Questions for pro-lifers

[Jocko]

Actually, I still want to explore this.

First, the shaving is accidental killing; you were not intentionally killing the blood cells and they tragically died as a by product of an action that was not intended to kill them. As Luke pointed out, its silly to concern onselves with natural deaths by things like cancer when we are talking about the callous killing of potential human life.

However, using a condom or pulling out during intercourse serves no purpose other than to kill the potential life embedded in the sperm.

Secondly, sperm serve no function in the body other than for reproduction. They are not the same thing as blood cells or toenail clippings. Toenail clippings and blood cells do not have the cellular structure for swimming into the fallopian tubes and fertilizing an egg and do not contain half of the DNA intended to make up half of the offspring's DNA. No one attempts to kill off their blood cells or toenail clippings intentionally and there are not entire industries dedicated to doing so.

Sperm are quite clearly potential human life more than other types of body cells and have special status for that reason so can we leave your silly line of "reasoning" behind.

Ah, so the kleenex you jerk into is somehow different than the kleenex you use to blot a shaving cut. Gotcha, thanks for the guidance.

What I said - which you quoted but apparently did not read - was that BY THEMSELVES sperm have no more potential than toenail clippings. Were that not so, you would have a colletion of children that resemble both you and a box of tissue. Hope that helps.

 

[Furious]

Ah, so the kleenex you jerk into is somehow different than the kleenex you use to blot a shaving cut. Gotcha, thanks for the guidance.

Yes, that is my point exactly. In the shaving case, you are cleaning up the cells accidently killed. In the jerking case, you are cleaning up the potential life you intentionally killed.

What I said - which you quoted but apparently did not read - was that BY THEMSELVES sperm have no more potential than toenail clippings. Were that not so, you would have a colletion of children that resemble both you and a box of tissue. Hope that helps.

With that logic, a fertilized egg by itself has no more potential than toenail clippings either. Is that a position you wish to advance?

 

[Mark]

Keep the compliments, work on the comprehension.



SIGH... as I said above. Reasonable people can disagree about such things without assuming nefarious agendas behind every opinion... and that's all these are, opinions. I'm trying very hard to get you to recognize that, because you seem to think your opinions are established facts. They most certainly are not.



So there is no difference between a 6-month fetus and one carried to term? Is viability your measuring stick? I'm just trying to get at what makes you so cocksure that you've got everything figured out.



Yes, your point is that Mark gets to define and redefine the terms of a debate at will, particularly when cornered in his own arguments. Oh, I got your point, and rest assured others got it as well.

Look: If a zygote is just a zygote, without regard to its potential, then where do you draw the line of what is human? An infant? A toddler? A child? A teen? An adolescent? We draw all sorts of lines in development cycles; at what point does a human being become a human being to you?

An infant cannot survive on its own. Sure, it can breathe, but it can't feed itself. Is that any more of a human being to you than a first-trimester fetus? Why? Both are doomed to death unless supported to fulfill their potential.

I try to give you a compliment, you insult me. I concede that something is a matter of opinion and personal experience and you insult me.

I am not certain whether to address your one real comment, or respond to your insults.

All I can see is you are wrong: I have not got everything figured out. And neither of have you. That is exactly the point; there is no one magical moment for defining a human being; no matter how much you want to insult me, the fact remians that it is a process. As I said, even the act of the egg being fertilized has several stages.

But, for the umpteenth time, if we accept your notion that "life begins at conception," why is nothing being done to save the "babies" that fail to implant? Are they worthless in your eyes? Obviously they are. But why?

Personally, I realize that the whole anti-choice stance is predicated on a lie: that we know the exact moment when a zygote becomes a human. There is no one defining moment.

 

[Jesus]

ugh. You are reminding me why I don't choose to live in the city any more.

You say it yourself in so many words. This woman has a history of bad choices. I'm guessing that this woman had several options; birth control, abortion, adoption; and didn't choose any of those. Who should have made the decision and enforced it? (since you claim that she shouldn't have had them)

*sigh* It sounds like these kids may be headed for foster care which is another nightmare for another thread.

What evidence is there that abortion has done anything to solve social problems like this?

Wow, this thread got away from me pretty quickly.

I agree about the city life bit. With the exception of the upper east or west side of Manhattan, I don't want to live in a city anymore.

Obviously, this person did not make wise choices, and would not have no matter what option was on the table. That doesn't mean the option for abortion should be taken away from someone who would choose that over child abuse.

The destruction of an unfeeling collection of cells is, in my opinion, a better option than bringing a kid into the world and torturing them for 18 years (assuming the kids last that long with the mom).

 

[Jesus]

You are obviously not an oppressed minority womyn of lesser means.

That lady might be a doctor by now (or President?), if only you would give her another chance, additional opportunities at the expense of more deserving candidates, and - most of all - another dollar.

Nice work. The woman to whom I was referring in my anecdote is white. Most of the obnoxious neighbors I complain about are also white. Not minorities. So again, good job.

 

[American]

Nice work. The woman to whom I was referring in my anecdote is white.

But she's a woman, meaning "victim". That covers it.

 

[Jocko]

But, for the umpteenth time, if we accept your notion that "life begins at conception"....

For the umpteenth time, I NEVER SAID THAT, YOU ILLITERATE BUFFOON.

I'll respond to the rest of your post when you bother to read mine.

 

[Underemployed]

No one attempts to kill off their blood cells or toenail clippings intentionally and there are not entire industries dedicated to doing so.

Sperm are quite clearly potential human life more than other types of body cells and have special status for that reason so can we leave your silly line of "reasoning" behind.

I'm feeling in a nitpicking mood tonight so:

1) There are indeed entire industries devoted to the removal and disposal of blood cells and toenail clippings. Chances are you have the necessary devices for the safe removal and disposal of at least one of these items in your bathroom. I attempted - and succeeded - in killing my toenails twice already this month!

2) Recent discoveries in genetics regarding cloning mean it is quite possible that one day, every cell in your body could have the potential for starting a new life. Won't that be grand! Think of the arguments we'll have then! Who will dare exfoliate?

 

[Jesus]

But she's a woman, meaning "victim". That covers it.

I'm sorry, but what? You assumed she is a minority, which she is not. That was my point.

I never called her a victim, nor do I hold that view, so good straw man. In fact, I dislike this woman, because it's my tax dollars that go to fund her stupid choices. I don't mind goverment money going to the downtrodden, provided they try to lift themselves up, but this person is obviously not trying to do that. One kid, one mistake, that's one thing (though not excusable). Two more kids later, I have no sympathy, but it irritates the hell out of me that I work to help feed her mistakes.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm sorry, but what? You assumed she is a minority, which she is not. That was my point.

I never called her a victim, nor do I hold that view, so good straw man. In fact, I dislike this woman, because it's my tax dollars that go to fund her stupid choices. I don't mind goverment money going to the downtrodden, provided they try to lift themselves up, but this person is obviously not trying to do that. One kid, one mistake, that's one thing (though not excusable). Two more kids later, I have no sympathy, but it irritates the hell out of me that I work to help feed her mistakes.

At the very least, she is a victim of your dislike.

 

[toddjh]

Recent discoveries in genetics regarding cloning mean it is quite possible that one day, every cell in your body could have the potential for starting a new life. Won't that be grand! Think of the arguments we'll have then! Who will dare exfoliate?

I thought about bringing this up earlier, but then I decided against it. The "life begins at conception" crowd will just say that, even with cloning, a human egg has to be "fertilized" (i.e. implanted with a full set of DNA) at some point, even if the method differs from the usual one.

So cloning just pushes the objection back a step. They can weasel out of it.

Jeremy

 

[Jesus]

At the very least, she is a victim of your dislike.

Fortunately, my dislike is quite limited, and utterly inconsequential.

 

[Jocko]

So cloning just pushes the objection back a step. They can weasel out of it.

Sorry, I thought you said it pushes ejaculation back a step. I guess it all amounts to the same thing.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I would have thought that the majority of the pro-life people count life as beginning at the moment of the fetus's acquisition of a soul. Which apparently coincides with conception, but the cellular activity isn't what's important. So what the DNA is doing wouldn't really be a priority.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sorry, I thought you said it pushes ejaculation back a step. I guess it all amounts to the same thing.

I skip this thread for twenty-four hours and suddenly it's about having sex in stairwells?

Sounds dangerous.

 

[Mark]

For the umpteenth time, I NEVER SAID THAT, YOU ILLITERATE BUFFOON.

I'll respond to the rest of your post when you bother to read mine.

What?

 

[Jocko]

I skip this thread for twenty-four hours and suddenly it's about having sex in stairwells?

Sounds dangerous.

Dangerous, perhaps, but there's nothing like a good railing... if you catch my drift.

I've got a cookie for the first one to include the term "riser" in a post.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Dangerous, perhaps, but there's nothing like a good railing... if you catch my drift.

I've got a cookie for the first one to include the term "riser" in a post.

I was thinking more along the lines of "Bannister? I don't even know her!"

 

[peptoabysmal]

Wow, this thread got away from me pretty quickly.

I agree about the city life bit. With the exception of the upper east or west side of Manhattan, I don't want to live in a city anymore.

Obviously, this person did not make wise choices, and would not have no matter what option was on the table. That doesn't mean the option for abortion should be taken away from someone who would choose that over child abuse.

The example was anecdotal and shouldn't be used for any application to any group.

The destruction of an unfeeling collection of cells is, in my opinion, a better option than bringing a kid into the world and torturing them for 18 years (assuming the kids last that long with the mom).

Which is just as valid an opinion as mine. What I find strange is that in a democracy we don't get to vote on the core issue of abortion, only at what age a woman should be allowed to obtain one.

 

[hammegk]

Let me fix that...

Statements like that are what lead reactionary people to unfairly generalize about an entire group of people based on the actions of a small minority.

Jeremy

So sorry you don't like life.