Creepy Condescending Wonka

I support womens rights

Just not when they are fetuses?

No, Sydney. We've been very clear on that. Fetuses are not people therefore we support the rights of the woman they are in.

I disagree but I won't change your mind. Peace.

So....you weren't a person?

Not before I was born. Is this still a point of confusion? I'm not looking for agreement, I'm just concerned that there's still questions about what this entails.

I don't understand

It's very simple: for a myriad of many possible reasons, it is very common and very reasonable to believe that birth is the line between being a fetus and being a person. Before, it's a fetus, then it's a person.

Now, I am very much aware that this line between the two is contested, but, that then raises the issue of who gets to decide? Who even has the right to decide?

Again, I'm not looking for you to change your mind - that's just how the answer to your question goes. Any other questions?

Nope

That's BS, so how is a human when it comes out, but not a human when it's inside. You guys don't make sense

It makes perfect sense.

An egg is not a chicken even though it will be when it hatches.

Wort is not beer until it finishes fermenting.

I mean, I could do this all day - pick something you understand and you'll probably be able to find an analogy.

the "egg" is the amniotic sac in your lame example. The chicken is inside the egg just like the baby is inside the sac.

A "yolk" is not a chicken, correct. A "yolk" is what feeds the chicken should the egg have been fertilized.

A yolk is not a chicken

No it doesn't because there was a a chicken inside the egg, so when does life begin,

Life began billions of years ago, duh. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive, parents are alive, embryos are alive. But sperm and eggs and embryos are not *people*. There's nothing wrong with killing a sperm, because it's not a person. It's alive, but it's not a person. Chickens are alive, but they're not people. You can kill and eat a chicken. You can't kill and eat a person. Not that difficult of a concept.

Biologically, birds are far different than mammals.

It's *human* before and after birth, but a clump of cells is not a *person*. Those words don't mean the same thing. If you get your appendix removed, it's human tissue, but it's not a person. No one's going to prison for throwing an appendix in a garbage can.

But a fetus is a small human being not tissue

Is a blastocyst a "small human being", or is it human tissue?

It's 'legally' as of yet, not murder. A technicality but acccurate.

Murder is murder. Abortion is murder. Legality has nothing to do with it by definition. Abortion is simply a legal murder.

Yes, but it is legal, like the death penalty. That's all I was pointing out. That's why I said it was a technicality.

But you incorrectly said it was not murder too.

Abortion is obviously not murder. You don't even really believe that it is; you're just virtue signalling. Murder is the killing of a person. A clump of cells is not a person.

Yep. I’m signaling I have virtue. You’re signaling you don’t.

You seriously believe that killing a fertilized human egg is murder? I don't believe you.

I have never made that argument. I can handle my own discussion points, thanks.

Really? So killing a defenseless fetus is a moral thing?

I wasn't trying to be negative. I was actually trying to give you a fair shake but be prickly :)

Look you're backing out

?

Ah

So your circulatory system wasn't functional before you were born? Your nervous system? Your digestive system?

It seems to me you were a fully-formed person BEFORE you were born.

Your entire argument hinges on time, and I fail to see why your argument specifying a specific point in time is somehow more valid than everyone else's point in time.

So your digestive system makes it wrong to kill you? Chickens have digestive systems, too. Is it wrong to kill them?

He/She/It still isn't based on their love of murdering children.

?

That's so stupid rape is rape and murder is murder. Prove your facts

Fetuses are living humans, I think we can all agree on that. Aside from full mental capacity (which doesn't fully develop until about age 25), how can you say a fetus is not a person?

No, I DON'T agree with that. There are several critical life systems that are not done forming until it really comes out into the world.

How exactly would you classify a fetus, I'm wondering? Is it alive? Is it not alive? Perhaps you would go as far as to say it's an animal?

And ending a life wantonly is murder. Glad you've come around finally.

You’ve been shown it is.

Only in what? 65% of cases, to be generous?

It does too often is all I'm saying.

You’re just in denial then. Abortion is wanton as proven. Tata.

So you're vegan? Meat is murder?

Nope. Animals aren’t human. Babies are. From conception.

From conception? So if a fertilized egg fails to implant in the uterus, that's a person dying? Should we start having funerals for them?

You just said ending life is murder. Eating meat ends life.

Human life was implied. Nice try.

But they are humans you guys can't give any solid evidence to support your claims

It doesn't matter that they're human. Sperm is human, but that doesn't make it wrong to kill sperm. A removed gallbladder is human, but that doesn't make it wrong to throw it away.

But sperm isnt a human being

If it's not human, then what species is it?

Humans have a similar chemical makeup as animals, but we are obviously different from them. This is evidenced by our higher-level brain function and sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair.

Haha; no, I don't think I want to get into a debate about evolution right now. Maybe another time, in another place. I don't often like getting into drawn-out arguments (which is why I so rarely visit the Politics stream).

I like the way you spoke calmly and respectfully, though, which is more than most "politics" people I've encountered will do.

What animal has a sense of fairness besides maybe a well trained dog or maaaaaaaaybe a dolphin?

Humans are the ONLY creatures to require the threat of invisble omnipotent beings commanding them under threat of damnation to act in a way that comes naturally for animals (except when predating or aberrent behavior in artificial conditions created by humans).
And yet despite having these commands written and repeated and argued over constantly, people still sin more than any creature could if they tried, which, save for the exceptions I mentioned, it is not in them to do.

Lots of animals have a sense of fairness. Did you try researching it even a little bit before posting that comment?

In general, humans have a much stronger sense of fairness and morality than do animals. Other factors which separate us from animals include interest in science and religion, as well as a sophisticated system of written and oral communication.

Scientifically, humans are placed in the animal kingdom because we share the same physical characteristics as true animals. The five-kingdom classification system, however, does not account for differences in intelligence, etc. between organisms.

"Triumph_9

In general, humans have a much stronger sense of fairness and morality than do animals. "

Actually they don't, which is why people rely on unseen super beings threatening to punish them for violating a moral code supposedly given to them in some puff of magic smoke to keep them from destroying everything and everyone around them. And despite these rules being codified and transcribed, humans continuously violate them with astounding frequency, behaviour unknown with any other creature to have ever existed.

Even the most physically lethal of creatures can not match people for volume and sheer unabashed wanton cruelty with no other reason other than narcissism and simple base pleasure.

Embryos have science and religion?

And then there's the theory of evolution. I certainly don't believe it, but I'm not going to get into a debate about the pros and cons. Just tell me this: if a fetus is not a person, because it has not fully developed, then what makes children and young adults "persons" since they have not fully developed, either?

My 9 month old is fully dependant on me to stay alive 24/7. Is he not a person?

It's 2019 and you don't believe in evolution? Seriously? Evolution is literally happening before your eyes. Most of us grew out of creationism in our teen years.

Embryos have a sense of right and wrong?

Possible, but not probable. It likely develops with the rest of the higher-thinking skills.

So if a sense of right and wrong is what separates us from animals, then an embryo is morally equivalent to an animal?

But you are forgetting the fact that human embryos DO become self-sufficient, adult humans; whereas a worm will never even come close to being a human.

Sperm become self-sufficient adult humans, too. Is it murder to kill sperm?

A spirit is basically the essence of the Creator in us. Christianity will teach you that humans were made with some aspects of God; this is generally regarded as the spirit. The spirit is the eternal part of our being, which lives on after our physical body has died.

Animals are not created quite that way: they aren't given a spirit. There is some observable "evidence" for this, if you will, in that animals live guilt-free lives and don't care about eternal consequences - humans are the only creations which seem to care about such matters.

But how do you know that humans have a spirit and animals don't? Where did you learn this? What's the evidence for it?

The physical evidence is, like I said before, that we have a sense of morality and possess higher thinking skills (and therefore are considered more important) than animals do.

Like in many situations, there isn't much evidence that can be objectively proven through science. To be 100% certain, you need to have faith that it is true.

Ok, but human embryos have even less sense of morality and even less thinking skills than a worm, so killing them is less morally wrong than killing a worm?

No, by itself sperm does not become a self sufficient person. It has to be united with an egg cell in order for that to take place.

No response?

So at the moment an egg is fertilized by a sperm it becomes a person and gets a spirit? So if it then fails to implant in the uterus, a person has died? Should we hold a funeral for them? Do they go to heaven or hell?

Not exactly. The one main thing that sets us apart from animals is that we have a spirit and they don't. The spirit brings with it a sense of morality and right and wrong. I know you don't believe in the supernatural, so this may not make any logical sense to you.

What is a spirit and how do you know that you have one and animals don't? I grew up believing in supernatural things, so I know where you're coming from.

Odd as compared to what? I did check out the link, and, I'll grant you, this is news to me. If you think about it, however, there are thousands (if not millions) of people living who do not have access to the Scripture, and whom missionaries have not reached - people who you would likely consider as innocent. They die every day. Perhaps there is a way which God can "save" them without such help.... in which case I am certain the same is true with embryos/fetuses.

If that were true, then missionaries would be a bad thing, since people they haven't reached definitely go to Heaven, while people they have reached will only go to Heaven if they believe. I don't think that's in the Bible. Jesus specifically said to spread the gospel to all nations, and that people they don't reach are unsaved.

Anyway, back to the main discussion: You believe that a human egg gets a soul/spirit at the moment of conception, right? Even before it implants in the uterus? If that's true, what happens to the soul when the embryo divides? Identical twins/triplets are formed by an embryo splitting, up to 13 days AFTER conception. Do they each get a fraction of a soul? Does one get a soul and the rest don't?

It's always possible that "chimeras" have two spirits. I hadn't heard of them until now.

If, indeed, 2/3 of fertilized embryos do die before they have been born, then you would be largely correct. However, there isn't any existing and reliable way to confirm this notion. And another thing... it takes more than being "Christian" to get to the kingdom of Heaven. You actually have to BELIEVE. Just being baptized or belonging to a church is no guarantee. And from what I have seen and heard, many so-called Christians do not conform to the Christian lifestyle at all.
I think you're trying to get me to say that 1) fertilized eggs aren't people or that 2) God sends innocent people to Hell, but I am not saying either one.

I'm just saying it's a bit odd that the vast majority of people in Hell never lived a day on Earth. Don't you think?

(And yes, I'm familiar with the concept of "original sin", and I know you think all those single-cell organisms are sinners because someone ate an apple one time, and therefore they are NOT innocent and deserve to be tormented eternally in Hell. Right?)

(And yes, we know that it's about 2/3: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101003205930.htm )

Was away for Independence Day. Sorry for the inconvenience.

It is generally accepted that the spirit is bestowed at the moment of conception, when the egg and sperm begin their life as a single entity. However, the parents are not likely to even be aware of the embryo at this point (without a pregnancy test), so the death of the person would likely go unnoticed.

Does the person then go to heaven or hell when they die? Hell, because of original sin, right?

Interesting point you raise. However, you are thinking in scientific, observable terms - but spirits are neither scientifically measurable nor observable. If an embryo splits, God can give a separate spirit to each twin/triplet/etc.

Then does the fertilized egg have a soul before it splits, or only after?

Sadly, this is true.

So if 2/3 of fertilized eggs die naturally, and their spirits go directly to Hell, then the majority of residents of Hell were never anything more than fertilized eggs. For instance, if being Christian were all it takes to go to Heaven, and 1/3 of living breathing human beings are Christian, then that means 75% of the souls in hell were never born. They never breathed, never thought or experienced anything of this world, they just went directly to Hell and were tortured forever. Is that right?

Before.

For example, Taylor Muhl is a chimera, made of two different fertilized eggs, which you claim each had spirits from the moment of conception. Does that mean she has two spirits? Both cell lines are still alive in her body.

So it has one spirit when it becomes fertilized, but then it gets more spirits each time cells split off the embryo? Which copy gets the original spirit? Or does the original spirit die and two new ones are created? What happens if the embryos join back together and form a chimera? Does one of the spirits die? What happens when cells separate from the embryo and become incorporated into the mother's body? (In 2/3 of mothers studied, cells from their children were still alive inside their bodies for the rest of their life.) Do those cells each get their own souls when they split off, too?

(point)

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You still think your opinion carries weight ! That's so cute !

(point)

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

(point)

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You are wrong because you defend the delusions of the insane. No more explanation is required.

(point)

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

If you're as good in bed as you are in a debate...

Classification is fetus. That's the entire point of the word.

But it IS just that, a word, and only that.

Sure. But it's pretty clear on what it means. Triumph is trying to pin me down and say "ah ha! So you think it's some different kind of animal altogether!"

Like.... What even? "Yes, obviously it follows from what I said that a fetus of a human is actually some type of duck." I mean, sure, language comes with some degree of subjectivity in its usage but there's a limit.

I hear you.
Cornered, oh no, what shall you do?

Reminds me of the old saying that goes,

If it walks like a duck,
And it quacks like a duck,
Then it ain't a human fetus.

You still haven't told me what exactly this classification means. Are you saying it's a separate species?

Of course it's alive. That doesn't make it wrong to kill it. Worms are alive. That doesn't make it wrong to kill them while gardening.

I agree, just because something is alive doesn't mean we can't kill it. I kill flies every day. That wasn't the issue

Then don't use the word "life". Lots of things are alive, but that doesn't make it wrong to kill them.

Spirit. We are talking about this in our other conversation.

We were talking about human life, not just any life. Most of us agree that human life is more precious than non-human life.

Sure, but what separates human life from non-human life? What is it that makes it more precious?

It heart beats at 3 weeks

Is it wrong to kill things with a heartbeat?

If its human fetus

What if it's a human embryo with no heartbeat?

So what are dementia or Alzheimer's patients, hmmmm?

Since you seem to be hung up on cognitive abilities, what separates those people from a fetus?

Fetuses aren't women, dummy.

There are female fetuses, dipshit.

Female fetuses aren't women, friend.

I'm not going to argue it.

Why not? Do your beliefs not have a solid foundation?

Soooo, one sex has the right to kill people who annoy them!