Should men have a say in abortion ?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then we chalk that up as at least one redaction from your list of recommendations for mandatory oblivescence.

If you can't even abide by your own recommendations, your suggestions are defeated by your personal example.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For the third time, the egg and sperm were already alive. Conception does not "begin life".

Life is a continuum. It has been going on for millions of years.

 

Can you translate that into English? I doubt it.

 

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.

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.

 

Can you remember anything of the list you gave the green light to about 4 posts ago?
Or do I have to copy paste it?

 

I think if the patriarchy spent more time painted up and dragging, the world would probably be a markedly better place.

 

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.

That's a can of worms that you probably don't want to open. Few anti-abortionists honestly consider abortion murder.

 

I can. If you have something to say about them, say it.

 

I just did.
You can't stop yourself giving input on subjects you are not intimately connected with, so why continue the charade?

 

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.

 

Precisely

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.

Blithely returning to your forgone conclusion doesn't lend any credibility to your bizarre notions of life.

 

But separate DNA is separate life.

More gibberish. I'll repeat myself in case you want to answer honestly: Few anti-abortionists honestly consider abortion murder.

 

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!

 

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.

 

Well sunshine, isn't that a surprise?
When do you suppose this whole "separate DNA" thing starts to happen?

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."

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

No I did not. Point out exactly where you think I did.