It's a medical fact. Life begins at conception.

[Mac1958]

So by your kook standards, sperm are babies, because they are indisputably human life.

Your kook standards lead to really stupid results, hence your standards are stupid.

Please, just stop. This has been explained to you numerous times. If you cannot understand the difference between a part of a human being and an actual human being, then it's no wonder you are wrong on the issue of abortion. Maybe go back to school and take Biology 101.

As I said, they just have to be dishonest.

A pro choice individual can be honest and argue honestly. Some cannot, it's just not in them.
.

 

[mamooth]

Please, just stop. This has been explained to you numerous times.

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. I can do it. You can't. You can recite propaganda, but you can't think.

Let's summarize the kook argument I was responding to.

He said any human life is a person. A sperm is human. It is alive. It is therefore indisputably human life. Only liars or retards would claim otherwise. Thus, by his standards, a sperm is a person. Instead of addressing that, you handwaved it away, probably because you knew you couldn't address it.

If you cannot understand the difference between a part of a human being and an actual human being

Given how hilariously incapable you are of understanding what a human being is, normal people just laugh when you try to lecture them.

Now, instead of evading, try addressing the issue, for the first time ever.

Is a sperm human? Yes or no.

Is a sperm alive? Yes or no.

Is a sperm thus human life? Yes or no.

Did your pal say any human life is a person? Yes or no.

Does that mean his logic says a sperm is a person? Yes or no.

then it's no wonder you are wrong on the issue of abortion. Maybe go back to school and take Biology 101.

Actual biology, which pro-lifers tend to be remarkably ignorant of, is very unkind to the pro-life position.

For example, let's take the hydatidiform mole. It's formed by the union of sperm and egg, but it only grows into an undifferentiated mass.

So, according to your loopy claims, that big mass of undifferentiated flesh is a human being, since it was formed by a conception. Being how your loopy claims lead to loopy results, your loopy claims are obviously just wrong.

I've got more real-world biology lessons ready for you, after you finish running from that one. After all, we know you're going to run. It's kind of what defines you here, the way you cut and run when your arguments get shredded, only to come back and make same debunked argument again later.

 

[g5000]

g5000's arguments have demolished.

Yes, my arguments have demolished the pro-abortion arguments.

Thank you!

 

[Mac1958]

Please, just stop. This has been explained to you numerous times.

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. I can do it. You can't. You can recite propaganda, but you can't think.

Let's summarize the kook argument I was responding to.

He said any human life is a person. A sperm is human. It is alive. It is therefore indisputably human life. Only liars or retards would claim otherwise. Thus, by his standards, a sperm is a person. Instead of addressing that, you handwaved it away, probably because you knew you couldn't address it.

If you cannot understand the difference between a part of a human being and an actual human being

Given how hilariously incapable you are of understanding what a human being is, normal people just laugh when you try to lecture them.

Now, instead of evading, try addressing the issue, for the first time ever.

Is a sperm human? Yes or no.

Is a sperm alive? Yes or no.

Is a sperm thus human life? Yes or no.

Did your pal say any human life is a person? Yes or no.

Does that mean his logic says a sperm is a person? Yes or no.

then it's no wonder you are wrong on the issue of abortion. Maybe go back to school and take Biology 101.

Actual biology, which pro-lifers tend to be remarkably ignorant of, is very unkind to the pro-life position.

For example, let's take the hydatidiform mole. It's formed by the union of sperm and egg, but it only grows into an undifferentiated mass.

So, according to your loopy claims, that big mass of undifferentiated flesh is a human being, since it was formed by a conception. Being how your loopy claims lead to loopy results, your loopy claims are obviously just wrong.

I've got more real-world biology lessons ready for you, after you finish running from that one. After all, we know you're going to run. It's kind of what defines you here, the way you cut and run when your arguments get shredded, only to come back and make it again later.

"He said any human life is a person."

Surely you're not talking about me, because I didn't say that.

I did say that many pro-lifers lie by taking the term "human life", which it is, and changing it to "person" or "individual" or "child" or "baby".

As you just did.

Because liars just can't help but lie.
.

 

[mamooth]

[A pro choice individual can be honest and argue honestly. Some cannot, it's just not in them.

Instead of evasions and insults. How about you address the way I showed how stupid your claim was?

You said any human life is a person.

A sperm is human and alive, therefore it is human life, therefore you say it's a person.

Do you have the guts and honesty to address that? So far, it appears you're projecting your own dishonesty on to the ethical people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

g5000's arguments have demolished.

Yes, my arguments have demolished the pro-abortion arguments.

Thank you!

Silly goofus: fetuses have no priority and little parity with moms.

 

[g5000]

Prior to birth, one is at liberty to decide for himself when "personhood" begins; the state may not compel such belief through force of law.

And yet the state does compel through force of law when life begins. The law does not allow anyone to decide life begins at conception and is therefore entitled to the same protections against murder as you are.

The law compels through force of law that YOUR life cannot be taken. It does not leave that up to me or anyone else.

 

[Mac1958]

You said any human life is a person.

There's that lie again.

Show me the quote.
.

 

[g5000]

g5000's arguments have demolished.

Yes, my arguments have demolished the pro-abortion arguments.

Thank you!

Silly goofus: fetuses have no priority and little parity with moms.

And negroes have no parity with whites. So said the law. We should have kept morals and religion out of it.

That's the argument you are making.

 

[g5000]

It's a weak-willed person who claims to be against abortion but has to stand with the law.

Seriously weak-willed, immoral, holocaust enabler.

There is not one whit of difference between them and those who hid behind the law banning blacks at lunch counters.

Not one whit.

Saying something is legal is not a moral defense. A lot of what Wall Street did that brought down the economy was totally legal.

 

[Mac1958]

You said any human life is a person.

There's that lie again. Show me the quote..

Waiting.

Or will we just get more insults?
.

 

[Chuz Life]

A pregnant woman is also said to be "with child."

Correct?

She's also said to "have a bun in the oven."

Hence, you have proven that fetuses are pastries.

The point? Attempting proof by colloquialism leads to loony results, hence one shouldn't do that.

CAN a baker be charged with MURDER for burning a bun?

Con you not see how our fetal HOMICIDE laws support one colloquium over the other?

 

[mamooth]

Waiting.

Grow up, snowflake. People step away from the computer .Juist because yo ucut and run all the time, don't project that on to others.

Or will we just get more insults?

Whining about insults after throwing so many just makes you look like a butthurt hypocrite. Be like me, a grownup. I toss insults, and I'm good at it, and I don't snivel when I get them back.

Now, I did misinterpret your quote. Sorry about that.

---
For some reason, many pro-choicers just have to be dishonest about this. The most common strategy is to change the term from "human life" to "person" or "human being" or "individual" or "baby" or "child".
---

Funny. I've never seen a pro-choicer do that. Why do you think they did?

Let's discuss your bizarre claim there, if you've got the guts.

For example, I've consistently done the exact opposite of your claim. I've consistently said that "human life" does not equate to "Person". So who ever did what you claim?

 

[Chuz Life]

Funny how leftardz claim to know biology but can not tell a single (REPRODUCTIVE) CELL of an organism from the organism itself. . . . Because, you know. . . . Fucking semantics.

 

[Mac1958]

Waiting.

Grow up, snowflake. People step away from the computer .Juist because yo ucut and run all the time, don't project that on to others.

Or will we just get more insults?

Whining about insults after throwing so many just makes you look like a butthurt hypocrite. Be like me, a grownup. I toss insults, and I'm good at it, and I don't snivel when I get them back.

Now, I did misinterpret your quote. Sorry about that.

---
For some reason, many pro-choicers just have to be dishonest about this. The most common strategy is to change the term from "human life" to "person" or "human being" or "individual" or "baby" or "child".
---

Funny. I've never seen a pro-choicer do that. Why do you think they did?

Let's discuss your bizarre claim there, if you've got the guts.

For example, I've consistently done the exact opposite of your claim. I've consistently said that "human life" does not equate to "Person". So who ever did what you claim?

You lied, just as I pointed out earlier. You can certainly try to put me on the defensive, I know how Plan B works.

And of course pro-choicers play word games. I don't need your confirmation.

Now, please play your games with someone else. You're a little too nasty for me.
.

 

[mamooth]

It's a weak-willed person who claims to be against abortion but has to stand with the law.

No, not really. Morality is more complicated than that.

For example, are you pushing to have women who get abortions prosecuted, or are you hiding behind the law that says not to do that?

Seriously weak-willed, immoral, holocaust enabler.

Since you brought it up, the Nazis acted just like you. They forced birth on some, abortions on others. Nobody had a choice. That's your policy as well. Why do you act like a Nazi?

The moral? Don't toss around such terms, or you'll get reamed by them.

 

[buttercup]

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. I can do it. You can't. You can recite propaganda, but you can't think.

I'm sorry, but yours have been the dumbest replies on this entire thread. At least some of the other pro aborts here have enough basic knowledge and intellectual honesty to understand the difference between a sperm and a human being.

Let's summarize the kook argument I was responding to.

He said any human life is a person. A sperm is human. It is alive. It is therefore indisputably human life. Only liars or retards would claim otherwise. Thus, by his standards, a sperm is a person. Instead of addressing that, you handwaved it away, probably because you knew you couldn't address it.

Because I'm supposed to be working right now, I'm going to post a couple excerpts from an article on this topic. Please read it. I will post the link to the rest of the article for you to read.

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.


....there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings — they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person
​

Actual biology, which pro-lifers tend to be remarkably ignorant of, is very unkind to the pro-life position.

The exact opposite is true, and if you realized that, you'd know how silly you sound.

Look, let's make this simple. You can claim that the pre-born is not a "person," you can claim that the pre-born doesn't have rights, you can claim that the pre-born doesn't have value… But you cannot claim that the pre-born is not a human being, because science is clear on this, the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, simply in the earliest stages of life.

You know, the lengths that you're going to deny what is clear leads me to believe that you have other reasons for defending abortion. But all you're doing is lying to yourself.

 

[mamooth]

Now, please play your games with someone else. You're a little too nasty for me.
.

So, when called to back up your claim, you cut and ran, in front of everyone.

This is just too easy.

 

[Mac1958]

Now, please play your games with someone else. You're a little too nasty for me.
.

So, when called to back up your claim, you cut and ran, in front of everyone.

This is just too easy.

I've proven you to be a liar, in front of everyone, and I know better than to try to communicate with liars.

This is just too easy.
.

 

[mamooth]

I'm sorry, but yours have been the dumbest replies on this entire thread.

I pitied you at first for being just another brainwashed cultist, but your ongoing smarmy liar routine has prompted me to lose that pity.

At least some of the other pro aborts here have enough basic knowledge and intellectual honesty to understand the difference between a sperm and a human being.

And I do clearly understand. The point is that you don't understand the difference between a zygote and a human being, and you keep evading that point by making up a story about what I supposedly believe.

Because I'm supposed to be working right now, I'm going to post a couple excerpts from an article on this topic. Please read it.

Done years ago. After all, you pro-lifers always post the same propaganda, so I've seen it many times before. All you all do is cut and paste the same things. It's an opinion piece which is contradicted by reality. "Human being" has never been defined by science, so an article which tries to do that is a dumb as an article trying to define it by skin color.

Look, let's make this simple. You can claim that the pre-born is not a "person,"

I don't claim that. All human societies over all the globe over all of history have implemented that policy. And here you are, saying the sum total of humanity is wrong, and you're right because you say so. Your narcissism is off the scale.

you can claim that the pre-born doesn't have rights,

No, I've never claimed or implied that. Try addressing what I say, instead of what your voices told you I said.

you can claim that the pre-born doesn't have value…

No, I've never said or implied that either. It's so convenient for you, isn't it, tearing down your little strawmen. Much easier than addressing reality.

But you cannot claim that the pre-born is not a human being, because science is clear on this, zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being,, simply in the earliest stages of life.

Again, I haven't claimed it. All of humanity has claimed it. Your weirdass pro-life revisionist definitions are very new on the historical scene, as are your bizarre cult terms like "The pre-born". That's like referring to my raw pizza as "The pre-baked".

You know, the lengths that you're going to deny what is clear leads me to believe that you have other reasons for defending abortion.

Then have the guts tell me what they are. I bet you get a rush thinking about how Satanic I must be, eh? Obviously, it couldn't be that I'm passionate for liberty and human rights.

But all you're doing is lying to yourself.

As predicted, you ran from the hydatidiform mole issue. Actual biology showed your definition was nonsense, and you couldn't handle it, so you pretended not to see it.

You're lying to yourself, us, and everyone. I wouldn't want to be you on Judgement Day.