Some from DDO think I don't have the right to live. I won't name names unless they post here.

Yeshua does not have my permission to post my comments on FaceBook.

I am not sure if that's moderatable, even if there were proof that it occurred. Did she threaten to post your comments to facebook?

Not mine specifically, but in her other forum post she said "before i post it to facebook"

Ah.

While I disagree with YeshuaBought on a lot of things, she is "endowed by her creater life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  It sais that in the constitution.

Thanks hun. If you ever need back up, PM me.

What does it mean to PM someone?

I agree, I don't. That's why I'm grateful for what I have: because I have no right to it. I'm not a hypocrite. And that extends infinitely more so to God, who doesn't owe us anything at all.

'To be born' in a Catholic sense, where life beings at conception. I believe that humans shouldn't intercede to end the process from then on out. I agree with you in a biological sense, in which case, yes, the sperm and egg are just as alive as the zygote.

The difference between a sperm cell and a zygote is the chromosome count.  The chromosomes determine who is a human and who is not.  A zygote has all the necessary chromosomes.  A sperm cell does not.

ah wasn't even thinking of pre-menstrual, was thinking she was going to make him Prime minister of something.  You gotta fight!  For your right!  To paaaaarrrrrtaayy!

some people think they have a right to something which they do not, because they don't understand what a right is, let a lone positive vs negative rights.  Though i question the clear over reaction to some nameless, faceless opinion typed out on a message board.  I think someone should contact Dr. Phil.

This is an oversimplification, common for laymen. They both have the same number of distinct chromosomes (hopefully), the zygote simply has two copies. We say that the zygote is diploid and the gametes (sperm and egg) are haploid to describe this difference. That doesn't mean that the diploid organism is 'more alive'. When you look at the evolution of plants, the more primitive plants such as mosses and liverworts were (and are) actually haploid-dominant in terms of their life cycles. Any moss that you see growing around you is all haploid tissue, with the sporophyte (those weird brown threads) being the only part that is diploid. Eventually, as plants evolved more and more the haploid part of the life cycle was reduced, until now the opposite is true: the flowering plant tissue that you see is diploid, with the only haploid tissue being within the pollen and ovules. Fungi also sometimes have haploid-dominant life cycles. The number of copies of chromosomes doesn't indicate advancement; there some plants with extremely high levels of polyploidy.

Because of the way that humans have evolved, ploidy overlaps well with our ethical definitions of what 'human' is, but step outside of our species and you'll see that it's just a happy coincidence. Nature often does quite interesting and complicated things with chromosomes that would defy our staid expectations.

I take it that debate was removed and I popped this popcorn for nothing.

Why does bish keep putting ethics before my personal entertainment? That's what we should really be talking about here.

In all serious I would be interested in a debate like this between you and Yeshua, minus the wishing a member dead element. "Humans do not have the right to live" or something like that.

What if you were living around Dorset Street, Whitechapel in the autumn of 1888.

I chose that place and time randomly.

That is a great street and time period. Before forensics. I could just murder people for money and easily get my life together. Back then shelters treated homeless people as slaves so I would definitely avoid them, that particular year.

The first round I would have framed the debate to make it more inpersonal.

this is better discussed in the philosophy section.

Thanks man.

You brought it up so you are entitled to run away from it.

try and prove it's a right then, even though that's not possible.

Sure. People have the right to live. Not just me, but all of you. You think I only care about my own rights? Nope. I know I'm not a good person, and I'm sorry for being mean. I still hold some of the same views, but will present them differently?

Your claim your BOP. Good luck.

do you understand the difference between right to live, vs you don't have the right to take a life?  serious question, because there is a distinct difference.  No one has a right to take a life, I think we would agree on that.  But that doesn't prove a "right to life"  How do you define a right to life anyway?

Your claim your BOP. Good luck.