Friedrich Rubinstein
Well-Known Member
- Aug 20, 2020
- 1,386
- 1,454
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Please buy yourself a biology book
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Please buy yourself a biology bookSo why am I human and yet the sperm and ovum that combined were not?
You consent to taking a risk when driving, understanding there's a chance you can have an accident. You consent when you have unprotected sex, knowing there's a chance you (/the woman) can get pregnant. This is basic stuff.
You keep trying to bring this back to abortion. I am only discussing consent and contesting the idea that acknowledging possible outcomes is the same as permission.This is where the analogy cannot be compared. If a drunk driver runs a red light and hits your car, injuring you - then you have every right to claim insurance and (in some cases) even sue. A person who chooses to have unprotected sex is aware of the risks and the innocent party is the one being aborted. Actions have consequences, whether good or bad. As consenting adults we're to use our reasoning skills to determine the risks and possible outcome/s before making a choice. In the scenario we are using, to not do so is just plain carelessness and a denial of personal accountability.
I know what a biology book would say.Please buy yourself a biology bookIt explains the difference between a cell, an organ and an organism, and why only organisms are a life.
All "consent" comes down to choices. we make a choice whenever we choose to participate in an activity. If it's a dangerous or risky activity, we weigh up the potential risks of harm vs. reward. You are confusing the legal term of "consent" Whereas consent more generally, is permission or agreement.You are still trying to conflate Knowledge of possible consequences with consent.
Because of the thread. You may not give explicit permission to have an accident when you choose to drive a car, but you do so indirectly when you make a decision based upon the risk vs. reward. The same permission is given to getting pregnant when a person chooses to have unprotected sex.You keep trying to bring this back to abortion. I am only discussing consent and contesting the idea that acknowledging possible outcomes is the same as permission.
Why would I say anything different? I agree with biology. If you know what biology says then you have my answer.I know what a biology book would say.
I'm interested in YOUR answer.
"You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality". Ayn RandAcknowledging risk is not the same as granting permission. Your claim was that every time someone has sex they "grant permission" to possibly conceive. As pointed out, knowing possible consequences and granting permission are not synonymous and you can't make claims of consent simply based on behavior.
If you don't 'consent' to getting into a car crash don't drive. No, the logic does not work.
Morality is internal, not something you enforce on others. That is the function of the law.
A child receives air through umbilical cord. Babys can and have died in the womb by strangulatution with their umbilical cord.When he received the breath of life he was made alive like all of our children. Are you saying our children do not require the breath of life?
A child receives air through umbilical cord. Babys can and have died in the womb by strangulatution with their umbilical cord.
They do not receive air. Air is a gaseous mixture. There aren't gas bubbles in the umbilcal cord (generally bubbles are a *bad* thing in the bloodstream).
they don’t actually breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide like you do.
no air. just like i said.
That is exactly the definition I am using. Simply engaging in an activity is not giving consent for all possible outcomes. Walking across a street is not giving consent to be hit by a bus. That is not how consent works.All "consent" comes down to choices. we make a choice whenever we choose to participate in an activity. If it's a dangerous or risky activity, we weigh up the potential risks of harm vs. reward. You are confusing the legal term of "consent" Whereas consent more generally, is permission or agreement.
No. You may acknowledge that an accident is a possibility but you are not giving permission for it to happen. You are actively hoping it does not. That is the opposite of consent.Because of the thread. You may not give explicit permission to have an accident when you choose to drive a car, but you do so indirectly when you make a decision based upon the risk vs. reward. The same permission is given to getting pregnant when a person chooses to have unprotected sex.
Reality is that consequence is not the same as consent."You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality". Ayn Rand
No. You may acknowledge that an accident is a possibility but you are not giving permission for it to happen. You are actively hoping it does not.
The reality is that we live in a world where we have to continuously make choices. you cannot claim abortion is OK because the pregnant woman didn't give verbal consent to the baby growing in her womb - that would be illogical. She gave consent by not using contraception (or consent that her partner didn't use protection) when engaging in an act that has a known consequence of pregnancy. Your arguments don't stack up so....NEXT.Reality is that consequence is not the same as consent.
Yes as a symbiote. They do not live independently of their mother until they breathe.A child receives air through umbilical cord. Babys can and have died in the womb by strangulatution with their umbilical cord.
The point is, they are alive. and they don't live "independently" from their mother after they're born either.Yes as a symbiote. They do not live independently of their mother until they breathe.
I've already proved it, because you can't quantify how many there are at conception.You have no idea how DNA works either, obviously. Your argument is circular because you can't disprove the facts. Just admit it's your preference to deny the unborn are human beings. (Emotional bias).
This contradicts your earlier claim that we're formed in the womb. The sperm-egg fusion described above occurs in the fallopian tube. You can't even seem to make a consistent claim as to where conception occurs.Perhaps click the link in this paragraph "detailed scientific analysis" it will give you some insight. There is no debate.
"From the moment of sperm-egg fusion," concludes embryologist Maureen L. Condic, a professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine, in a detailed scientific analysis, "a human zygote acts as a complete whole,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?