-->
@Best.Korea
Like I said, you’re one to talk. 🙄
Abortion is Human Sacrifice by Definition
Posts
Total:
48
-->
@TWS1405_2
I believe that is not how babies are made.
-->
@Best.Korea
In 2008 Borgnine told Fox & Friends that the secret to his longevity was masturbating -- a lot -- so take from that what you will.
He lived until he was 95.
-->
@FLRW
I also read a recent study showed masturbating at least 21 times a month staves off cancer. Helps with prostrate too. So I have been told (read).
-->
@ebuc
ecological destruction is only getting worse, due to human activity
If your solution to save the planet is to kill humans, then surely it is better to kill criminals, abortionists and eldery rather than innocent children who didnt even pollute the Earth.
I assume you would argue for destruction of hospitals to kill even more humans to save the planet.
Also, possibly more wars?
Secret sterilization by vaccine?
Surely you have plenty of options.
You say that abortion is good, so I assume you support forced abortions. They are more effective at reducing population than voluntary abortions.
So forced abortions it is?
And since you hate the humans so much for cutting down a few trees, maybe do something that actually helps saving trees, like a ban on cutting trees? Death penalty for cutting down trees? Surely that will save those poor trees better than abortion will.
-->
@FLRW
In 2008 Borgnine told Fox & Friends that the secret to his longevity was masturbating
Yeah. You get longevity assuming you survive a massive increase in rape, depression, suicides, mental illnesses and violence that follow for every society that thinks it can break the basic laws of morality and get away with it. Plus, the birth rates suck. Apparently, you cant get pregnant from masturbation.
-->
@FLRW
In 2008 Borgnine told Fox & Friends that the secret to his longevity was masturbating -- a lot -- so take from that what you will.He lived until he was 95.
There is a few scandanavian studies that show men who masturbate more frequent have less prostate cancer, if I recall correctly, they surmise by more frequent masturbation the gonads are flush out better, not stuff sitting around stagnating for longer periods of time
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe a man in a coma who will never wake up gets all of the same rights?
If you are 100% sure he will never wake up, then no, he doesn't get the same rights because he is dead. Never waking up is dead.
Should the doctor who pulls the plug and the family that approved it go to jail for murder?
If he has a chance for survival, then yes. But then of course if the patient signed something telling the doctors to let them go at a certain point, then of course no.
-->
@Sidewalker
A sperm has human DNA, and is alive, therefore it is a human life by your definition.
A sperm is not human. It carries some human DNA, like a lot of cells do, but it can't form into a human by itself.
It needs the other half.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Tat’s because it [IS] the “wrong” definition.
How so? Explain to me.
“Search up” the definition? What the flying fucktards does “search up” mean?
Ok, so basically you go on google,
then you type the definition into the bar at the top,
then you press enter
Super difficult I know.
No, that’s unhealthy stupidity.
Sacrificing junk food for healthier options is unhealthy stupidity??
No, it is not. Not by any definition. At all.You’re the denialist here.Clown.
I know your most likely not a liberal on most things but look what you are doing when you can't argue back.
You revert to repeated name calling, with no logical answer to my arguments.
You claim I am the denialist here, whilst not explaining why my argument is denying anything. I give you the evidence, and you yourself call that denial.
Repeating is necessary when the deaf are present.
Repeating is what you do when you can't say anything else.
“Living human” is one term, I already recognized that. You have not. You clearly do not understand let alone comprehend what it means to put two words together to create a very specific meaning behind the term.
It's called using adjectives, adverbs, nouns, etc. to put a sentence together. Come on man you did this in the 1st grade.
You are a living human. I am a living human. But a fucking zygote is NOT [a] living human. Period. Fact. Period.
What makes a living human? Look up the definition of living, then human, then you will have your answer. Period. Fact. Period.
I don't understand your logic here.
Do you have to look like a human to be a human?
Do you have to act like a human to be a human?
Do you have to be in a certain place to be a human?
No, a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and unviable fetus IS NOT [A] LIVING HUMAN.I love the word, all words. Difference between you and I is that I understand the different meanings of terms depending on the linguistic context in which they are used. YOU DO NO!!! That is YOUR personal problem, not mine.
You're telling me I don't understand, whilst not explaining to me how you do, and I don't.
Context does matter yes. But a zygote, by definition, is a living human.
You can use the term living human in another context, describing a born human, but you can also use it to describe a zygote.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If you are 100% sure he will never wake up, then no, he doesn't get the same rights because he is dead. Never waking up is dead.
Not under your definition. You argued that if it has human DNA and is alive in a scientific sense then it is human life. The man in an indefinite coma qualifies.
But now you're trying to argue that the potential to wake up is what makes him alive. Why does that matter?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
A sperm is not human. It carries some human DNA, like a lot of cells do, but it can't form into a human by itself.It needs the other half.
An embryo cannot form into a human by itself either.
-->
@Double_R
Not under your definition. You argued that if it has human DNA and is alive in a scientific sense then it is human life.
AND a chance for life, obviously.
An embryo cannot form into a human by itself either.
.........yes, it can. Through natural processes.
Is this guy for real?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
AND a chance for life, obviously.
Why is that obvious? How does that matter and how exactly do you measure that in its DNA composition?
.........yes, it can. Through natural processes.
Then remove the embryo from the mother and let it live its life. I'm all for it.
-->
@Double_R
Why is that obvious? How does that matter and how exactly do you measure that in its DNA composition?
If something doesn't have the capacity for life, then it isn't alive, and doesn't have any internal value in of itself.
Then remove the embryo from the mother and let it live its life. I'm all for it.
I said through natural processes, meaning, the natural process of birth, using the mother's womb to get nutrients. It's still consuming by itself. It's not biologically part of the mother body, it is something different.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If something doesn't have the capacity for life, then it isn't alive, and doesn't have any internal value in of itself.
If something has the capacity for life then by definition, it isn't life... Yet. So why do you place it in the same category as that which is currently life?
This is in many ways the central question of this debate, because if the mother decides she does not wish to carry the pregnancy to term then the capicity for life is in every practical sense, non existent.
I said through natural processes, meaning, the natural process of birth, using the mother's womb to get nutrients. It's still consuming by itself. It's not biologically part of the mother body, it is something different.
Why does it matter whether it's through natural processes or not? This really sounds like a reach.
-->
@Double_R
If something has the capacity for life then by definition, it isn't life... Yet. So why do you place it in the same category as that which is currently life?
A living thing that has the capacity to live on its own, is life.
If I am making a cake, and I put it in the oven, then you take it out of the oven and throw it on the ground, it isn't cake anymore. But it was going to be claiming. Using your logic, that cake in the oven was never cake in the first place.
Why does it matter whether it's through natural processes or not? This really sounds like a reach.
Mother nature (God), whichever you prefer, created a natural process for us as humans to survive and thrive. Thats why it matters.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Using your logic, that cake in the oven was never cake in the first place.
Correct. A bunch of gooey stuff mixed together is not a cake. It needs the oven to become one, so if the oven is unwilling to be subjected to producing heat, the cake you are imagining will have only ever existed in your mind.
Mother nature (God), whichever you prefer, created a natural process for us as humans to survive and thrive. Thats why it matters.
That's why it matters to you. There is nothing about "mother nature" which is just a label we slap onto our own observations of how the universe functions, which inherently or even logically supports us "caring" about what means we bring about human life.