Quote:
|
Quote by: Starboy You are at it again. You can not follow life back to conception because everything involved with conception was alive. It is not as if life just *popped* out of non-life. If you wanted to actually follow life back to its conception then that would take you back at least 4 billion years. And again you miss a very important point. You cannot follow the existence of a human being back to conception because what exists at conception cannot be human. It has no brian.
Starboy |
Flat earther -
n. - One who stubbornly adheres to outmoded or discredited ideas.
That is the name that comes to mind when I talk to pro choicers. Science has discredited your arguments. Contemporary science says that individual human lives begin at conception. Of course one doesn't really need science in this case, it is simple common sense. There is no coherent argument against it.
Look at the content of yours for example. Suggesting that a new human life doesn't begin simply because the sperm and egg responsible for that new life were also alive, completely disregarding the fact that both sperm and egg belonged to different individuals and that upon conception, both sperm and egg ceased to exist. You grab onto the tiniest shred of truth and disregard the bigger truth in order to make your flat earth theory sound plausible.
And the suggestion that a new human life doesn't begin at conception because life began on the planet 4 billion years ago. Never mind the fact that you can trace your individual life back to the moment of your conception.
And the idea that a human being is not h. sapiens until it has a brain is pure sophistry. Laughable.
Sure, everything involved in conception is alive. Father's sperm, mother's egg. But the result is completely separate from either. Easily identified as neither. Unique. Separate. What exists at conception is a human being that has not yet developed to the point of having a brain. I am sorry that you can't wrap your mind around complicated (actually this isn't complicated, I am just being condecending) scientific concepts. I suppose that this would be much easier if you weren't holding an indefensible position. Arguing against the truth, trying to reshape reality into a form that doesn't mesh with what is is always more difficult than simply accepting what is.
So tell me flat earther, did you find any of those textbooks that you mentioned? The ones that say that individual human lives don't begin at conception? You supposedly based your argument on them, and they don't even exist. I was confident that you would not post reference to them.
Sophistry and equivocation define the nature of your argument. How about if you provide some actual hard science to balance it out? Oh, I'm sorry, there isn't any.