An Unborn Child is in Fact, Human

[SKILORD]

i'm having fun agreeing about harry Potter so i won't argue here.

Consider yourselves blessed

[Ramo]

I am arguing what can't be reversed versus what hasn't happened.

Why does reversing the process of becoming human have any bearing on what should have legal protections?

Besides, the zygote's development can be stopped by cutting off resources to it. If otherwise we wouldn't have any abortion argument in the first place.

[November Adam]

a childs devlopment would be stopped if we cut off resources to it.

i'm not talking about legal protection right now.

if you have no problem with killing humans at their fetal stage than, thats fine. Just don't try to sugar coat it to make it easier to digest.

[Ramo]

Yes, don't sugar-coat it next time you masturbate, you killer.

a childs devlopment would be stopped if we cut off resources to it.

It's your argument, mind you. I was just showing how it's flawed.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo


Yes, the arguments anti-abortionists have made are indeed stupid.



Why is this important?



Sperm and ova will become human provided they have the appropriate resources.

you just completely ignored my statement

you are not this stupid Ramo

and your question of why having the genetics of a human is important for the classification of it as human just shows how idiotic you are being

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yes, don't sugar-coat it next time you masturbate, you killer.



It's your argument, mind you. I was just showing how it's flawed.

no you are being purposefully dense

Jon Miller

[November Adam]

uhm, how does this show my arguemnet is flawed? Wouldn't it strengthen it?

[Ramo]

you just completely ignored my statement

you are not this stupid Ramo

and your question of why having the genetics of a human is important for the classification of it as human just shows how idiotic you are being

I don't care if it's classified as a human or not. That's not what I'm arguing. That's a semantics arguments, and those bore me.

I'm arguing whether young fetuses should have legal protections and whether killing it is immoral.

[Jon Miller]

we are arguing that killing humans is immoral

since the zygote is human gentically (ova and sperm are not)

and becomes (everyone agrees here) a human being

it is human

thus killing it is immoral

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

BTW, I do think human zygotes are human, just as human skin cells or human

uhm, how does this show my arguemnet is flawed? Wouldn't it strengthen it?

You've yet to demonstrate why reversing is relevant.

[Jon Miller]

that is at least the argument

I may be willing to go with a heart beat or brain waves (which would still limit abortion much more than now)

Jon Miller

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Ramo


You've yet to demonstrate why reversing is relevant.

Ask a women who is pregnant why reversing is relevant.

[Ramo]

since the zygote is human gentically (ova and sperm are not)

Again, why is this relevant?

it is human

thus killing it is immoral

More argument by semantics...

You have to demonstrate why this:
"since the zygote is human gentically (ova and sperm are not) " and "and becomes (everyone agrees here) a human being " implies this "thus killing it is immoral "

[Ramo]

You're a mathemtician Jon, you ought to be a better logician than this.

You are asserting A & B -> C
But A !-> C
And B !-> C

You need something to back these assertions up.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo


Again, why is this relevant?

because it shows why your statements that masturbation and periods are murder are ludicrous

Jon Miller