10 arguments that can't be won.

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate how anytime you see someone saying "life begins at conception" there is ALWAYS a religious tie to it:

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-cont...s/2008/11/abortion.jpg

What about those who believe life begins at conception but aren't religious!?

Does anyone who isn't deeply religious actually believe that? It doesn't make much sense without positing a supernatural soul.

I just realized how :evil: this is. I shall post anyway because I mean it.

Yes, I do.

Care to explain your position? Edit: Maybe Via PM, so we don't make the thread asplode.

Sure, sent it over!

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate how anytime you see someone saying "life begins at conception" there is ALWAYS a religious tie to it:

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-cont...s/2008/11/abortion.jpg

What about those who believe life begins at conception but aren't religious!?

Does anyone who isn't deeply religious actually believe that? It doesn't make much sense without positing a supernatural soul.

I just realized how :evil: this is. I shall post anyway because I mean it.

From-conception arguments do seem to always be religously founded, but there are non-religious reasons for believing a human is a person before they are born.

Many non-religious people believe that other people are valuable and should be protected. If you believe that a person is only a person if they are thinking (have meaningful brain activity in their thinking centers; not brain-dead) then I could see how they would believe that a human becomes a person about a month or so into development.

Until it is born a baby is a parasite growing inside the host. Dr. House says so.

Maybe, but it's a thinking parasite... just like a goa'uld :Q

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate how anytime you see someone saying "life begins at conception" there is ALWAYS a religious tie to it:

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-cont...s/2008/11/abortion.jpg

What about those who believe life begins at conception but aren't religious!?

I am one of those persons.

 

[meltdown75]

lol @ So starting firing up the arguments in here :laugh:

So, I LOL in your general direction!

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate how anytime you see someone saying "life begins at conception" there is ALWAYS a religious tie to it:

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-cont...s/2008/11/abortion.jpg

What about those who believe life begins at conception but aren't religious!?

I am one of those persons.

Cool, glad to see someone else on here is! I just wish people would get it out of their head that not all people who believe life begins at conception are pro-life, AND not all of them are religious.

 

[JS80]

eh, gun control does not belong there. it is clear fact that you ban guns, crime goes up.

 

[darkxshade]

My sig disproves the OPs claim.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate how anytime you see someone saying "life begins at conception" there is ALWAYS a religious tie to it:

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-cont...s/2008/11/abortion.jpg

What about those who believe life begins at conception but aren't religious!?

Does anyone who isn't deeply religious actually believe that? It doesn't make much sense without positing a supernatural soul.

I just realized how :evil: this is. I shall post anyway because I mean it.

From-conception arguments do seem to always be religously founded, but there are non-religious reasons for believing a human is a person before they are born.

Many non-religious people believe that other people are valuable and should be protected. If you believe that a person is only a person if they are thinking (have meaningful brain activity in their thinking centers; not brain-dead) then I could see how they would believe that a human becomes a person about a month or so into development.

Until it is born a baby is a parasite growing inside the host. Dr. House says so.

lol bullshit, babies are parasites until the parent kicks them out of the house and cuts off funding

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Enjoy

The problem is people do view them as arguments or debates instead of a discussion where ideas can be expressed and shared.

ATOT is not adult enough or open minded enough to have a discussion about these topics (as has been proved over the last nine years).

 

[acheron]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate how anytime you see someone saying "life begins at conception" there is ALWAYS a religious tie to it:

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-cont...s/2008/11/abortion.jpg

What about those who believe life begins at conception but aren't religious!?

I am one of those persons.

I am also one of those persons.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: acheron

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate how anytime you see someone saying "life begins at conception" there is ALWAYS a religious tie to it:

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-cont...s/2008/11/abortion.jpg

What about those who believe life begins at conception but aren't religious!?

I am one of those persons.

I am also one of those persons.

hey, so am i!

 

[SMOGZINN]

We should just make a thread for each of those topics and sticky it.

Now on to our regularly scheduled hijacking...
Any non-religious argument for life starting at conception is logically flawed. Any argument for it can just as easily be made for each egg and sperm, and then you have wet dreams and menstrual cycles becoming a capital offences.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
We should just make a thread for each of those topics and sticky it.

Now on to our regularly scheduled hijacking...
Any non-religious argument for life starting at conception is logically flawed. Any argument for it can just as easily be made for each egg and sperm, and then you have wet dreams and menstrual cycles becoming a capital offences.

Uh, no? Don't make a mockery of our beliefs. You're only fooling yourself. An egg alone is not a baby. A sperm alone is not a baby. A woman's body doesn't go through incredible chemical changes preparing to take care of a child until that egg is fertilized. A father's incredible emotions to take care of a mother and levels of testosterone don't begin to drop until the sperm has fertilized with the egg. That's where it all begins.

 

[miketheidiot]

the egg was first

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
We should just make a thread for each of those topics and sticky it.

Now on to our regularly scheduled hijacking...
Any non-religious argument for life starting at conception is logically flawed. Any argument for it can just as easily be made for each egg and sperm, and then you have wet dreams and menstrual cycles becoming a capital offences.

Uh, no? Don't make a mockery of our beliefs. You're only fooling yourself. An egg alone is not a baby. A sperm alone is not a baby. A woman's body doesn't go through incredible chemical changes preparing to take care of a child until that egg is fertilized. A father's incredible emotions to take care of a mother and levels of testosterone don't begin to drop until the sperm has fertilized with the egg. That's where it all begins.

Are you all talking about life beginning with egg+sperm, or a person beginning with egg+sperm? Cuz there's a huge difference between the two. We kill billions of bacteria every day and nobody cares, however everyone goes crazy when even a few hundred people are killed.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
We should just make a thread for each of those topics and sticky it.

Now on to our regularly scheduled hijacking...
Any non-religious argument for life starting at conception is logically flawed. Any argument for it can just as easily be made for each egg and sperm, and then you have wet dreams and menstrual cycles becoming a capital offences.

Uh, no? Don't make a mockery of our beliefs. You're only fooling yourself. An egg alone is not a baby. A sperm alone is not a baby. A woman's body doesn't go through incredible chemical changes preparing to take care of a child until that egg is fertilized. A father's incredible emotions to take care of a mother and levels of testosterone don't begin to drop until the sperm has fertilized with the egg. That's where it all begins.

Are you all talking about life beginning with egg+sperm, or a person beginning with egg+sperm? Cuz there's a huge difference between the two. We kill billions of bacteria every day and nobody cares, however everyone goes crazy when even a few hundred people are killed.

are you trying to compare a human zygote to bacteria?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
We should just make a thread for each of those topics and sticky it.

Now on to our regularly scheduled hijacking...
Any non-religious argument for life starting at conception is logically flawed. Any argument for it can just as easily be made for each egg and sperm, and then you have wet dreams and menstrual cycles becoming a capital offences.

Uh, no? Don't make a mockery of our beliefs. You're only fooling yourself. An egg alone is not a baby. A sperm alone is not a baby. A woman's body doesn't go through incredible chemical changes preparing to take care of a child until that egg is fertilized. A father's incredible emotions to take care of a mother and levels of testosterone don't begin to drop until the sperm has fertilized with the egg. That's where it all begins.

Not making a mockery of anything, I'm just pointing out that they are beliefs and have no real logical consistency and instead boil down to religious dogma. I have no problem with your religion as long as it does not try to control me.

An egg alone is not a baby.

Nope, it is an egg, which is in and of itself alive.

A sperm alone is not a baby.

Ditto to the egg.

A woman's body doesn't go through incredible chemical changes preparing to take care of a child until that egg is fertilized.

I?m guessing you are a man that has never lived with a woman. Go read up on the menstrual cycle. That is a woman?s body preparing to take care of a child long before the egg is fertilized. More changes take place after, but it is possible for those other changes to take place even with out fertilization.

a father's incredible emotions to take care of a mother and levels of testosterone don't begin to drop until the sperm has fertilized with the egg.

I don?t even know what to do with this. Are you saying that a man does not love his wife unless she is pregnant?

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
We should just make a thread for each of those topics and sticky it.

Now on to our regularly scheduled hijacking...
Any non-religious argument for life starting at conception is logically flawed. Any argument for it can just as easily be made for each egg and sperm, and then you have wet dreams and menstrual cycles becoming a capital offences.

Uh, no? Don't make a mockery of our beliefs. You're only fooling yourself. An egg alone is not a baby. A sperm alone is not a baby. A woman's body doesn't go through incredible chemical changes preparing to take care of a child until that egg is fertilized. A father's incredible emotions to take care of a mother and levels of testosterone don't begin to drop until the sperm has fertilized with the egg. That's where it all begins.

Are you all talking about life beginning with egg+sperm, or a person beginning with egg+sperm? Cuz there's a huge difference between the two. We kill billions of bacteria every day and nobody cares, however everyone goes crazy when even a few hundred people are killed.

are you trying to compare a human zygote to bacteria?

In the sense that both are alive, yes. In case you missed it the first time around, it's useless to argue when "life" begins seeing as not all life is valuable. What is important is when that zygote becomes a person, seeing as all people are valuable.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
We should just make a thread for each of those topics and sticky it.

Now on to our regularly scheduled hijacking...
Any non-religious argument for life starting at conception is logically flawed. Any argument for it can just as easily be made for each egg and sperm, and then you have wet dreams and menstrual cycles becoming a capital offences.

Uh, no? Don't make a mockery of our beliefs. You're only fooling yourself. An egg alone is not a baby. A sperm alone is not a baby. A woman's body doesn't go through incredible chemical changes preparing to take care of a child until that egg is fertilized. A father's incredible emotions to take care of a mother and levels of testosterone don't begin to drop until the sperm has fertilized with the egg. That's where it all begins.

Are you all talking about life beginning with egg+sperm, or a person beginning with egg+sperm? Cuz there's a huge difference between the two. We kill billions of bacteria every day and nobody cares, however everyone goes crazy when even a few hundred people are killed.

are you trying to compare a human zygote to bacteria?

In the sense that both are alive, yes. In case you missed it the first time around, it's useless to argue when "life" begins seeing as not all life is valuable. What is important is when that zygote becomes a person, seeing as all people are valuable.

sure they are both alive, but one is enormously more important than the other. they really aren't comparable in that respect.

life begins at conception. my belief, and i agree it's one of those arguments that can't be won with a group of randoms on the internet.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
We should just make a thread for each of those topics and sticky it.

Now on to our regularly scheduled hijacking...
Any non-religious argument for life starting at conception is logically flawed. Any argument for it can just as easily be made for each egg and sperm, and then you have wet dreams and menstrual cycles becoming a capital offences.

Uh, no? Don't make a mockery of our beliefs. You're only fooling yourself. An egg alone is not a baby. A sperm alone is not a baby. A woman's body doesn't go through incredible chemical changes preparing to take care of a child until that egg is fertilized. A father's incredible emotions to take care of a mother and levels of testosterone don't begin to drop until the sperm has fertilized with the egg. That's where it all begins.

Are you all talking about life beginning with egg+sperm, or a person beginning with egg+sperm? Cuz there's a huge difference between the two. We kill billions of bacteria every day and nobody cares, however everyone goes crazy when even a few hundred people are killed.

are you trying to compare a human zygote to bacteria?

In the sense that both are alive, yes. In case you missed it the first time around, it's useless to argue when "life" begins seeing as not all life is valuable. What is important is when that zygote becomes a person, seeing as all people are valuable.

sure they are both alive, but one is enormously more important than the other. they really aren't comparable in that respect.

life begins at conception. my belief, and i agree it's one of those arguments that can't be won with a group of randoms on the internet.

You just missed it twice in a row, either that or you're trolling... ah forget it, it's useless either way.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

sure they are both alive, but one is enormously more important than the other. they really aren't comparable in that respect.

life begins at conception. my belief, and i agree it's one of those arguments that can't be won with a group of randoms on the internet.

I don't think we can call it human until sometime after it's 18th birthday, meaning that something over half of ATOT should be legal to abort.

The question is not really when does life start, or even if the argument can be 'won' on the internet, but if a secular argument can be made at all or does all such arguments revolve around religion.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: dNor
Cake or pie

Bruce Lee or Coke?

Hookers or Blow?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: moshquerade

sure they are both alive, but one is enormously more important than the other. they really aren't comparable in that respect.

life begins at conception. my belief, and i agree it's one of those arguments that can't be won with a group of randoms on the internet.

I don't think we can call it human until sometime after it's 18th birthday, meaning that something over half of ATOT should be legal to abort.

The question is not really when does life start, or even if the argument can be 'won' on the internet, but if a secular argument can be made at all or does all such arguments revolve around religion.

fwiw, i was just stating my belief.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
We should just make a thread for each of those topics and sticky it.

Now on to our regularly scheduled hijacking...
Any non-religious argument for life starting at conception is logically flawed. Any argument for it can just as easily be made for each egg and sperm, and then you have wet dreams and menstrual cycles becoming a capital offences.

Uh, no? Don't make a mockery of our beliefs. You're only fooling yourself. An egg alone is not a baby. A sperm alone is not a baby. A woman's body doesn't go through incredible chemical changes preparing to take care of a child until that egg is fertilized. A father's incredible emotions to take care of a mother and levels of testosterone don't begin to drop until the sperm has fertilized with the egg. That's where it all begins.

Are you all talking about life beginning with egg+sperm, or a person beginning with egg+sperm? Cuz there's a huge difference between the two. We kill billions of bacteria every day and nobody cares, however everyone goes crazy when even a few hundred people are killed.

are you trying to compare a human zygote to bacteria?

In the sense that both are alive, yes. In case you missed it the first time around, it's useless to argue when "life" begins seeing as not all life is valuable. What is important is when that zygote becomes a person, seeing as all people are valuable.

sure they are both alive, but one is enormously more important than the other. they really aren't comparable in that respect.

life begins at conception. my belief, and i agree it's one of those arguments that can't be won with a group of randoms on the internet.

Agreed, it can only be won with religious nutballs of like minds.

 

[Lonyo]

Egg came before chicken.
Question is too general to have any other answer. Egg != chicken egg.