Should men have a say in abortion ?

Musika said:
Well you just displayed complete irreverence to the moment life begins, suggesting it is a complete non issue whether it continues or expires at any moment.
Click to expand...
No. I pointed out that there is no moment that life begins. The egg cell and the sperm cell are already alive. Their lives can be traced back through the lives of the donors and through evolutionary history.

Likewise, there is no "moment" when the egg cell and the sperm cell become separate from the life of the host.

So yes, a "moment" that does not exist is indeed a non-issue.
 
sideshowbob said:
No. I pointed out that there is no moment that life begins. The egg cell and the sperm cell are already alive. Their lives can be traced back through the lives of the donors and through evolutionary history.

Likewise, there is no "moment" when the egg cell and the sperm cell become separate from the life of the host.

So yes, a "moment" that does not exist is indeed a non-issue.
Click to expand...
Um.
Yes.
There is a moment when the sperm and egg are separate.
And there is a moment when life begins, and manifests something that a separate egg and sperm could never manage in a million years.
At the very least, given that you are alive and kicking now, it stands to reason that there must have been a moment when it all began.
You are being spurious at best, reptillian at worst.
 
sideshowbob said:
I don't have to be directly in government to tell them what they should be doing. Have you ever heard of democracy?
Click to expand...
Then we chalk that up as at least one redaction from your list of recommendations for mandatory oblivescence.

If you have any argument against what I "advocate", present it.
Click to expand...
If you can't even abide by your own recommendations, your suggestions are defeated by your personal example.

sideshowbob said:
And what?
Click to expand...
You tell me.
You are saying nothing about the tensions within society that provide the necessary tautness to establish events ranging from paths of behaviour to actual legislation.
 
Last edited:
Musika said:
And there is a moment when life begins...
Click to expand...
For the third time, the egg and sperm were already alive. Conception does not "begin life".
At the very least, given that you are alive and kicking now, it stands to reason that there must have been a moment when it all began.
Click to expand...
Life is a continuum. It has been going on for millions of years.
 
sideshowbob said:
For the third time, the egg and sperm were already alive. Conception does not "begin life".
Click to expand...
In the same nonsensical manner, you could say that there is no moment when a living entity dies .... after all, there is a bunch of stuff still living in a so-called dead body.



Life is a continuum. It has been going on for millions of years.
Click to expand...
Kind of makes you wonder when human society will waken to your reptillian genius and just simply do away with all this primitive retribution that goes down with murder .... come to think of it, in the face of such an epic continuum, even the topic of human rights is but a puny insignificance.
 
Last edited:
Musika said:
In the same nonsensical manner, you could say that there is no moment when a living entity dies .... after all, there is a bunch of stuff still living in a so-called dead body.
Click to expand...
It isn't the same thing. When an organism dies, there are organisms that are definitely separate organisms, DNA-wise that go on living. On the other hand, before conception, the DNA of the organism-to-be already exists and has existed for a long time.
Kind of makes you wonder when human society will waken to your reptillian genius and just simply do away with all this primitive retribution that goes down with murder.
Click to expand...
That's a can of worms that you probably don't want to open. Few anti-abortionists honestly consider abortion murder.
 
sideshowbob said:
It isn't the same thing.
Click to expand...
Precisely

When an organism dies, there are organisms that are definitely separate organisms, DNA-wise that go on living. On the other hand, before conception, the DNA of the organism-to-be already exists and has existed for a long time.
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to you, but DNA is not life. You don't beat a murder wrap if you let your victims children survive.

That's a can of worms that you probably don't want to open. Few anti-abortionists honestly consider abortion murder.
Click to expand...
Blithely returning to your forgone conclusion doesn't lend any credibility to your bizarre notions of life.
 
Last edited:
Musika said:
Hate to break it to you, but DNA is not life.
Click to expand...
But separate DNA is separate life.
Blithely returning to your forgone conclusion doesn't lend it any credibility to your bizarre notions of life.
Click to expand...
More gibberish. I'll repeat myself in case you want to answer honestly: Few anti-abortionists honestly consider abortion murder.
 
sideshowbob said:
The post in which you did it was gibberish: "Then we chalk that up as at least one redaction from your list of recommendations for mandatory oblivescence."

Try again. Be explicit.
Click to expand...

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/should-men-have-a-say-in-abortion.161939/page-10#post-3579611

That doesn't read as a list of government duties you are agreeing to, for the most part, not give your 2 cents on?

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/should-men-have-a-say-in-abortion.161939/page-11#post-3579839

Whoops!
 
sideshowbob said:
But separate DNA is separate life.
Click to expand...
Well sunshine, isn't that a surprise?
When do you suppose this whole "separate DNA" thing starts to happen?

More gibberish. I'll repeat myself in case you want to answer honestly: Few anti-abortionists honestly consider abortion murder.
Click to expand...
Which is just a statement arising from your naive understanding of the role the legal system plays in society.

At this stage I am not sure whether you are simply too shallow in your thoughts on this subject, or if this is yet another charade of feined stupidity.

Let's try the same general principle in a different setting : is smoking addictive and a cause of cancer? Does an attitude of perceived malevolence (dare we call them murderers?) towards those profiting from the industry require a legal precedent in order to be valid?

To quote Dickens ...
"
"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience."
 
sideshowbob said:
I stand by what I said. If you have an objection, be specific.


Again, if you think there's been any "redaction", point it out.
Click to expand...
I was specific.
Its a list of government duties you agree to not participate in.
And then you disagree with yourself a few posts later, celebrating that you have the right to participate in these government duties.
Your personal example defeats your own argument.
 
Musika said:
At this stage I am not sure whether you are simply too shallow in your thoughts on this subject, or if this is yet another charade of feined stupidity.
Click to expand...
At this stage it appears that you've descended into the insults-only stage of your typical behaviour.
Let's try again: Few anti-abortionists honestly consider abortion murder. For a start, are you in favour of capital punishment for women who have abortions?
 
Musika said:
I was specific.
Click to expand...
No you were not. "Specific" means: Name one of the points you made and give your reasons why my response was inadequate. You did not specify either a point or an objection.
And then you disagree with yourself a few posts later,
Click to expand...
No I did not. Point out exactly where you think I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top