Every baby deserves a chance to Live !

The problem with your argument is that you have yet to give a reason or evidence showing your claim to be true other than repeating your premise over and over again or posting quotes that repeat the same premise.

Repeating a claim does not prove that a claim is true.

 

You know quite well that is not true. I have shown evidence repeatedly.

 

Now you are claiming "I have proved it" over and over again hoping that repeating this will make this claim true.

All you submitted as "evidence" was quotes from folks who were just restating your claim. Repeating a claim does not make it true.

That said, you have yet to even figure out what your claim is. Never mind support it. You switched between 3 different claims.

 

Life begins at conception. This is basic science. Not my problem you are so stubbornly denying science.

 

You have not provided any science that supports you claim so there is no need for me to deny what does not exist. Repeating your claim over and over again is not science.


Basic science states that animate does not come from inanimate. (life comes from life). Basic science tells us that human life exists prior to conception. (human sperm is both human and alive).

There are two universally accepted scientific facts that disprove your claim.

 

So it is once again your argument that spermatozoa should have constitutional rights? We've been around this dance before.

 

I never made any such argument. You have no other material so now you are making up nonsense and attributing it to me (Straw man)

I stated that it is Scientific fact that a sperm is both living and human which refutes your "life begins at conception" claim.

 

Very well. I don't think that anyone is disputing the fact that a sperm can be both alive and/or human.

We are debating when life begins however, not whether the components which create the zygote were alive or not. It goes without saying that the sex cells are alive since if they were not they could not fertilize the egg. Nobody is saying life is created from inanimate objects.

That being said, it is quite obvious that a sperm being alive and human does not in fact dispute the contention that life begins at conception.

I think I told you sometime ago, I was not debating when all life began. This is an abortion thread, please stick to the subject.

With all that in mind, my contention is that life begins at conception and should have a constitutionally protected right to life. If your argument is that life begins before conception, then are you not implying that life before conception, a sperm, deserves constitutional protection?

Thus for the umpteenth time I have demonstrated that you are making that argument and the silliness of your argument. If you want to continue to advocate for the rights of sperm, then by all means keep pointing out that life begins before conception.

 

I am both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.

There are cases where not only is an Abortion Necessary it is absolutely 100% Morally Justifiable.

Rape.
Incest.
Genetic Abnormalities of the Fetus.
Danger to the Woman's Health.
Diseases.
Etc...etc...etc.

People and Kids are never going to stop having sex or stop being irresposible.

I find it idiotic that Pro-Lifers have absolutely no issue with a Couple that is having issues conceiving to go to a Fertility Clinic where many, many Fertilized Eggs are thrown away as only a few are used for implantation into the Uterine Wall.

Yet these same people have issues over Plan B and Morning After Pills which if taken shortly after unprotected sex will not allow Pregnancy.

AboveAlpha

 

I'm often told that many zygotes never implant. When this happens it is natural. This does not mean we should morn the loss of life. It is a natural abortion that happened without the intercession of another human. In the case of fertilized eggs in the laboratory, they serve a purpose to bring life. If they don't get the opportunity to implant, then that too does not mean we should morn the loss of life. If we used that logic, then we should not extend the use of science in fertilization at all. Just because people are religious, doesn't mean that we shun the use of science to create life or extend it.

 

I have never advocated for the rights of the sperm. You have been completely busted so now you have to rely on straw man arguments.

Then when that straw man fails you just keep repeating it over and over again like some cult follower chanting some mantra.

 

You can't offer up proof that life didn't begin at conception by pointing out that sperm is alive and not expect to be called on the faulty logic of your argument.

 

What is faulty about it. Just because you can not refute my logic does not make it faulty ?

 

Evidently it is faulty because you refute your own premise. Or are you now saying that a sperm deserves constitutional protection?

 

What premise have I refuted and how did I do so. Quit making up nonsense.

 

That life begins before conception.

 

You are the king/queen of naked claims. You said I refuted this premise. What did I say that refuted this premise ?

 

You said that:

My argument is that life begins at conception, and therefore, it should be protected constitutionally. Your counter-argument is that it begins before conception, thus arguing that sperm should be constitutionally protected.

Well unless you are arguing for the rights of sperm, then why are you trying to argue that life begins before conception?

 

""""My argument is that life begins at conception, and therefore, it should be protected constitutionally.""""


Yes, that was YOUR argument, not anyone else's !!!

 

I call it the ostrich syndrome .. bury the head in the sand and ignore reality.

 

Ya, but they pull their head out of their ..er...out of the sand once in awhile to scream, " I'm right because I say I'm right" and "Strawman" Strawman" !!!

 

You are confusing the existence of human life with the existence of a living human.

The constitution applies to "humans" (Noun) not some abstract definition (of which there are many) of what constitutes Human (adjective) life.

The constitution question is then "Is the entity, regardless of what stage in the process of creating a human, a living human".

I have never argued that a sperm is a living human (Noun). What is scientific fact is that the sperm is "human (adjective) life.

As I have been saying all along. The only question that matters from a legal constitutional perspective (morality is something different) is whether or not the entity is a living human.

A sperm is not a living human therefor it does not qualify for rights under the constitution.

You are confusing what is "human life" with what is a "living human".

 

You are wasting time and effort, the poster in question has already stated plainly that they will never change their opinion no matter what facts are presented.

 

Sad state of affairs how this happens. A high level of denial of facts is often found in those who have been subjected to sophisticated religious mind control techniques. I am not sure what the case is here but it is a similar phenomenon.

 

I don't know if I'd quite say that. What I would say is that it is no longer a part of the woman's body at conception.