AlfaSeltzer:

Right. I think I get you.
The embryo gets human rights when it is inside a woman and the woman wants to keep it. Under any other circumstances, it cannot be considered human. Yes?

Anonyinizing my arguments again.


It is not exactly a case of human rights per se.


It is more about having the right to take a life. Only the woman has the right over her embryo/foetus.

TheBigUrban2:


Anonyinizing my arguments again.


It is not exactly a case of human rights per se.


It is more about having the right to take a life. Only the woman has the right over her embryo/foetus.

The bolded. How does it apply to IVF, which is the topic of this thread?

AlfaSeltzer:

The bolded. How does it apply to IVF, which is the topic of this thread?

Are you not the one who questioned me away from the point of the thread into that position?

You mad?

TheBigUrban2:


Are you not the one who questioned me away from the point of the thread into that position?

You mad?

Because I'm trying to understand you!
But I'm not even sure you even understand yourself. You just keep attacking people even while agreeing with them just because they are xtians.

AlfaSeltzer:

Because I'm trying to understand you!
But I'm not even sure you even understand yourself. You just keep attacking people even while agreeing with them just because they are xtians.

Is this muskeeto speaking?

When did I become a bigot that just attacks christians for no reason?


I understand myself.

TheBigUrban2:
1) The embro/foetus is a part of the woman. Unless you have been nourishing it for weeks, I think you should allow the woman to decide its fate.

2) Everyone else is also exempt from the charge of nourishing the embryo/feotus...so the pleading isnt miraculous or special or even pleading.

The foetus is not a "part of the woman" it is an independent human being. I hope you are not suggesting that nourishing another human being gives one the right to terminate his/her life.

MrAnony1:
The foetus is not a "part of the woman" it is an independent human being. I hope you are not suggesting that nourishing another human being gives on the right to terminate his/her life.

The embryo/foetus is a part of the woman until the umbilical cord is severed.


And stop anonynizing my arguments please.

TheBigUrban2:


The embryo/foetus is a part of the woman until the umbilical cord is severed.


And stop anonynizing my arguments please.

Just because humans don't lay eggs?

AlfaSeltzer:

Just because humans don't lay eggs?

Stop asking irrelevant questions......that is anonynnizing

TheBigUrban2:

Stop asking irrelevant questions......that is anonynnizing

It is not irrelevant. If we humans had evolved to lay eggs, would you hold the same opinion? Can the woman decide which eggs live or die just because she laid them? Obviously not. But because we evolved otherwise, the woman now decides who lives or dies. Well, not everybody agrees.

AlfaSeltzer:

It is not irrelevant. If we humans had evolved to lay eggs, would you hold the same opinion? Can the woman decide which eggs live or die just because she laid them? Obviously not. But because we evolved otherwise, the woman now decides who lives or dies. Well, not everybody agrees.

If women didnt have virginas there would be no brouhaha over female genital mutilation or circumcision.


Stop this Anonynizing. "If's" and "buts"......

TheBigUrban2:


The embryo/foetus is a part of the woman until the umbilical cord is severed.


And stop anonynizing my arguments please.

So are you saying that the foetus is not a distinct human being but part of the woman's body like a leg or an arm or an internal organ until the umbilical cord is severed before it becomes a human being?

TheBigUrban2:
1) The embro/foetus is a part of the woman. Unless you have been nourishing it for weeks, I think you should allow the woman to decide its fate.
2) Everyone else is also exempt from the charge of nourishing the embryo/feotus...so the pleading isnt miraculous or special or even pleading.

AlfaSeltzer:

It is not irrelevant. If we humans had evolved to lay eggs, would you hold the same opinion? Can the woman decide which eggs live or die just because she laid them? Obviously not. But because we evolved otherwise, the woman now decides who lives or dies. Well, not everybody agrees.

You don't have to even go that far to "egg laying". the question I would ask is Why stop at the womb? Does a woman have the right to kill her 3-month old baby because she is the one nourishing it?

Let's see if BigUrban can hold a consistent logical position

TheBigUrban2:


If women didnt have virginas there would be no brouhaha over female genital mutilation or circumcision.


Stop this Anonynizing. "If's" and "buts"......

Your inability to grasp points is amazing

MrAnony1: So are you saying that the foetus is not a distinct human being but part of the woman's body like a leg or an arm or an internal organ until the umbilical cord is severed before it becomes a human being?

Potential human.....potential human....potential human....potential human.


Potential human dependent on the pregnant woman......


I dont know why you like asking redundant questions.....i have made my point over and over again!

MrAnony1:


You don't have to even go that far to "egg laying". the question I would ask is Why stop at the womb? Does a woman have the right to kill her 3-month old baby because she is the
one nourishing it?

Let's see if BigUrban can hold a consistent logical position

See this Sophist. There is a clear difference between being dependent in the womb and being dependent outside the womb.
One can survive without the mother.....another cant survive without the mother.



But you like false equivocations so, you act like the two are the same

MrAnony1:
Your inability to grasp points is amazing

Just like your inability to avoid strawmen

TheBigUrban2:


Potential human.....potential human....potential human....potential human.


Potential human dependent on the pregnant woman......


I dont know why you like asking redundant questions.....i have made my point over and over again!

So are you saying that this is NOT a human being and it is ok for the mother to kill her at this point.





....But this is a human being and it is wrong for the mother to kill her at this point




That's your point right?

TheBigUrban2:
See this Sophist. There is a clear difference between being dependent in the womb and being dependent outside the womb.
One can survive without the mother.....another cant survive without the mother.
But you like false equivocations so, you act like the two are the same

But that's not the point, the point is that since you claim that the person nourishing the baby has a right over the baby's life you must at least hold that it is not wrong for a parent to withhold nourishment from her 3 month old baby and leave it to starve to death.

They are not false equivocations. Are you not the one who is trying to draw an arbitrary line for where nourishment ceases to be an option and now becomes an obligation? You will need to justify this if your position is to make any logical sense.

TheBigUrban2: Just like your inability to avoid strawmen

Please quote one of these strawmen you keep accusing me of and show how it is a strawman.

You must show an example from our discourse on this thread where I have misrepresented your position in order to make it easier to attack.

TheBigUrban2:


Potential human.....potential human....potential human....potential human.


Potential human dependent on the pregnant woman......


I dont know why you like asking redundant questions.....i have made my point over and over again!

Yes, you have been making your senseless point over and over again and we are trying to get you to see reason even if you don't agree. And we use analogy which you term anonyism.

So let's take another example. According to you, with reference to the bolded, an 8 and half month old foetus in the womb is not human but a premature baby of 24 weeks in an incubator is a full human?

@ Striktlymi, if science reaches a point where there is little or no embryo death in IVF, would you still be against it?

MrAnony1:

So are you saying that this is NOT a human being and it is ok for the mother to kill her at this point.





....But this is a human being and it is wrong for the mother to kill her at this point




That's your point right?

they are both outside the womb.


But carry on with your strawman......

MrAnony1:
But that's not the point, the point is that since you claim that the person nourishing the baby has a right over the baby's life you must at least hold that it is not wrong for a parent to withhold nourishment from her 3 month old baby and leave it to starve to death.

They are not false equivocations. Are you not the one who is trying to draw an arbitrary line for where nourishment ceases to be an option and now becomes an obligation. You will need to justify this if your position is to make any logical sense.

@ bold;

dafuq

AlfaSeltzer:

Yes, you have been making your senseless point over and over again and we are trying to get you to see reason even if you don't agree. And we use analogy which you term anonyism.

So let's take another example. According to you, with reference to the bolded, an 8 and half month old foetus in the womb is not human but a premature baby of 24 weeks in an incubator is a full human?

Demarcation- one is in the womb.....and the other is out.


Late abortions have their own argument.....most abortions are done withint the first two months

TheBigUrban2:



Demarcation- one is in the womb.....and the other is out.


Late abortions have their own argument.....most abortions are done withint the first two months

Now, who's anonysing?

AlfaSeltzer:

Now, who's anonysing?

You.


My point has been clear from the beginning. You guys have nothing and so you throw all the baddest questions you can to prod and prick my stance.....but my stance (point) remains as tight as a virgin's sweethole

AlfaSeltzer: @ Striktlymi, if science reaches a point where there is little or no embryo death in IVF, would you still be against it?

If science gets to that point where there is zero mortality rate with respect to embryos then I see no reason to argue against it.

striktlymi:

If science gets to that point where there is zero mortality rate with respect to embryos then I see no reason to argue against it.

Zero?


There is no single intensive surgery that has a 100% success rate.

Even embryos die naturally without man-made medicine.


This is what it is like trying to reason with a religious mind- they never think realistically, they just somehow pick the impossible and start from there

TheBigUrban2:



they are both outside the womb.


But carry on with your strawman......

So you are now shifting the goal post from cutting umbilical cord to the baby's location with respect to a uterus? I see.


Remember when you said this?

TheBigUrban2:


The embryo/foetus is a part of the woman until the umbilical cord is severed.


And stop anonynizing my arguments please.

https://www.nairaland.com/1825507/sperm-egg-donation-sin/2#24965611



It is clear that you are ignorant of what a strawman is.

striktlymi:

If science gets to that point where there is zero mortality rate with respect to embryos then I see no reason to argue against it.

Which is why I'm not against egg and sperm donations because it's the only way science can advance past nature in this field. And science is advancing.

This is what a rational response looks like...

AlfaSeltzer: @ Striktlymi, if science reaches a point where there is little or no embryo death in IVF, would you still be against it?

striktlymi: If science gets to that point where there is zero mortality rate with respect to embryos then I see no reason to argue against it.

This is how an idiot responds...

TheBigUrban2:
Zero?
There is no single intensive surgery that has a 100% success rate.
Even embryos die naturally without man-made medicine.
This is what it is like trying to reason with a religious mind- they never think realistically, they just somehow pick the impossible and start from there