Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:46:07 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:40:31 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:36:38 PMI'm not able to see anything compelling about the unwritten social contract between a couple being taken as imperative over a woman being able to not have to go through childbirth against her will.A father should be able to divorce himself from fiscal responsibility if he elects for abortion and the mother declines and the state takes over, but forcing someone to undergo something as physically tasking and painful and scarring as childbirth? Against their fucking will?Do you people think women lay eggs?If she didn't want a child, she should of been using birth control, It's not exactly moral, to just have reckless sex & when the ramifications appear, just take the cowards way out. If she didn't want the child to begin with, she should of been acting against it, rather than throwing potential human life away, just for the sake of her rights.Birth control fails you dolt. Your mind can change over the course of several months. Do you actually think that some horny bangtown session is grounds for forcing someone to carry something in them that drastically changes their life for the gestation period followed by up to a day of excruciating pain that leaves their nether regions permanently scarred and puts them in recoup mode for up to weeks?Were you given sex ed?Your inability to grasp that the trauma of carrying a child you don't want is easily worse (definitively physically) than the grief of losing your unborn child just demonstrates how biased you're allowing yourself to be.(Exceptions are obviously taken into consideration, thus don't bring them up)Reckless sex has consequences, it's on them to learn from them, not take the easy way out. Wasting human potential for the sake their "comfort" is a joke. Heard the phrase - "Check yourself before you Wreck yourself" applies to women.
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:40:31 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:36:38 PMI'm not able to see anything compelling about the unwritten social contract between a couple being taken as imperative over a woman being able to not have to go through childbirth against her will.A father should be able to divorce himself from fiscal responsibility if he elects for abortion and the mother declines and the state takes over, but forcing someone to undergo something as physically tasking and painful and scarring as childbirth? Against their fucking will?Do you people think women lay eggs?If she didn't want a child, she should of been using birth control, It's not exactly moral, to just have reckless sex & when the ramifications appear, just take the cowards way out. If she didn't want the child to begin with, she should of been acting against it, rather than throwing potential human life away, just for the sake of her rights.Birth control fails you dolt. Your mind can change over the course of several months. Do you actually think that some horny bangtown session is grounds for forcing someone to carry something in them that drastically changes their life for the gestation period followed by up to a day of excruciating pain that leaves their nether regions permanently scarred and puts them in recoup mode for up to weeks?Were you given sex ed?Your inability to grasp that the trauma of carrying a child you don't want is easily worse (definitively physically) than the grief of losing your unborn child just demonstrates how biased you're allowing yourself to be.
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:36:38 PMI'm not able to see anything compelling about the unwritten social contract between a couple being taken as imperative over a woman being able to not have to go through childbirth against her will.A father should be able to divorce himself from fiscal responsibility if he elects for abortion and the mother declines and the state takes over, but forcing someone to undergo something as physically tasking and painful and scarring as childbirth? Against their fucking will?Do you people think women lay eggs?If she didn't want a child, she should of been using birth control, It's not exactly moral, to just have reckless sex & when the ramifications appear, just take the cowards way out. If she didn't want the child to begin with, she should of been acting against it, rather than throwing potential human life away, just for the sake of her rights.
I'm not able to see anything compelling about the unwritten social contract between a couple being taken as imperative over a woman being able to not have to go through childbirth against her will.A father should be able to divorce himself from fiscal responsibility if he elects for abortion and the mother declines and the state takes over, but forcing someone to undergo something as physically tasking and painful and scarring as childbirth? Against their fucking will?Do you people think women lay eggs?
Quote from: Verbatim on March 17, 2016, 06:24:37 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PMThe fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.
Quote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PMThe fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.
The fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.
"if they didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have had sex"How can you apply this to the woman but simultaneously not apply it to the man? Other than rampant misogyny.Ah wait, I see you're just going off the premise of pro-life.Which no one except you agreed to as the premise for this conversation.And even if we did, it eliminates the point of the discussion, it's not about individual stakes in a pregnancy, you just don't like abortion.
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:47:47 PM"if they didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have had sex"How can you apply this to the woman but simultaneously not apply it to the man? Other than rampant misogyny.Ah wait, I see you're just going off the premise of pro-life.Which no one except you agreed to as the premise for this conversation.And even if we did, it eliminates the point of the discussion, it's not about individual stakes in a pregnancy, you just don't like abortion.Abortion is fine, when it's necessary. "Misogyny" lol, calm down. I support rights for both genders. But some rights trump others in certain situations.
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:53:14 PMQuote from: Gaara444 on March 17, 2016, 06:45:53 PMRights aren't petty. And this ventures into the debate on whether that form of life in the beginning of its development is considered worthy of its right to live. Unfortunately for your standpoint, not many who aren't religious radicals claim that it is worthy. Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:43:25 PMHuman life shouldn't be wasted because of her "petty" rights. (Exceptions noted) - If she didn't want to have a child in the first place, steps should've been taken to prevent it, such as birth control. The stage of Development is irrelevant as it is "still a waste of Human potential", I never said it was alive.Wasting human life for the sake of "rights", is petty.Define "human potential" in a non-arbitrary fashion.A fetus needs nurture to survive and fulfill its potential.A baby needs nurture to survive and fulfill its potential.A sperm or an egg (separate) need nurture to survive and fulfill their potential.If we're so concerned about wasting human potential why are we allowing contraceptives?"The adults decided they aren't ready for it yet so the potential isn't there yet."What about conception removes the ability to rescind that decision of readiness other than arbitrary self-service to your argument?
Quote from: Gaara444 on March 17, 2016, 06:45:53 PMRights aren't petty. And this ventures into the debate on whether that form of life in the beginning of its development is considered worthy of its right to live. Unfortunately for your standpoint, not many who aren't religious radicals claim that it is worthy. Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:43:25 PMHuman life shouldn't be wasted because of her "petty" rights. (Exceptions noted) - If she didn't want to have a child in the first place, steps should've been taken to prevent it, such as birth control. The stage of Development is irrelevant as it is "still a waste of Human potential", I never said it was alive.Wasting human life for the sake of "rights", is petty.
Rights aren't petty. And this ventures into the debate on whether that form of life in the beginning of its development is considered worthy of its right to live. Unfortunately for your standpoint, not many who aren't religious radicals claim that it is worthy. Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:43:25 PMHuman life shouldn't be wasted because of her "petty" rights.
Human life shouldn't be wasted because of her "petty" rights.
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:57:03 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:46:07 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:40:31 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:36:38 PMI'm not able to see anything compelling about the unwritten social contract between a couple being taken as imperative over a woman being able to not have to go through childbirth against her will.A father should be able to divorce himself from fiscal responsibility if he elects for abortion and the mother declines and the state takes over, but forcing someone to undergo something as physically tasking and painful and scarring as childbirth? Against their fucking will?Do you people think women lay eggs?If she didn't want a child, she should of been using birth control, It's not exactly moral, to just have reckless sex & when the ramifications appear, just take the cowards way out. If she didn't want the child to begin with, she should of been acting against it, rather than throwing potential human life away, just for the sake of her rights.Birth control fails you dolt. Your mind can change over the course of several months. Do you actually think that some horny bangtown session is grounds for forcing someone to carry something in them that drastically changes their life for the gestation period followed by up to a day of excruciating pain that leaves their nether regions permanently scarred and puts them in recoup mode for up to weeks?Were you given sex ed?Your inability to grasp that the trauma of carrying a child you don't want is easily worse (definitively physically) than the grief of losing your unborn child just demonstrates how biased you're allowing yourself to be.(Exceptions are obviously taken into consideration, thus don't bring them up)Reckless sex has consequences, it's on them to learn from them, not take the easy way out. Wasting human potential for the sake their "comfort" is a joke. Heard the phrase - "Check yourself before you Wreck yourself" applies to women. Promoting throwing children into the hands of parents who are not ready is the more irresponsible and negligent to the well-being of children than any abortion ever will be.
Quote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:58:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 17, 2016, 06:24:37 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PMThe fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?
This is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions
Human Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being
If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled.
No life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:58:27 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:57:03 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:46:07 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:40:31 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:36:38 PMI'm not able to see anything compelling about the unwritten social contract between a couple being taken as imperative over a woman being able to not have to go through childbirth against her will.A father should be able to divorce himself from fiscal responsibility if he elects for abortion and the mother declines and the state takes over, but forcing someone to undergo something as physically tasking and painful and scarring as childbirth? Against their fucking will?Do you people think women lay eggs?If she didn't want a child, she should of been using birth control, It's not exactly moral, to just have reckless sex & when the ramifications appear, just take the cowards way out. If she didn't want the child to begin with, she should of been acting against it, rather than throwing potential human life away, just for the sake of her rights.Birth control fails you dolt. Your mind can change over the course of several months. Do you actually think that some horny bangtown session is grounds for forcing someone to carry something in them that drastically changes their life for the gestation period followed by up to a day of excruciating pain that leaves their nether regions permanently scarred and puts them in recoup mode for up to weeks?Were you given sex ed?Your inability to grasp that the trauma of carrying a child you don't want is easily worse (definitively physically) than the grief of losing your unborn child just demonstrates how biased you're allowing yourself to be.(Exceptions are obviously taken into consideration, thus don't bring them up)Reckless sex has consequences, it's on them to learn from them, not take the easy way out. Wasting human potential for the sake their "comfort" is a joke. Heard the phrase - "Check yourself before you Wreck yourself" applies to women. Promoting throwing children into the hands of parents who are not ready is the more irresponsible and negligent to the well-being of children than any abortion ever will be.- giving the child away to Adoption.
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:59:11 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:58:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 17, 2016, 06:24:37 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PMThe fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:59:48 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:47:47 PM"if they didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have had sex"How can you apply this to the woman but simultaneously not apply it to the man? Other than rampant misogyny.Ah wait, I see you're just going off the premise of pro-life.Which no one except you agreed to as the premise for this conversation.And even if we did, it eliminates the point of the discussion, it's not about individual stakes in a pregnancy, you just don't like abortion.Abortion is fine, when it's necessary. "Misogyny" lol, calm down. I support rights for both genders. But some rights trump others in certain situations.Why is the right to having your child born more imperative than the right to not have your body get ravaged by childbirth?Are you implying that consenting to sex should have that serious of irrevocable ramifications? And why is necessity a requirement, refer to the post where I asked you to provide non-arbitrary reasoning behind your stance.
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:01:22 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:59:48 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:47:47 PM"if they didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have had sex"How can you apply this to the woman but simultaneously not apply it to the man? Other than rampant misogyny.Ah wait, I see you're just going off the premise of pro-life.Which no one except you agreed to as the premise for this conversation.And even if we did, it eliminates the point of the discussion, it's not about individual stakes in a pregnancy, you just don't like abortion.Abortion is fine, when it's necessary. "Misogyny" lol, calm down. I support rights for both genders. But some rights trump others in certain situations.Why is the right to having your child born more imperative than the right to not have your body get ravaged by childbirth?Are you implying that consenting to sex should have that serious of irrevocable ramifications? And why is necessity a requirement, refer to the post where I asked you to provide non-arbitrary reasoning behind your stance.- If you consent, you are also consenting to the ramifications that could occur. - Abortions due to reckless sex (exceptions noted) are not necessary.They are necessary if the mother's life is in danger, if the child has a disorder/issue that there life will be of horrific quality . Its not necessary in anyway, just because they don't want to have their body wrecked, they should've thought of that before they went they consented,
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:20:11 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:01:22 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 06:59:48 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:47:47 PM"if they didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have had sex"How can you apply this to the woman but simultaneously not apply it to the man? Other than rampant misogyny.Ah wait, I see you're just going off the premise of pro-life.Which no one except you agreed to as the premise for this conversation.And even if we did, it eliminates the point of the discussion, it's not about individual stakes in a pregnancy, you just don't like abortion.Abortion is fine, when it's necessary. "Misogyny" lol, calm down. I support rights for both genders. But some rights trump others in certain situations.Why is the right to having your child born more imperative than the right to not have your body get ravaged by childbirth?Are you implying that consenting to sex should have that serious of irrevocable ramifications? And why is necessity a requirement, refer to the post where I asked you to provide non-arbitrary reasoning behind your stance.- If you consent, you are also consenting to the ramifications that could occur. - Abortions due to reckless sex (exceptions noted) are not necessary.They are necessary if the mother's life is in danger, if the child has a disorder/issue that there life will be of horrific quality . Its not necessary in anyway, just because they don't want to have their body wrecked, they should've thought of that before they went they consented, Justify why it needs to be necessary."They should have thought about it" is circular.
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:05:58 PMThis is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument.QuoteHuman Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned.Quote If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism.QuoteNo life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:15:06 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:59:11 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:58:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 17, 2016, 06:24:37 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PMThe fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:15:15 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:05:58 PMThis is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument.QuoteHuman Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned.Quote If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism.QuoteNo life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.A Zygote can develop into a human, an egg/Sperm on their own Can't.
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:17:46 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:15:06 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:59:11 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:58:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 17, 2016, 06:24:37 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PMThe fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.The risks are known before hand, Ramifications happen, learn to deal with them.
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:31:07 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:17:46 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:15:06 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:59:11 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:58:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 17, 2016, 06:24:37 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PMThe fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.The risks are known before hand, Ramifications happen, learn to deal with them.You haven't produced anything compelling as to why they have to be dealt with. Remember, you're the side of the argument arguing that there is a moral imperative that we are obligated to do something. "deal with it" is not valid.
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:30:02 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:15:15 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:05:58 PMThis is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument.QuoteHuman Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned.Quote If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism.QuoteNo life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.A Zygote can develop into a human, an egg/Sperm on their own Can't.A zygote on it's own can't develop into a human, as I stated.You can say that it is a human by virtue of distinct DNA, but then you also include the brain-dead, the deformed stillborn with no brains, and a host of other "human" clumps of cells that in no way constitute things of value. Your distinctions are inconsistent.
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:32:54 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:31:07 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:17:46 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:15:06 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:59:11 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:58:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 17, 2016, 06:24:37 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PMThe fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.The risks are known before hand, Ramifications happen, learn to deal with them.You haven't produced anything compelling as to why they have to be dealt with. Remember, you're the side of the argument arguing that there is a moral imperative that we are obligated to do something. "deal with it" is not valid.The moral being - Be responsible for your actions.
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:31:55 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:30:02 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:15:15 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:05:58 PMThis is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument.QuoteHuman Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned.Quote If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism.QuoteNo life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.A Zygote can develop into a human, an egg/Sperm on their own Can't.A zygote on it's own can't develop into a human, as I stated.You can say that it is a human by virtue of distinct DNA, but then you also include the brain-dead, the deformed stillborn with no brains, and a host of other "human" clumps of cells that in no way constitute things of value. Your distinctions are inconsistent.Semantics... A zygote is within an environment where it usually survives.
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:40:38 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:32:54 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:31:07 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:17:46 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:15:06 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:59:11 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:58:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 17, 2016, 06:24:37 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PMThe fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.The risks are known before hand, Ramifications happen, learn to deal with them.You haven't produced anything compelling as to why they have to be dealt with. Remember, you're the side of the argument arguing that there is a moral imperative that we are obligated to do something. "deal with it" is not valid.The moral being - Be responsible for your actions.Being responsible for your actions would be realizing you are not prepared to bring a person into existence, and that thinking you can just whip yourself into ideal shape to do it is naive at best, and possibly grossly putting that child at potential detriment otherwise. Following some arbitrary, undefined (you haven't demonstrated otherwise yet) rulebook about "potential life" that has no grounding in reality or actual care for the well being of a child's well-being is the irresponsible and childish thing to do.
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:44:22 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:31:55 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:30:02 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:15:15 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:05:58 PMThis is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument.QuoteHuman Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned.Quote If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism.QuoteNo life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.A Zygote can develop into a human, an egg/Sperm on their own Can't.A zygote on it's own can't develop into a human, as I stated.You can say that it is a human by virtue of distinct DNA, but then you also include the brain-dead, the deformed stillborn with no brains, and a host of other "human" clumps of cells that in no way constitute things of value. Your distinctions are inconsistent.Semantics... A zygote is within an environment where it usually survives.Sperm and egg in their usual environment where they will succeed will...unsurprisingly, lead to a zygote which then, if in ideal environment, leads to life.woah it's almost like it's easy to apply your logic to a bunch of things
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:44:32 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:40:38 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:32:54 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:31:07 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:17:46 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:15:06 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:59:11 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:58:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 17, 2016, 06:24:37 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PMThe fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.The risks are known before hand, Ramifications happen, learn to deal with them.You haven't produced anything compelling as to why they have to be dealt with. Remember, you're the side of the argument arguing that there is a moral imperative that we are obligated to do something. "deal with it" is not valid.The moral being - Be responsible for your actions.Being responsible for your actions would be realizing you are not prepared to bring a person into existence, and that thinking you can just whip yourself into ideal shape to do it is naive at best, and possibly grossly putting that child at potential detriment otherwise. Following some arbitrary, undefined (you haven't demonstrated otherwise yet) rulebook about "potential life" that has no grounding in reality or actual care for the well being of a child's well-being is the irresponsible and childish thing to do.Being responsible would be dealing with your consequences dead on, not taking out the easy way out.
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:45:33 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:44:22 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:31:55 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:30:02 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:15:15 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:05:58 PMThis is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument.QuoteHuman Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned.Quote If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism.QuoteNo life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.A Zygote can develop into a human, an egg/Sperm on their own Can't.A zygote on it's own can't develop into a human, as I stated.You can say that it is a human by virtue of distinct DNA, but then you also include the brain-dead, the deformed stillborn with no brains, and a host of other "human" clumps of cells that in no way constitute things of value. Your distinctions are inconsistent.Semantics... A zygote is within an environment where it usually survives.Sperm and egg in their usual environment where they will succeed will...unsurprisingly, lead to a zygote which then, if in ideal environment, leads to life.woah it's almost like it's easy to apply your logic to a bunch of thingsSperm does not reach the Egg without sex, ... again stop with the semantics.
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:50:29 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:44:32 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:40:38 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:32:54 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:31:07 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:17:46 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:15:06 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:59:11 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:58:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 17, 2016, 06:24:37 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PMThe fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.The risks are known before hand, Ramifications happen, learn to deal with them.You haven't produced anything compelling as to why they have to be dealt with. Remember, you're the side of the argument arguing that there is a moral imperative that we are obligated to do something. "deal with it" is not valid.The moral being - Be responsible for your actions.Being responsible for your actions would be realizing you are not prepared to bring a person into existence, and that thinking you can just whip yourself into ideal shape to do it is naive at best, and possibly grossly putting that child at potential detriment otherwise. Following some arbitrary, undefined (you haven't demonstrated otherwise yet) rulebook about "potential life" that has no grounding in reality or actual care for the well being of a child's well-being is the irresponsible and childish thing to do.Being responsible would be dealing with your consequences dead on, not taking out the easy way out."I was irresponsible in making this child, so instead of considering potential consequences to following through with this and avoiding unnecessary suffering, I'm just going to follow through with it because...uh..."If you can't justify your ideas and you refuse to consider consequences for your actions (having a kid no matter if it'll put the kid in detriment or not) I'm just going to conclude that you don't understand the concepts of consequences and how they're supposed to shape your decisions and that you don't understand being a rational person.
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:55:34 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:50:29 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:44:32 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:40:38 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:32:54 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:31:07 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:17:46 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:15:06 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:59:11 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:58:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 17, 2016, 06:24:37 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PMThe fuck what are you guys talking about. I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.The risks are known before hand, Ramifications happen, learn to deal with them.You haven't produced anything compelling as to why they have to be dealt with. Remember, you're the side of the argument arguing that there is a moral imperative that we are obligated to do something. "deal with it" is not valid.The moral being - Be responsible for your actions.Being responsible for your actions would be realizing you are not prepared to bring a person into existence, and that thinking you can just whip yourself into ideal shape to do it is naive at best, and possibly grossly putting that child at potential detriment otherwise. Following some arbitrary, undefined (you haven't demonstrated otherwise yet) rulebook about "potential life" that has no grounding in reality or actual care for the well being of a child's well-being is the irresponsible and childish thing to do.Being responsible would be dealing with your consequences dead on, not taking out the easy way out."I was irresponsible in making this child, so instead of considering potential consequences to following through with this and avoiding unnecessary suffering, I'm just going to follow through with it because...uh..."If you can't justify your ideas and you refuse to consider consequences for your actions (having a kid no matter if it'll put the kid in detriment or not) I'm just going to conclude that you don't understand the concepts of consequences and how they're supposed to shape your decisions and that you don't understand being a rational person.You were responsible for making this child, so the right course of action would be dealing with it, dealing with the mistake you made & learning from it. Not just jumping out like a Coward and aborting it.
Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:53:04 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:45:33 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:44:22 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:31:55 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:30:02 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:15:15 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:05:58 PMThis is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument.QuoteHuman Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned.Quote If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism.QuoteNo life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.A Zygote can develop into a human, an egg/Sperm on their own Can't.A zygote on it's own can't develop into a human, as I stated.You can say that it is a human by virtue of distinct DNA, but then you also include the brain-dead, the deformed stillborn with no brains, and a host of other "human" clumps of cells that in no way constitute things of value. Your distinctions are inconsistent.Semantics... A zygote is within an environment where it usually survives.Sperm and egg in their usual environment where they will succeed will...unsurprisingly, lead to a zygote which then, if in ideal environment, leads to life.woah it's almost like it's easy to apply your logic to a bunch of thingsSperm does not reach the Egg without sex, ... again stop with the semantics. A zygote doesn't live without the mother constantly providing for it, stop pretending to be stupid.
Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:56:30 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:53:04 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:45:33 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:44:22 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:31:55 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:30:02 PMQuote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:15:15 PMQuote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:05:58 PMThis is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument.QuoteHuman Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned.Quote If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism.QuoteNo life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.A Zygote can develop into a human, an egg/Sperm on their own Can't.A zygote on it's own can't develop into a human, as I stated.You can say that it is a human by virtue of distinct DNA, but then you also include the brain-dead, the deformed stillborn with no brains, and a host of other "human" clumps of cells that in no way constitute things of value. Your distinctions are inconsistent.Semantics... A zygote is within an environment where it usually survives.Sperm and egg in their usual environment where they will succeed will...unsurprisingly, lead to a zygote which then, if in ideal environment, leads to life.woah it's almost like it's easy to apply your logic to a bunch of thingsSperm does not reach the Egg without sex, ... again stop with the semantics. A zygote doesn't live without the mother constantly providing for it, stop pretending to be stupid.I'm not debating THAT.Wort wort wort.
What are the five issues most important to you?
