Your semen is not a human being. It lacks half a set of chromosomes and therefore can not be a human being.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

As I have said yes, and please for the love of fast cars and money, try to stay on the same page as me here. Unborns are alive, I have said this previously, and I am sticking by my guns on that one. No flip flopping, no indecisiveness. I am not trying to debate their status as being alive whatsoever.

Hell, do you even know what point I was trying to make to BD? I don't believe in dumbing down what I say, so when you can tell me what it is I was saying (And not your own interpretation) then you'll know that you arguing with me is rather pointless and headed for a no win scenario.

Are you disagreeing with that fact that my semen is a stage of human development in the case of an unborn child? If not, are you going back on your grand claim, making it a lie?

People, you have just witnessed the defeat of PaleRider's argument under his own stated terms : dishonesty.

Proof :

What an idiot, the male sperm nor the female egg in the fact of being "separate" contain NO LIFE....only the genetic markers or indicators for life. However once placed to together a chemical combination of the two form "LIFE"....and the point of this happenstance is called "the conception of life". Once conceived it is nothing short of human life in a state of gestation. Dehumanize it, call it a clump of cells, a fetus, or whatever you wish...but in reality of this physical world it is alive and growing and individually made separate to both of its parental benefactors as the science of DNA technology clearly demonstrates, and more commonly demonstrated via the fact of having a separate blood supply than than of its mother, and death many times results if the two completely different blood supplies contaminate one or the other. Its pointless to argue that 1) human life is not present 2) that life is not a separate individual life entity than either contributing parent, as surely "science" demonstrates the fact that it is. The only position that you can and "do" take is the semantical legal position that our court system has taken...even against its own demonstrated knowledge to the contrary, that life does not become important until it breeches the birth canal. That position in and by itself was made in contradiction of two hundred years of legal precedence that did not allow the gestating child to be destroyed without "due cause" or reason other than the personal wishes of the female that does not consider the life of the unborn nor the legal rights of the other parent who is "allowed" to be involved only during "conception" and after the fact of birth..but magically excluded when the life of his child is held in the hand of a "single" individual. Sheer idiocy, nothing but. That's like concluding by lack of any clear logic, that any hospital has the inherent authority to pull the life support of any individual they wish....simply because they are being cared for inside their building. This position clearly does away with any factors that consider "morality", just as the hospital has the "responsibility" for maintaining life....so does any female have the inherent responsibility to care and nurture the life that she has allowed to be present in her body. Its a demonstration of Evil to accept anything other. BD

Number one BD, that quote you superfluously added to your rant (In place of a main idea) was in response to a claim you conveniently left out. To put it bluntly, no one was talking to you, so it's no wonder you have no idea what was going on. Read all the past posts before you shoot off that wall of text next time.

Number two, you are presenting this argument all in hopes of driving to one point - It's Evil. Ok, it's Evil on your terms, as dealt down to you by your religion. As for all of these hospital patient metaphors, you should really think of the baby being a coma patient, and the parent being...well a parent, spouse, etc. It's their choice in the matter, and most of America has accepted this. Now the same thing is happening with babies. People in support of abortion wish to stop the suffering before it even begins.

Number three, love how you're just now getting around to using the phrase human life. Before it was just life in general, but at least you're learning not to make an ass of yourself in a rush to stay on top of things bigger than yourself. And goddamn it, stop spamming us with the term human gestation, we know you did a quick wikipedia search, so we don't have to hear about it every post from you.

Number four, do you have children, if so were they accidents? Can you even relate to anyone who has had or wants an abortion? Have you ever had one yourself? Have you ever wanted one? No, no, no, no. All negative answers across the board. So being in only one position, refusing to see the matter from any other side but your own self righteous point of view already discredits you. I'm not saying it's right to snuff babies, just, or should be allowed, but your argument against it is flawed. More or less you're a hypocrite in essence as well.

No evidence you have set forth has not been ripped down. If you would even call some of what you say evidence.

__________________
Gun control is giving criminals guns and taken guns away from law abiding citizens.

As surprising as this may be to some people, there is no debate within the medical community as to when life begins. Life begins at conception. Consider the testimony below from an assortment of leading embryology textbooks.



The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."



Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."



Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."


Adding to the consensus of contemporary textbooks, is the testimony of older medical texts as well:


Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."


Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.

"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."


Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

In addition to the consistent testimony found in medical textbooks, there is some equally conclusive evidence that exists on the public record. In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth Harvard University Medical School

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."


Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."


Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."


Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."


Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

[u]Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.[/U]

__________________
If you were born after 1972 you are a Survivor of the Abortion Holocaust. 1/3 of your generation has been killed by abortion in America!

McCain/Palin 2008! = NObama

Yes, I saw your initial argument. You missed the boat there as well since you clearly didn't understand what he was saying. Your first point :

This misses the mark because it isn't his decision as to what has the right to live and what doesn't. One creature on this earth has a "right" to live and that is us. You don't like the rules, then change them. Arguing that animals are people too is a failure before you even get started.

Then your second point:

Again, you miss the bus. No one has elevated animals to the level of human beings. He pointed out that we recognize that unborns are members of whatever species they happen to belong to and that any argument that unborns are not human beings (which was the argument of naturemomma to whom his response was directed) is simply dishonest.

As to elevating animals or plants to the level of human beings, no such argument was made. We have laws that protect certain animals and plants not because they have any right to live, but because we prefer to keep them around.

As to good and evil, I don't argue such terms. My argument is rooted in science and the law. I can prove science and the law while proving good and evil is a pointless endeavor. If I couldn't win this discussion without invoking good and evil, I would not engage it in the first place.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Yes I am. Your sperm is nothing more and nothing less than a cell from your body. It can be positively identifed by any 2nd year lab student as belonging to you. Ditto for eggs.

Once fertilization is complete, your sperm no longer exists as your sperm and hte same can be said for the woman's egg. A new human being exists which is not your sperm and is not the egg and the same 2nd year lab student can identify the new human being as an individual that while it is related to you, is not, and never has been a part of you. The new human being's life doesn't begin until after fertilization is complete and since your sperm no longer exists as your sperm after fertilization is complete, then your sperm was never a stage in the development of the unborn child.

Learn some basic developmental biology before you attempt to argue developmental biology.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma