Abortion

Sorry, i misunderstood your earlier comment, my mistake.



An embryo or fetus is not a potential human being either without the mother. My response about the sperm cell is a direct response to the claim that a fertilized egg that attaches to the uterus is a potential human being. The logic is the same, and if the other should be protected, why not the other one as well, showing the ridiculousness of the argument.

But i don't expect a stupid mind like yours to understand that.

Abortion should be legal.

Yeah except a sperm can't do absolutely anything without fertilizing an egg.

There's nothing else the embryo or the fetus can be but a Human being. The logic is in no way the same. Sperm cells are not potential life in any way shape or form unless it's fertilizing an egg.

You're just doing this as a pathetic way to get brownie points from women. The simple reality is our roles in the reproductive process are different. How in the world does recognizing that fact make me have a "stupid mind".

[edit] And I want to clarify. I don't believe the United states should ban, fund or heavily monitor abortions. Afterbirth abortions are terrible though.

And an embryo or fetus can't do anything either for the first months without it being stuck in the mothers womb. (Not yet anyway, maybe in the future when we do better science and shit).



An embryo or fetus WONT be a human being unless it is stuck in the mothers womb. That is the point, that is the condition is has to meet in order to be a potential human being. For a sperm cell the condition is different, but if its condition is met, it would be a potential human being, meaning the logic is the same.



If what i believe in gets me brownie points, all the better.

Do men who want better rights for women in certain context only do it for to get brownie points? They can't believe in it simply because they are correct?



Recognizing that fact doesn't mean you have a stupid mind, your earlier answer to my question shows you have a stupid mind.

So your argument is that if you forcefully remove an embryo it won't live. Uhm okay? The two scenarios are wildly different, both reproductive organs play a different part. Leaving sperm in a man's nutsuck won't make it magically turn into life. A man ejaculating is absolutely NOT the same as a women forcefully removing her embryo or a fetus.

That argument is seriously fucking stupid.

Also you're a fucking moron if you think men have any reproductive rights other becoming a "dead beat dad".

Uhm daa, yes. People have been arguing that the life of an embryo/fetus is greater than that of a womans choice to choose, and i have been arguing against it. And since you jump in the middle like the idiot you are, you don't understand the bigger context.



Yes the two scenarios are different, i am not debating about that. You are just too stupid to see the bigger picture, you take a single sentence out of context and think you can say something clever about it. Pathetic.

Claim: Abortion is wrong because a zygote, an embryo or fetus is potential human being, therefore women can be forced to have a child against their will.

Counter argument: A sperm cell is potential human being, should masturbation be therefore illegal too? (You see, it doesn't matter how much you try to qualify your dumb scenario of struggling sperm cells, the potential is still there, the potentiality still applies, but i guess your stupid mind can't comprehend that, huh? I have never said the potential is the same, but since these so called "pro-life" people are so keen on protecting potential life, why not protect it all)



Just because you are too stupid to understand it, doesn't mean the actual argument is. Sorry.



Are you a retard or something? Have i said that i think that? Jesus, some people...

Sperm Cell aren't a potential anything unless it's fertilizing a human female's eggs, this has already been established, saying otherwise is pointless. Thus your argument is stupid, I know what your argument is but as I said earlier it's a stupid way to try and make a point. Men and women's reproductive systems are too different to compare in such a meaningless way, unless you're intentionally being a brown noser for retarded feminist.

And you made this about reproductive rights. Stating that men don't have any is completely relevant to the discussions because you suggested there should be some sort of equivalence when it comes to controlling one's bodies. Why are you being so dishonest?

A sperm cell is a potential human being given the right circumstances, the end. Just because you are too stupid to comprehend the argument, doesn't mean the argument is stupid as I said earlier.



Men and women's reproductive systems have nothing to do with my argument, if you are too stupid to understand that, you are too stupid to understand that. Thanks for the brown points though, appreciate it.



Wow, you must be reflecting, seriously. No, i haven't said that men don't have any reproductive rights, and if in the way earlier posts i have said that, in some countries it is true legally speaking. And yes, i gave a suggestion how i feel where men's rights should be on this issue, but they are not currently (not that i know of). You are a big boy making claims about others but i am afraid you don't have the intellect to back any of them up.

Yes, giving the right circumstance. As I have been saying this whole time.

And yes, women and men's reproductive systems have everything to do with your stupid argument/comparison. A sperm and an egg can't do anything on their own or outside of both bodies.(unless frozen)
And yes you did make this about reproductive rights and "controlling women's bodies", which is why you made the retarded comparison saying that sperm should be protected.(even though they're not the same an embryo or fetus)

Man, even you admitted it is possible for an embryo to survive outside of a women's bodies. (like your 3rd respond)

Why you're so persistent on thinking the two are comparable is beyond reason.

Laws should be based on logic and reason. Basing everything on science isn't necessarily any more logical then basing laws on personal belief, whether abortion or any other law.

As have i



No, they don't. You inserted yourself into the conversation with a stupid comment, and to try and make it stick you have to make claims i have never made. Just because you need to bring into the conversation something from outside of it to try and hold your retarded opinion, doesn't mean i need it. The dishonesty and stupidity on this guy.



Yes, i did make the comparison to show the ridiculousness of the argument that says abortion should be illegal because an embryo is a potential human being.



Not for an embryo, but for a fetus to survive outside the womb, yeah its possible. On the 25th week, a fetus would have roughly 50% chance of survival, and beyond the 25th week it would increase weekly. And who knows how well the chances increase in next 30 years for example.



I am comparing the same aspect that the two have, and therefore showing a double standard in the "pro-life" camps argument. If your pea size brain can't comprehend that, it can't comprehend it. Sorry that you won't get any brownie points.

It's not a double standard though, since:
Men don't have reproductive rights
Men's reproductive organs are vastly different, they don't have the capacity to harbor life unless a very specific circumstance..

Also, it seems you don't know what brownie points are.

This is not about men's reproductive rights, nor is it about men's reproductive organs either.

The pro-life movement have made a claim that a zygote (a fertilized egg), an embryo and a fetus all have this quality called potential human being. They claim that this single quality in it self is enough to justify making abortions illegal, even though all three stages (zygote, embryo, fetus) are totally or the very least are vastly different from each other. That same quality can be found in a sperm cell, the potential to become a human being. Can the sperm cell do anything on its own? Of coarse it can't, and nobody has said to the contrary. But, having that quality puts it in the same boat logically as a zygote, an embryo and a fetus, you stu pid moth er fuck er!

Sure, a lot of pro-lifers try to qualify what they mean by potential, like "only after fertilization is when we care or when it starts to matter" or something on those lines (just like you), but regardless of what the pro-lifers say, logically speaking these both (sperm cells and embryos/fetuses) have a potential to become a human being, and only protecting one of them is what creates a double standard.



Also, it seems you don't know what sarcasm is.

It's hard to tell with you.

And yes, it's about reproductive rights, maybe not men's but it's important to bring men's if you're going to make that comparison, since the perceived injustice is your main talking point. There shouldn't even be a perceived double injustice unless you have proof that men do...?(again, that's why I mentioned you being a brown noser)

Also zygote might be comparable, but definitely not a fetus.(well kinda not really, but no one gives a fuck about that stage in development)

The perceived injustice is not my main talking point, my main talking point is that the argument of saying a fetus or an embryo is a potential human being is not a justifiably or rational reason to make abortions illegal. I brought up the example (not the first time btw) of sperm cells to (try and) bolster that claim.