Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#253 - mikepetru ONLINE (06/18/2012) [-]
>Chicken egg isn't fertilized
> Silk isn't an organism
>Nut will grow from nutrients in soil and water just as a fertilized human egg would grow from the nutrients while being inside the mother's womb. It's just that a nut can keep it's genes,DNA and such in a hibernated state inside the nut. Is it not part of that plant species because it is not grown yet? So I guess a sapling is not a tree either, and a 7 month old is not a person yet either by those standards.
>You're argument is invalid
#273 to #253 - ohemgeezus (06/18/2012) [-]
This is probably the most idiotic thing I've ever read, congrats. A sperm is not a person, nor is a fetus, because they are not born. A sapling isn't a tree because it hasn't grown into a tree yet. And for your silk argument, no one said this was an organism-based post. A person is legally, and ethically defined as a person when they are BORN. If you're going to try and act smart on the internet, actually know what you're talking about(e.g. the difference between 'you're' and 'your'.)
Also, this isn't 4chan.
User avatar #290 to #273 - mikepetru ONLINE (06/18/2012) [-]
If a person is legally a person after birth then why is abortion illegal after a few months of pregnancy? Why can a doctor be charged with ****** /endangering the life of a fetus if they cause a miscarriage? Why can a person be charged with a double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman? The point is that there is NO legal definition for where a life begins (at least not a definition that is applied consistently).

Also, OP is the one comparing silk to a fertilized egg and a fertilized nut, not I.

PS - I'm sorry you are too stupid to see that I already corrected my own grammar or to understand that I was using those arrows as bullet points and not specifically referring to 4chan. Not that that matters but you seem to think that does in your little world.
#302 to #290 - ohemgeezus (06/18/2012) [-]
Abortion is illegal after a few months because the woman has had enough time to think it over. The only way a doctor can be charged with ****** /endangering the life of a fetus is if they do something that causes the miscarriage if the parents of said child didn't want an abortion in the first place. There IS a legal definition for where a life begins, if you don't think so then you obviously haven't taken a college-level ethics class.
OP isn't comparing silk to an egg or a nut, he's simply putting them in the same type of context.
#335 to #302 - mikepetru ONLINE (06/18/2012) [-]
Oh I get it now, so you're saying a fetus is only a person if the parents choose to recognize it as a person?! So then a parent could choose to kill their child even after it is born, right? So I guess slavery was ok too, because slave masters didn't choose to think of Africans as people. Oooh you took a college level ethics class? Makes sense. You seem like the type of person who has their values and principles dictated to them by other people because you're too stupid or afraid to form your own opinions based off of your own logic and reasoning. This is obvious in the fact that you keep changing your "legal definition" of what a person is, which means your argument has no solid base and you have no idea how to be consistent with your principles. If he isn't comparing silk to an egg or not, why are they in the post? Obviously OP is comparing them and using them as a basis for stating that a fertilized egg is not a person, human being, and for that matter a living organism.
#355 to #335 - ohemgeezus (06/18/2012) [-]
As I clearly started about three times now, a fetus isn't a person because that was what I was taught, was told about a supreme court ruling in which the COURT defined a person as someone being born, e.g. someone/thing that isn't born, is not a person. How does you get that I have no values or principles, based on the fact that you're arguing with me about ethical definitions. I don't keep changing my 'legal definition', that makes you seem moronic by saying that. And I'm not going to comment on that last part because, like I said, you're seeming moronic.
User avatar #392 to #355 - mikepetru ONLINE (06/18/2012) [-]
So if your professor taught you silk was a person, you'd believe him? Your professor told you what he/she believes a person is, and you just took that definition without question. And now you have the audacity to berate other people because they disagree. You are the master of ethics because you passed (I'm assuming) a class in college. I hope you never debate with someone who took more ethics courses than you because if they disagree with, then you have to agree to whatever they tell you, otherwise you would be "moronic." Unless of course you assume you're the czar of right and therefore you feel free to disregard someone who has more ethics classes under their belt, which I assume you'd do.
#432 to #392 - ohemgeezus (06/18/2012) [-]
How about you go look up the overview of Roe v. Wade before you try to argue more about the definition of a human being. GG. l2argue. You stand looking like a moron.
#440 to #432 - ohemgeezus (06/18/2012) [-]
unless, of course, you think I went and made up the case of Roe v. Wade just to try and seem smart for this argument.
User avatar #337 to #335 - mikepetru ONLINE (06/18/2012) [-]
*nut
User avatar #258 to #253 - mikepetru ONLINE (06/18/2012) [-]
*your
 Friends (0)