They both have the potential of life. My argument cannot… more be taken seriously? A fetus is no more "life" than an egg or sperm cell. The fertilisation is irrelevant in this respect.
But why is it wrong only in development? Why not as an egg and sperm as well? They are both capable of being a living breathing human being.
Fetus' are more like a parasite or a virus, leeching off of the host body's resources. Until it can live on its own, it is no different than a egg or sperm cell.
They both have the potential of life. A fetus is no more "life" than an egg or sperm cell.
Incorrect, one can become a life, the other already is a human life in development. Let me spell it out for you. Sperm and eggs are haploid cells, while a human fetus is made up of diploid cells. Haploid cells are forms of temporary simple functioning cells. They are not living reproducing organisms. Sperm cannot create more sperm, a human can create another human. As I've said countless times throughout the thread, human life begins at fertilization/conception. This is all basic Biology. When you jerk off you aren't committing murder, when you have an abortion, you are. There you go, clear evidence for why a fetus and an unfertilized egg or sperm cannot be reasonably compared, though it's odd that you even need proof when the difference is so obvious.
The fertilisation is irrelevant in this respect.
It is extremely relevant because this whole argument is based off of the fact that it's already been fertilized, for that is fundamentally when a life begins. Anything before the point of fertilization is not a human life. However, your claim that a fetus is no different that an unfertilized egg or sperm is irrelevant.
But why is it wrong only in development? Why not as an egg and sperm as well?
Until it can live on its own, it is no different than a egg or sperm cell.
An egg and a sperm separate isn't a human life. Together they are a human life. Taking an innocent human life is wrong, disposing of unfertilized eggs and sperm cells is not at all the equivalent of taking a life. It's stupid to say it is. If you wish to continue on attempting to insult my intelligence in order to make yourself feel better, then you need to know and understand the undeniable biological difference between a fetus and an unfertilized egg or sperm cell. Saying that they are "effectively" or even "theoretically" the same is a baseless statement. If you still refuse to acknowledge that fact, I suggest you pick up a basic Biology text book from your local library.
Fetus' are more like a parasite or a virus
Fetuses are not anything like parasites. And they're obviously nothing like viruses either, I'm won't address that point because of how outlandish and irrational it is. But I will debunk your parasite claim. First of all, your comparison is invalid. "Parasitism is a form of living in which two organisms that are phylogenetically different (unrelated) co-exist over a long period of time (usually the lifetime of one of the individuals). Parasitism can also be classified as a specialized form of predation that may be lethal or non-lethal to one or both of the organisms".
99% of the time, a fetus doesn't put the mother's life in danger, not in modern times. A parasite does. A human fetus has it's own DNA, it's own body parts, and it's own body. A parasite does not. The fetus is the offspring of the same species as the "host", where a parasite is not. It would be more accurate to define it as a temporary parasitic relationship if anything. A parasite goes from host to host, it never lives on its own, but a fetus is born and is never attached to a woman, or in a uterus again. A parasite makes a living off of other organisms, it isn't capable of ever living on its own. A fetus will not be a fetus forever, a parasite will be a parasite forever. During pregnancy you have a human being developing inside of another human being for a set amount of time. With a parasite you have an organism of a completely different species leeching off of it's host in a potential lethal manner for an indefinite amount of time. And finally, the last, and most obvious fact that disproves your ridiculous claim is that a fetus is a human being, a parasite clearly is not. So going by the actual definition, a fetus/embryo cannot be classified as a parasite. Furthermore, you're trying to make a comparison that is irrelevant considering the fetus is in the early stages of life, so of course it can't live on it's own just yet. But because they can and will be able to in only a few months is why the comparison itself is inapplicable to this argument. I'll say it once more just in case, a parasite can never live on it's own, but a human fetus can eventually live on it's own. This difference is crucial when it comes to the topic at hand.
In your desperate attempt to sound intelligent, you completely misread what I said. They both have the potential of life. My argument cannot… more be taken seriously? A fetus is no more "life" than an egg or sperm cell. The fertilisation is irrelevant in this respect.
But why is it wrong only in development? Why not as an egg and sperm as well? They are both capable of being a living breathing human being.
Fetus' are more like a parasite or a virus, leeching off of the host body's resources. Until it can live on its own, it is no different than a egg or sperm cell.
What else could it possibly be? A unicorn? It's a human life from the very start, and that's why it matters. Here are the facts given in a way that is very easy to understand. The average human has 46 chromosomes. At conception a sperm with 23 chromosomes fertilizes an egg with 23 chromosomes.
23+23=46.
Therefore, it’s human life from conception/fertilization, so to say it "could be a baby" is silly, because it already is.
Your patience is endless it seems.~
It really isn't though lol. It's kind of looking like this is going to be the exact same argument that was had before
It really isn't though lol.
Compared to mine it is.XD
It's kind of looking like this is going to be the exact same argument th… moreat was had before
Pretty much, except the other side's argument has somehow gotten even more irrational and illogical at this point.
except the other side's argument has somehow gotten even more irrational and illogical at this point.
Its to the point where I can hardly even believe that these people actually believe what they're saying.
That's bullshit. Everybody has a different opinion that they cannot change. It's simple what we believe. All opinions deserve respect because we can't just flip a switch and have a different viewpoint.
I support it. It's a woman's choice what to do with her body, not some crusty old man politician who will never be put into the situation himself.
I'm 17, and if I got pregnant, I would abort the baby as soon as possible. This is my life, my future, and I don't want to bring a child into it until I can actually care for one and want one. It would be unfair to me and unfair to the child.
That's bullshit. Everybody has a different opinion that they cannot change. It's simple what we believe. All opinions deserve respect because we can't just flip a switch and have a different viewpoint.
I support it. It's a woman's choice what to do with her body, not some crusty old man politician who will never be put into the situation hi… moremself.
I'm 17, and if I got pregnant, I would abort the baby as soon as possible. This is my life, my future, and I don't want to bring a child into it until I can actually care for one and want one. It would be unfair to me and unfair to the child.
Comments
how is anyone gonna confine her from going to the clinic/hospital? tie/lock her up?
again i agree a father has a right but...she is the one who needs to go through with the pregnancy for 9 months not the male.
You
It doesn't matter.
Everybody fucking dies. Most egg and sperm don't fucking make it, who cares if some do but the mother doesn't want it. If never fertilised, the egg and sperm would've been flushed out anyway.
So just because everyone dies at some point, just go ahead and kill whoever, right?
"If" never fertilized. There is a huge difference between a developing human and an egg that never got fertilized.
(Double Post)
If it can't live outside the mother's body, it is essentially a parasite. There isn't really that big a different, both the unfertilised and fertilised are potential lives. Jerking off and having an abortion are effectively the same thing.
My other post dissapeared:
Because it can't yet live on it's own? What does that even matter? Either way, it's a human being. Obviously it has to start somewhere. It's stage of development doesn't justify killing it, not by any means what so ever.
Not even a little. In one case you're clearly killing a human being, no matter how you want to downplay it. There is no comparison.
(Double Post)
lol. basic Biology says otherwise, research your statement before posting it.
I don't know why my comments keep disappearing all of a sudden.
"I don't even know how I have the patience anymore."
It isn't yet a human being, not until it is born. It is a fetus. Just like the egg and sperm aren't human beings, the fetus isn't either. They both have the potential to be, but aren't yet.
(The forums does that to me a lot too. Have no idea why.)
Your patience is endless it seems~.
It really isn't though lol. It's kind of looking like this is going to be the exact same argument that was had before
You're insulting your own intelligence, pal. Of course I didn't mean they were literally the same thing, hence the word "effectively". They are both the same in that they are disposing of a potential life, hence they are effectively the same thing.
Again, research before you post. Your argument can't be taken seriously because they're not even close to being effectively the same thing. If it is not fertilized it is not a life. If it is fertilized it is a life. We're arguing that it is wrong to take away a human life in development. Unfertilized eggs and sperm have no place in this argument, because it isn't a human life you are disposing of in that case. It's very simple.
Who even said otherwise..? All that is being argued here is that the two things aren't comparable, and are certainly not effectively the same thing.
In your desperate attempt to sound intelligent, you completely misread what I said. They both have the potential of life. My argument cannot be taken seriously? A fetus is no more "life" than an egg or sperm cell. The fertilisation is irrelevant in this respect.
But why is it wrong only in development? Why not as an egg and sperm as well? They are both capable of being a living breathing human being.
Fetus' are more like a parasite or a virus, leeching off of the host body's resources. Until it can live on its own, it is no different than a egg or sperm cell.
You have yet to provide evidence for how they are not. "But it could be a baby" isn't a good argument, and that seems to be all pro lifers have got.
What evidence needs to be provided? Either something is a developing human being or it isn't. In one case someone would be born if nothing were to interfere, in the other nothing happens, period. There is a difference in the potential to create life and actually killing a living human being.
That's simply false. Just because it is at it's lowest stage of human development does not mean it isn't a human being. There is no sense to that argument at all. And the argument is irrelevant anyway, as you're still taking away human life in the sense that it would otherwise obviously be born if left to naturally develop.
Like I said above, no matter how you want to argue this point, it is irrelevant. In one case you are actively taking away the life of a human being.
No one misread what you said at all. You're arguing that the human fetus has only the potential of life, opposed to us arguing that the fetus is in fact living. It is indisputable that the fetus is living, but I understand those who are pro-choice* have their own set definition for what they will consider as living, so I won't even debate the point, as it's irrelevant anyway. Regardless of you refusing to accept the fetus as a living human being, the fact doesn't change that you are still taking away it's life in the sense that you are stopping it's development and actively stopping it from entering the world. If you were to do nothing, the fetus would obviously be born, so by you aborting the fetus, it's the same thing as stealing it's life. This is obviously not the same thing as simply not conceiving.
Again, ignoring the fact that a fetus is in fact living, this comparison is still ridiculous considering we're still talking about a developing human being opposed to nothing more than the potential for conception. There is nothing to compare.
There is no rational basis for that line of thinking.
Incorrect, one can become a life, the other already is a human life in development. Let me spell it out for you. Sperm and eggs are haploid cells, while a human fetus is made up of diploid cells. Haploid cells are forms of temporary simple functioning cells. They are not living reproducing organisms. Sperm cannot create more sperm, a human can create another human. As I've said countless times throughout the thread, human life begins at fertilization/conception. This is all basic Biology. When you jerk off you aren't committing murder, when you have an abortion, you are. There you go, clear evidence for why a fetus and an unfertilized egg or sperm cannot be reasonably compared, though it's odd that you even need proof when the difference is so obvious.
It is extremely relevant because this whole argument is based off of the fact that it's already been fertilized, for that is fundamentally when a life begins. Anything before the point of fertilization is not a human life. However, your claim that a fetus is no different that an unfertilized egg or sperm is irrelevant.
An egg and a sperm separate isn't a human life. Together they are a human life. Taking an innocent human life is wrong, disposing of unfertilized eggs and sperm cells is not at all the equivalent of taking a life. It's stupid to say it is. If you wish to continue on attempting to insult my intelligence in order to make yourself feel better, then you need to know and understand the undeniable biological difference between a fetus and an unfertilized egg or sperm cell. Saying that they are "effectively" or even "theoretically" the same is a baseless statement. If you still refuse to acknowledge that fact, I suggest you pick up a basic Biology text book from your local library.
Fetuses are not anything like parasites. And they're obviously nothing like viruses either, I'm won't address that point because of how outlandish and irrational it is. But I will debunk your parasite claim. First of all, your comparison is invalid. "Parasitism is a form of living in which two organisms that are phylogenetically different (unrelated) co-exist over a long period of time (usually the lifetime of one of the individuals). Parasitism can also be classified as a specialized form of predation that may be lethal or non-lethal to one or both of the organisms".
99% of the time, a fetus doesn't put the mother's life in danger, not in modern times. A parasite does. A human fetus has it's own DNA, it's own body parts, and it's own body. A parasite does not. The fetus is the offspring of the same species as the "host", where a parasite is not. It would be more accurate to define it as a temporary parasitic relationship if anything. A parasite goes from host to host, it never lives on its own, but a fetus is born and is never attached to a woman, or in a uterus again. A parasite makes a living off of other organisms, it isn't capable of ever living on its own. A fetus will not be a fetus forever, a parasite will be a parasite forever. During pregnancy you have a human being developing inside of another human being for a set amount of time. With a parasite you have an organism of a completely different species leeching off of it's host in a potential lethal manner for an indefinite amount of time. And finally, the last, and most obvious fact that disproves your ridiculous claim is that a fetus is a human being, a parasite clearly is not. So going by the actual definition, a fetus/embryo cannot be classified as a parasite. Furthermore, you're trying to make a comparison that is irrelevant considering the fetus is in the early stages of life, so of course it can't live on it's own just yet. But because they can and will be able to in only a few months is why the comparison itself is inapplicable to this argument. I'll say it once more just in case, a parasite can never live on it's own, but a human fetus can eventually live on it's own. This difference is crucial when it comes to the topic at hand.
What else could it possibly be? A unicorn? It's a human life from the very start, and that's why it matters. Here are the facts given in a way that is very easy to understand. The average human has 46 chromosomes. At conception a sperm with 23 chromosomes fertilizes an egg with 23 chromosomes.
23+23=46.
Therefore, it’s human life from conception/fertilization, so to say it "could be a baby" is silly, because it already is.
Compared to mine it is.XD
Pretty much, except the other side's argument has somehow gotten even more irrational and illogical at this point.
Its to the point where I can hardly even believe that these people actually believe what they're saying.
Agreed. I'd like to think they're trolling, but that's probably just wishful thinking.
I think it's wrong but some people do got good points...idk how i feel now about it.
Just to add some much needed levity into this conversation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze_dBldmBDw
lol he's funny
Lot of morons on this board, I oughtta say.
Abortion is the right decision in many cases.
wtf..respect people's opinion...and IMO i think youre the moron.
*You're
Also, You don't say "in my opinion I think".
Some opinions don't deserve respect.
That's bullshit. Everybody has a different opinion that they cannot change. It's simple what we believe. All opinions deserve respect because we can't just flip a switch and have a different viewpoint.
I support it. It's a woman's choice what to do with her body, not some crusty old man politician who will never be put into the situation himself.
I'm 17, and if I got pregnant, I would abort the baby as soon as possible. This is my life, my future, and I don't want to bring a child into it until I can actually care for one and want one. It would be unfair to me and unfair to the child.
Human beings deserve respect, not opinions.
Well said.
RIP.
Based on what?
oh i see...only your opinions matter, anyone that disagree with you is a moron right? this is the last post. take care buddy.