Announcement

Collapse

Naturalism 101 Guidelines

NONTHEISTS and hard agnostics only.

This forum is strictly for discussions and debates between nontheists and hard agnostics only. The topic range is for nontheist "in house" issues much like Theology201/Ecclesiology201 is for "in house" Christian/theist issues.

This area is not to be used to unfairly substantively rebut/discuss/criticize specific other members who cannot respond or defend. It also is not be used as a platform to simply stack arguments against theism with the intent that they cannot be responded to here, but interactions between different nontheist viewpoints is highly encouraged. Arguments simply directed towards rebutting or disproving theism should be posted in Apologetics 301.

Additionally, gratuitous blasphemy or mocking of Christians will not be sanctioned in this area. If you wish to mock, please do it where the mocked can respond. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and do not abuse this area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Non-theists and Abortion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    [QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1431455] It would appear that such disorders are not always hereditary.[QUOTE]

    Which I already said.

    [QUOTE]As are many other traits.[/[QUOTE]

    Obviously

    It was not eugenics. That you insist on repeatedly making such a claim is both uninformed and excessive.
    You seem to want to make a distinction between terminating a life because of preventing to breed (which both infancies exposure and abortions would), unfit to be within broader society (which would include parents no wanting the "additional stress that's not burdensome"), or just general benevolence of quality of life. Unlike other genetic abnormalities, Downs has a range of functionality that would be unknown during pregnancy.


    In this regard Iceland is little different from many other western countries, so what is the origin of your fixation with Iceland and the aborting of Down syndrome foetuses?
    I'm more aware of Iceland's near eradication of Downs.

    No it was not. It offered some very brief and personal opinions.

    So personhood and the rights of persons are not philosophical topics?

    That comment is mendacious given that I have denied nothing
    So you now agree that execution by exposure is part of the history of eugenics.

    [
    but have addressed the wider issues pertaining to raising a congenitally impaired child.

    However, what is apparent is that you have repeatedly ignored directly addressing many of the points I raised.

    I admitted to not commenting on topics I felt off-topic. The OP specifically deals with the issue of personhood and rights and did not deal with policies regarding govt fiscal policies. It's impossible to compare US and European spending policies as the two have different priorities. For one, the largest economy in NATO doesn't even have a single battle ready division (and won't until 2025 despite being sped up) nor does it have a history of meeting the 2% GDP defence expenditure. Most NATO counties don't. But again, that's way too broad a scope. If you want to say it's okay terminate a Downs foetus if the govt won't prioritise relevant subsidies whether it has personhood or not, just say it.

    P1) If , then I win.

    P2)

    C) I win.

    Comment


    • #32
      [QUOTE=Diogenes;n1431457]
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      It would appear that such disorders are not always hereditary.
      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
      Which I already said.
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      As are many other traits.
      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
      Obviously
      You wrote:

      So you don't think a chromosomal disorders would be hereditary? It's not 100% hereditary, but it is able to be passed on.


      Hence my replies. We therefore appear to be in agreement on those issues.

      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

      You seem to want to make a distinction between terminating a life because of preventing to breed (which both infancies exposure and abortions would), unfit to be within broader society (which would include parents no wanting the "additional stress that's not burdensome"), or just general benevolence of quality of life. Unlike other genetic abnormalities, Downs has a range of functionality that would be unknown during pregnancy.
      Having worked my way through the somewhat garbled prose in that above comment let my unpick it.
      • Eugenics is/was a pseudo-science.
      • I hold that the decision to abort ultimately lies with the woman. However, screening for foetal abnormalities in optional. It is not compulsory.
      • The exact degree to which a foetus may be affected by Down syndrome cannot be known during pregnancy. The "range of functionality" may go either way and the condition carries with it other potential health issues including, a reduced immunity to infection, heart defects, and respiratory problems; and those will require an increased provision of care as well as possible periods of hospitalisation. However, you have made it clear that you consider those issues to be "off-topic".
      • Ancient practises of infant exposure had nothing to do with improving the gene pool of that society via "selective breeding". The reasons that various societies did practise it were complex.

      Hence your repeated attempts to equate those ancient practises, as well as the parental choice to abort a foetus with genetic defects, with eugenics is dishonest.

      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
      I'm more aware of Iceland's near eradication of Downs.
      What about America? France? Or Denmark? I am beginning to suspect that you might have emotional involvement with this specific disorder.

      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
      So personhood and the rights of persons are not philosophical topics?
      They are indeed.

      However, you gave this thread the title Non-theists and Abortion, and not [something along the lines of] Non-theists, Abortion, and Questions Surrounding Personhood.

      This is what you wrote in that OP:

      A few questions regarding abortion from the non-religious point of view [s] and away from meddling Christians [/s].

      For humans, when does biological life begin?

      I would say at least when the zygote begins division, however, I have no issue with at fertilisation.

      For humans, is there a distinction from the human organism per se and the status of human being?

      I would say yes, in a technical sense, as a both a zygote and corpse are "human" without obtaining personhood which I believe "human being" is intended to convey.

      When is a human a human?

      I would say at fertilization given the conjoining of two gametes.

      When is a human a human being, i.e. a person?

      I would say likely within the second trimester but not before one the basis of neural development.

      When do person obtain rights?

      I would agree that the foetus has a general right to life starting in the second trimester.


      One might enquire as to with whom you are agreeing in that last sentence?

      As the OP makes clear no reference was made to any particular philosophical discourse on the topic. You instead briefly offered your own personal opinions in the form of questions and answers. You made no qualification for those opinions and nor did you provide detailed explanations, or relate them to any specific philosophical position on those issues.

      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
      So you now agree that execution by exposure is part of the history of eugenics.
      Excuse me but I have never acknowledged that "execution by exposure is part of the history of eugenics". However, if you make uninformed and sweeping generalisations about a variety of ancient and disparate societal practises with regard to infant exposure, expect to be corrected. It is neither a simple nor a "cut and dried" subject.

      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
      I admitted to not commenting on topics I felt off-topic.
      The support and quality of that support for the life and care that such individuals and their parents will receive from their respective societies is hardly "off-topic".

      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
      The OP specifically deals with the issue of personhood and rights and did not deal with policies regarding govt fiscal policies.
      As I noted in part of my first sentence in my first reply to the OP

      I would suggest that the issues surrounding abortion per se are rather more complex


      That statement offered you the opportunity to expand upon the comments you had made in your OP. However, you instead responded with uninformed and ridiculous remarks about Icelandic parents comparing their personal choices with the eugenics policies of the Nazis.

      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
      It's impossible to compare US and European spending policies as the two have different priorities. For one, the largest economy in NATO doesn't even have a single battle ready division (and won't until 2025 despite being sped up) nor does it have a history of meeting the 2% GDP defence expenditure. Most NATO counties don't. But again, that's way too broad a scope. If you want to say it's okay terminate a Downs foetus if the govt won't prioritise relevant subsidies whether it has personhood or not, just say it.
      From this latest post I will note that your replies are becoming somewhat incoherent and you are introducing irrelevancies [see your above comments]. As to the final sentence in your reply. I have briefly touched on the various reasons why parents may decide to terminate such pregnancies.
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • #33
        [*]Eugenics is/was a pseudo-science.
        In it's most basic and strict form, eugenics is artificial selection. When women choose to date and have children with taller men as they find tallness a desirable trait, they are technically engaging in "eugenics" . As more women select are traits, those traits become more predominate. That's not "pseudo-science". If a person tests themselves and find out they are a carrier for a genetic disease and they voluntarily sterilised themselves, that would be "eugenics". It's quite logical if those with genetic disease don't procreate, those genes would not pass on. It's tautological. The scientific racism which was the rage decades was unscientific. Genetic engineering is eugenics. We're the technological capacity for so called "designer babies" as evidence by the He Jiankui affair.


        [*]I hold that the decision to abort ultimately lies with the woman. However, screening for foetal abnormalities in optional. It is not compulsory.
        For any or no reason? Even post 1st Trimester including during birth? What about being allowed to neglect an abortion survivor to the point of death?


        [*]The exact degree to which a foetus may be affected by Down syndrome cannot be known during pregnancy. The "range of functionality" may go either way and the condition carries with it other potential health issues including, a reduced immunity to infection, heart defects, and respiratory problems; and those will require an increased provision of care as well as possible periods of hospitalisation. However, you have made it clear that you consider those issues to be "off-topic".
        I have already agreed to the issue of govt aid for Downs individuals. I'm going to entertain the topic of govt fiscal policies here.[*]Ancient practises of infant exposure had nothing to do with improving the gene pool of that society via "selective breeding". The reasons that various societies did practise it were complex.

        Hence your repeated attempts to equate those ancient practises, as well as the parental choice to abort a foetus with genetic defects, with eugenics is dishonest.[/QUOTE]

        The darker side of eugenics obviously includes forced sterlisation but it also includes what the Nazi's would call "lebensunwertes Leben" (edit: life unworthy of life). The idea that cultures such as the Spartans left the deformed or disabled to die due some kind of benevolence is hilarious. The most logical explanation is that they were not up to their ideals and they would have been a burden to general society. We're now at the point where these individuals need not be born at all, they just need to have their life terminated in the womb. Iceland has readily demonstrated genetic disorders, including Downs, can be eliminated from society if the people are willing.

        Edit: The Nazis considered what they did as Gnadentod or mercy killing.

        What about America? France? Or Denmark? I am beginning to suspect that you might have emotional involvement with this specific disorder.
        I chose Downs because it's not as severe a neurological impediment as say anencephaly. I do believe Downs individuals obtain personhood at the same time as a "normal" foetus.


        However, you gave this thread the title Non-theists and Abortion, and not [something along the lines of] Non-theists, Abortion, and Questions Surrounding Personhood.

        This is what you wrote in that OP:
        Typically, the title and the OP set the tone for the thread. If you prefer, I can, in the future, PM you a thread title to get your approval.


        As the OP makes clear no reference was made to any particular philosophical discourse on the topic. You instead briefly offered your own personal opinions in the form of questions and answers. You made no qualification for those opinions and nor did you provide detailed explanations, or relate them to any specific philosophical position on those issues.
        Personhood is not a philosophical topic?


        The support and quality of that support for the life and care that such individuals and their parents will receive from their respective societies is hardly "off-topic".
        It leads more into fiscal policy which is not a topic I wanted to get into here. As I have said, I support Downs individuals receiving govt assistance.


        As I noted in part of my first sentence in my first reply to the OP

        I would suggest that the issues surrounding abortion per se are rather more complex

        Part of the issue of abortion is foetal personhood. If foetus becomes a person in the womb, then it becomes an issue of what rights does it have, if any.


        That statement offered you the opportunity to expand upon the comments you had made in your OP. However, you instead responded with uninformed and ridiculous remarks about Icelandic parents comparing their personal choices with the eugenics policies of the Nazis.
        Given that Downs has been all but eradicated from Iceland, they've achieved something that the Nazi would applaud. I specifically chose Downs as it's relativity benign and is not as much as an impediment. I certainly believe the utilitarian calculus of aborting a Downs foetus is more heavily weighed on how much care the child would require and how much that would be an "inconvenience" rather than the impediment of the condition.

        Again, either they are persons or not. Either persons have rights or not. I have no issue with abortion for when the mother's life is in danger as that involves a conflict
        Last edited by Diogenes; 11-28-2022, 12:31 PM.
        P1) If , then I win.

        P2)

        C) I win.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

          In it's most basic and strict form, eugenics is artificial selection.
          Do you extend that to genetic engineering to prevent certain conditions and diseases?

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          When women choose to date and have children with taller men as they find tallness a desirable trait, they are technically engaging in "eugenics" .
          No they are not.

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          As more women select are traits, those traits become more predominate..
          Not necessarily. A family of medium [or even below average] height can produce a child who is much taller. The actor Liam Neeson made that point about his own parents, siblings, and grand-parents, joking remarking that he was, perhaps, a throw-back to a Viking ancestor. You also ignore diet and nutrition.

          Then there is this - an interesting article in this week's New Scientist magazine [26 November 2022]

          Around 50,000 years ago, a new X chromosome appears to have been introduced into modern humans that had not long left Africa. There was probably exceptionally strong selection for parts of this chromosome because, today, most people of less-recent African ancestry have inherited those regions. Kasper Munch Terkelsen at Aarhus University in Denmark, who led the research, thinks these regions may contain bits of so-called selfish DNA that promote their own spread by killing sperm that carry Y chromosomes. Such sperm lead to male offspring if they fertilise an egg. The selfish DNA may therefore result in the birth of more daughters. Exactly when this “killing” occurs is unclear.

          All this would lead to a higher proportion of people inheriting the X chromosome that carries the selfish DNA, causing it to spread rapidly in a population, in an example of meiotic drive, a kind of gene drive. “For some reason, there’s a reluctance to entertain the thought that meiotic drive is a thing in humans,” says Terkelsen. Yet meiotic drives are being found in all the organisms we study closely, he says.


          To employ a phrase "Now Read On".

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          If a person tests themselves and find out they are a carrier for a genetic disease and they voluntarily sterilised themselves, that would be "eugenics".
          The factors for choosing mates [for both men and women] are once again complex with many cultural, psychological, and biological [not to mention emotional] elements to be considered. Nor as far as I am aware is there any incontrovertible scientific evidence for why partner choices are made. As for someone making a personal decision not to pass on a genetic disease [or the risk of that disease] that is a matter for them.

          Both these topics are complex and require two separate threads..

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          For any or no reason?
          There is always a reason.

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          Even post 1st Trimester including during birth?
          Yes. That may be considered brutal but I firmly hold that the ultimate decision lies with the woman, nor do I imagine many women decide to abort during labour.

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          What about being allowed to neglect an abortion survivor to the point of death?
          That would be a matter for the mother and the medical team to decide; assuming of course that intensive medical provision for premature neonates was available.

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          I have already agreed to the issue of govt aid for Downs individuals. I'm going to entertain the topic of govt fiscal policies here.
          You might have agreed to government aid being provided but what if that aid is inadequate, haphazard, or something of a lottery dependent upon where the family resides?

          What then for the parent[s] the child, and that child when it reaches adulthood?

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          Iceland has readily demonstrated genetic disorders, including Downs, can be eliminated from society if the people are willing.
          That comment suggests there is some governmental pressure - there is not. No pregnant woman is compelled to have any prenatal screening and as the link you provided from the Icelandic government states, 15-20% do not.

          However, you seem to have issues with any country offering parents prenatal screening for congenital abnormalities if they wish it. Why?

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          I chose Downs because it's not as severe a neurological impediment as say anencephaly. I do believe Downs individuals obtain personhood at the same time as a "normal" foetus.
          What you "believe" is really immaterial. Down syndrome can be very severe with serious physical and developmental problems. I can also fully understand a prospective mother not wishing to any such risk.

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          Typically, the title and the OP set the tone for the thread. If you prefer, I can, in the future, PM you a thread title to get your approval.
          In my opinion you should have made the thread title more precise.

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          Personhood is not a philosophical topic?
          This has been addressed.

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          It leads more into fiscal policy which is not a topic I wanted to get into here. As I have said, I support Downs individuals receiving govt assistance.
          How much and how far does such assistance go? What does it actually offer the parent, child, and the adult? You have to address that country by country.

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          Part of the issue of abortion is foetal personhood. If foetus becomes a person in the womb, then it becomes an issue of what rights does it have, if any.
          That is a philosophical question but ultimately a legal decision.

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          Given that Downs has been all but eradicated from Iceland, they've achieved something that the Nazi would applaud.
          You are permitting emotion to cloud your reason. And why the repeated references to the Nazis? What about the USA's own very dubious history?

          Nor is Down syndrome automatically "relatively benign" and people with that condition are at risk of other health issues. That fact along with what support she will receive for raising the child, the additional emotional and psychological impact on herself, her partner and other children, the quality of life for the child, and what happens to it once she is no longer able to care for it are all issues that would have to be considered by any woman being informed that her foetus had that condition.

          You seem to have some fatuous notion that if some form of government aid is received by the mother/family of such children then everything will be rosy for everyone.
          Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 11-29-2022, 09:21 AM.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            Yes. That may be considered brutal but I firmly hold that the ultimate decision lies with the woman, nor do I imagine many women decide to abort during labour.

            I appreciate your honesty.
            P1) If , then I win.

            P2)

            C) I win.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post


              I appreciate your honesty.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                American liberals would consider any limitation, including during birth or right after theocratic.
                As I suspected, and now thoroughly demonstrated with the above, you are a flake. None of that is even approximately true.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

                  As I suspected, and now thoroughly demonstrated with the above, you are a flake. None of that is even approximately true.
                  Democrats explicitly refused to pass a bill that, on the federal level, would have protected abortion survivors from what would be tantamount to infanticide by neglect.

                  The text of the bill:

                  Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

                  This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.

                  Specifically, a health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as would reasonably be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital. Additionally, a health care practitioner or other employee who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the degree-of-care requirements must immediately report such failure to law enforcement.

                  A health care practitioner who fails to provide the required degree of care, or a health care practitioner or other employee who fails to report such failure, is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.

                  An individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.

                  The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive under this bill and allows her to bring a civil action against a health care practitioner or other employee for violations.



                  And, these "comfort rooms" exist. Melissa Ohden survived a abortion and rescued from the trash. But I'm "a flake".

                  AB2223 (California, obviously)

                  (1) Existing law requires a county coroner to hold inquests to inquire into and determine the circumstances, manner, and cause of violent, sudden, or unusual deaths, including deaths related to or following known or suspected self-induced or criminal abortion. Existing law requires a coroner to register a fetal death after 20 weeks of gestation, unless it is the result of a legal abortion. If a physician was not in attendance at the delivery of the fetus, existing law requires the fetal death to be handled as a death without medical attendance. Existing law requires the coroner to state on the certificate of fetal death the time of fetal death, the direct causes of the fetal death, and the conditions, if any, that gave rise to these causes.

                  This bill would delete the requirement that a coroner hold inquests for deaths related to or following known or suspected self-induced or criminal abortion, and would delete the requirement that an unattended fetal death be handled as a death without medical attendance. The bill would prohibit using the coroner’s statements on the certificate of fetal death to establish, bring, or support a criminal prosecution or civil cause of damages against a person who is immune from liability based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, or who aids a pregnant person in exercising their rights under the Reproductive Privacy Act, as specified.


                  Have baby but don't want it? Just let it stave to death or just throw it into a dumpster.


                  But again I'm the "flake"
                  Last edited by Diogenes; 12-05-2022, 10:57 AM.
                  P1) If , then I win.

                  P2)

                  C) I win.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                    A few questions regarding abortion from the non-religious point of view [s] and away from meddling Christians [/s].

                    For humans, when does biological life begin?
                    Approx 4.3 billion years ago.

                    Biological life is a cycle. It doesn't really 'begin'. Even if you're asking about people, it's not obvious where in the reproductive cycle is the 'beginning', especially when considering monozygotic twins etc.

                    For humans, is there a distinction from the human organism per se and the status of human being?
                    Yes. Apart from your two cases, there are other complications including prolonged life-support.

                    When is a human a human?
                    Always. That's a tautology.

                    If you mean when does some-one become a human, it depends, not least on which of the various definitions of 'human' are being used. Implantation is a possibility (though monozygotic twins messes that up), as are initial brain development, birth, self-awareness.

                    When is a human a human being, i.e. a person?
                    Again, this is a definition question, not a fact question. My choice would be at he time of brain development and awareness, but it's not really a definable point, more a collection of continua.

                    When do person obtain rights?
                    When society grants them, which varies widely across and even within societies.
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
                    Mountain Man on climate change: Looking at the historical temperature data in my region over the past ten years shows that temperatures have been stable ...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                      Gametes =/= virus. Gametes, by themselves, are not metabolising organisms or capable of [independent] reproduction. Viruses can given a host.
                      Sperm are definitely metabolising entities, as they convert stored energy into movement. They can also reproduce, becoming more sperm, given a host (egg).
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
                      Mountain Man on climate change: Looking at the historical temperature data in my region over the past ten years shows that temperatures have been stable ...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Roy View Post
                        Approx 4.3 billion years ago.

                        Biological life is a cycle. It doesn't really 'begin'. Even if you're asking about people, it's not obvious where in the reproductive cycle is the 'beginning', especially when considering monozygotic twins etc.
                        Mitotic division is achieved at the same stage no matter how many zygotes or of offspring. So twins seems to not effect the biological criteria for "life".



                        Yes. Apart from your two cases, there are other complications including prolonged life-support.
                        It would depend on the reasons for going on life support, especially as it relates to brain activity. There are good reasons to give advanced directive in such eventualities.


                        Always. That's a tautology.

                        If you mean when does some-one become a human, it depends, not least on which of the various definitions of 'human' are being used. Implantation is a possibility (though monozygotic twins messes that up), as are initial brain development, birth, self-awareness.
                        I specifically differentiated a human biologically and a person. If you wish to suggest two human haploid cells do not make a human diploid cell or that a foetus at any stage of development is a non-human, perhaps you should brush up on biology. One cannot "become" human. Such is the hilarity of pro-choicers.


                        Again, this is a definition question, not a fact question. My choice would be at he time of brain development and awareness, but it's not really a definable point, more a collection of continua.
                        I would agree there is a continua, but eventually a "human" becomes a "person". Given that the process of birth does not entail any change from foetus to infant except in nomenclature, birth is not a defining moment. Would you say humans aren't persons until sometime later after birth?

                        When society grants them, which varies widely across and even within societies.
                        "Jews only have rights when society grants them, which varies across and even within societies"



                        Originally posted by Roy View Post
                        Sperm are definitely metabolising entities, as they convert stored energy into movement. They can also reproduce, becoming more sperm, given a host (egg).

                        Sperm are hardly considered to be in a grey zone regarding biological life unlike viruses. Suggesting sperm are alive is nonsense and a farce. Viruses, unlike sperm, can be revived.
                        P1) If , then I win.

                        P2)

                        C) I win.

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by Diogenes, 11-22-2022, 10:16 AM
                        40 responses
                        388 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Diogenes  
                        Working...
                        X