Abortion

PostmodernProphet said:
I believe you may have confused "science" and "government"......classic liberal mistake.......meanwhile, dumbfuck, science knew the kids weren't the mom......therefore, stupidity loses argument again..........
Click to expand...

It's incredible how dense you really are. The only confusion is in your mind. The government relied on the scientific conclusion that the children were not the biological offspring of the woman when the reality was the children were the biological offspring.

This is similar to the same nonsense I noted in msg #280. You are unable to grasp the most straight forward things. Something that regular folks can understand with a sentence or two of explanation demands hundreds of posts in order for your severely limited intelligence to comprehend. In this case the government relied on scientific evidence when science didn't know it's ass from a hole in the ground when it came to DNA.

Science still doesn't know how many genes human beings have much less what their functions are. A few years ago scientists ran on the stage waving their arms telling us chimpanzee DNA was 98% similar to humans. Today, it's down to 96%. The scientific estimate of the number of human genes has fallen from over 100,000 to around 20,000. Then there was the announcement the human genome was full of "garbage" genes, genes no longer performing a function. Then scientists started to realize those supposed "retired" genes did, in fact, serve a purpose and through all this craziness the anti-abortionists have jumped on the runaway DNA wagon ignoring not only the possible injustice that might be done to women by drawing the wrong conclusions but have ignored the injustice that has already occurred. Injustice like demanding a witness in the birthing room. An outrageous, disgusting, vile and voyeuristic exercise all due to the ignorance of what DNA can and can not determine.

But that doesn't stop the anti-abortionist perverts. From the unmitigated invasion of privacy in the birthing room to the debauched idea of shoving an instrument into the vaginas of pregnant women who are attempting to procure an abortion the sex obsessed anti-abortionist perverts trudge on like the neanderthals they are.

Then people are jolted when they hear NY is recommending abortion be guaranteeed as a right. "That's going too far!" "There's no need for that!"

Yes, there is a need for that. The "old white boys", as O'Reilly referred to the Repub base, know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting laid by a 20-something with luscious breasts and a munificent booty so their revenge is to disparage them and instill the idea sex is dirty. There have been enough scandals to know the "old white boys", on both sides of the isle, jump on any opportunity that comes along. From the regular mistress to government officials campaigning on fighting prostitution while using the services themselves if they can't enjoy the feminine fruits they don't want anyone else to be able to do so.

After 40 years of being annoyed by the anti-abortionists pests it's time to put an end to it. Like ObamaCare, it's time to move on. The tired, old, worn out ideas and beliefs belong in the trash can.
 
apple0154 said:
And a very good definition I might add. Howey wrote: "human being. noun. Any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens."

Individual: (Biology) a single organism capable of independent existence.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/individual?s=t)

Independent. That's the kicker. To assert that some "thing" which not only resides in the body of a human being but is physically connected to that human being and depends wholly upon the organs and
metabolic function of said human being.....if that "thing" is capable of independent existence simply remove it. If it survives, it is and was a human being. If not, it isn't and wasn't. Seems straight forward enough to me.
Click to expand...

lol, run little kanuk, run.....taking the goalposts with you.....
 
apple0154 said:
The government relied on the scientific conclusion that the children were not the biological offspring of the woman when the reality was the children were the biological offspring.
Click to expand...
and yet government, science, and everyone here but you had no trouble figuring out the children were NOT the woman......why do you still struggle with that?.....
 
Dixie said:
Yes, they do know the necessary components are there, or it wouldn't be alive. If the process of life is happening, some form of life has to exist, it has to be something living. It's not possible for it to be anything other than human life. Since it's physically in the state of being, it is said to be a "human being." Now, we can argue whether it is viable or sentient, and we can speculate over the ethics of when it's appropriate to terminate human life, but we can't ignore biological facts. Only uneducated idiots and morons can do that.
Click to expand...

They don't know if the necessary components are there. Not only have they not been studied/analyzed (the self-aborted ones and the absorbed ones) but science doesn't even know what to look for. Try to get that through your head. Human DNA is composed of genes and scientists do not know how many genes human beings have nor the purpose of the majority of them. How can they possibly state they are human beings?

If 50% spontaneously abort, they had to be carrying on some process to abort from. This is where you contradict yourself, and apparently lack the intelligence to understand how you've contradicted yourself. I've seen you repeat this line at least a dozen times here, and you just never seem to comprehend you've not made a point, you have refuted your own point. It's sad.
Click to expand...

The sad part is your lack of comprehension. The "process" that has been carrying on may have been nothing more than a group of cells starting to form a liver which is absorbed by a twin. No one knows. Science does not understand the intricate workings of a fertilized cell.

We've seen babies who have either missing or dysfunctional parts. Some slight, others severe. To assume, as you do, that there is no point where the number/severity of missing/dysfunctional parts are such that it does not qualify as a human being is simply silly. If a fertilized cell is unable to grow an arm or a brain or a properly operating heart who is to say it's impossible a fertilized cell is unable to grow a body? Or a head? The point is we don't know and that goes to show the agenda of people wanting to strip woman of rights is not based on protecting another human being because no one knows if there is another human being.

You are FAR too retarded to be discussing DNA. You need to stick with remedial science and biology until you can grasp that, before we move on to more complicated subjects.
Click to expand...

And you, just like those knowledgeable folks who unquestionably knew a woman's children couldn't possibly be her children, grasp at anything and jump to all kinds of conclusions regardless of how absurd.

The bottom line is no one knows and until they do know what genes are necessary for something to be classified as a human being and whether or not those genes are capable of producing a human being it's all speculation on the part of anti-abortionists. They have proof of nothing other than what is human material and people understood that a long time ago.
 
apple0154 said:
They don't know if the necessary components are there.
Click to expand...

Yes, they DO know the necessary components are there because something is producing cells... matter doesn't create matter. You've already admitted you can't deny it's alive. If it is alive, it has to be some kind of life form, and since it is the result of human conception, it can only be human life. There is really no question about this, they aren't confused by it, they aren't puzzled or miffed, they fully know when it becomes a living human organism.

What you continue to do, is grab hold to every single word you can manipulate and misconstrue, in order to try and prop up your contradictory idiocy. The latest is "independent." You want to argue that since the fetus is attached by an umbilical cord, it's not fully "independent" and therefore, not an organism. But that is improper use of the word "independent" and not how it was intended to be understood in this case. An apple or orange hanging from a tree is still an apple or orange, it doesn't suddenly become an apple or orange when picked from the tree. If true "independence" is required, then two year old babies aren't human beings! Hell, some 40-year-olds aren't human beings, if we go by your criteria!

In your misinterpreted definition, "independent" is in relation to the organism's capacity to reproduce. If it is "independently" reproducing it's own cells, then it is an independent living organism. Does it depend on the host to gain nutrients for continued growth? Sure, but babies will require this until they stop breast feeding, they are still human beings.
 
Science does not understand the intricate workings of a fertilized cell.
Click to expand...

Science understands when the cell reproduces other cells, it has to be a living organism, it can't be anything else. Matter doesn't create matter, so it has to either be a living organism of some kind, or the laws of the universe have stopped working. Now, science, by nature, can never be absolute, but it's reasonably certain the laws of the universe didn't stop working, and what exists, is a living human organism.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, they DO know the necessary components are there because something is producing cells... matter doesn't create matter. You've already admitted you can't deny it's alive. If it is alive, it has to be some kind of life form, and since it is the result of human conception, it can only be human life. There is really no question about this, they aren't confused by it, they aren't puzzled or miffed, they fully know when it becomes a living human organism.

What you continue to do, is grab hold to every single word you can manipulate and misconstrue, in order to try and prop up your contradictory idiocy. The latest is "independent." You want to argue that since the fetus is attached by an umbilical cord, it's not fully "independent" and therefore, not an organism. But that is improper use of the word "independent" and not how it was intended to be understood in this case. An apple or orange hanging from a tree is still an apple or orange, it doesn't suddenly become an apple or orange when picked from the tree. If true "independence" is required, then two year old babies aren't human beings! Hell, some 40-year-olds aren't human beings, if we go by your criteria!

In your misinterpreted definition, "independent" is in relation to the organism's capacity to reproduce. If it is "independently" reproducing it's own cells, then it is an independent living organism. Does it depend on the host to gain nutrients for continued growth? Sure, but babies will require this until they stop breast feeding, they are still human beings.
Click to expand...

An organism is supposed to be self-contained. It's not just a matter of providing nutrition. The mother's body does the work of the fetus' lungs, of the fetus' intestines/waste removal. Furthermore, if the mother who is breastfeeding the child dies the child does not die. Someone else is capable of providing nutrition. The point is after birth another human being is not doing the work a human being's body is supposed to do.

Whatever one decides is the definition of independence, the ability to carry on the processes of life, it certainly isn't something which, up to that point, isn't and never was capable of doing so due to the incomplete developed organs, etc. But, if people choose to believe otherwise then simply remove it. There is no argument. No one is insisting on killing anything. Remove it and take it home with you if you want.

It is the anti-abortionist who manipulates and misconstrues everything when it comes to a fetus. They twist everyday language whether it's classifying something solely by DNA (scrambled chickens for breakfast, anyone?) to saying something is a complete, self-contained human being when the blood and organs and metabolism of another human being is vital to it's survival. And as for something producing cells our liver produces cells and it's alive but it sure as hell isn't a human being.
 
Dixie said:
Science understands when the cell reproduces other cells, it has to be a living organism, it can't be anything else. Matter doesn't create matter, so it has to either be a living organism of some kind, or the laws of the universe have stopped working. Now, science, by nature, can never be absolute, but it's reasonably certain the laws of the universe didn't stop working, and what exists, is a living human organism.
Click to expand...

Then livers are human beings.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....you can see them and deny the DNA shows it.....
Click to expand...

DNA shows human material. That's all. If the material is taken from a liver it shows human material, not a human being. If the material is taken from a kidney it will show human material, not a human being.

I'll try to dumb this down for you. If we place a human liver in a room and tell the person doing the test the object from which the sample was taken is in the next room the person doing the test will not know if there is just a liver or if there is a human being in the next room. Do you understand?
 
apple0154 said:
An organism is supposed to be self-contained.
Click to expand...
The fetus IS self-contained.

It's not just a matter of providing nutrition. The mother's body does the work of the fetus' lungs, of the fetus' intestines/waste removal.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. The fetus doesn't need lungs, the organism hasn't advanced to that stage of living. It also doesn't need intestines, when it does, it will form them, just like a heart and brain. This doesn't change what it is. The stage of development changes, but the organism is a living human organism from the moment that fertilized cell reproduces something, because that is biology. It's not possible for it to be anything other than a living human organism. Does this organism depend on another organism to survive? SURE! I've not argued that. In fact, the organism will continue to need assistance well after it is born, an into the first several years of it's life... that doesn't change what it is.

Furthermore, if the mother who is breastfeeding the child dies the child does not die. Someone else is capable of providing nutrition. The point is after birth another human being is not doing the work a human being's body is supposed to do.
Click to expand...

A newly developed fetus isn't supposed to provide its own nutrition or oxygen. You are trying to apply criteria to the fetus that it can't possibly meet. None of us would be alive today, if we had to meet your criteria, because none of us could have supported ourselves outside the womb before we were born. Let's take Siamese twins who share a liver, they can't be separated because they share the same liver, but are they one person or two? Does the fact they only have one liver, make them a single living organism?

Whatever one decides is the definition of independence, the ability to carry on the processes of life, it certainly isn't something which, up to that point, isn't and never was capable of doing so due to the incomplete developed organs, etc.
Click to expand...

If cells reproduced ANYTHING, then either the laws of the universe stopped working and matter created matter, or it is a LIVING ORGANISM! Those are your ONLY TWO OPTIONS! One single reproduction of a cell is all it takes to "carry on the process." If the cell is malformed, or no more cells are produced, and the organism stops "carrying on the process," it then becomes a non-living organism. If it reproduced one cell, it was a living organism, and if it never produced another cell, and stopped functioning, it was a living organism that died. There is no option for a living organism to live, grow and reproduce, but not be alive yet. This contradicts biology and physics.

But, if people choose to believe otherwise then simply remove it. There is no argument. No one is insisting on killing anything. Remove it and take it home with you if you want.
Click to expand...

No can do. We lack the medical technology to be able to do this just yet. Perhaps there will come a day and time, where this 'option' could be an alternative to pregnancy, but for the time being, it's not an option. What we NEED to have, is an intelligent conversation on when it is moral and ethical to terminate human life. But we can't have that discussion because some of us want to remain juvenile, and ignorantly reject basic physics and biology.

It is the anti-abortionist who manipulates and misconstrues everything when it comes to a fetus. They twist everyday language whether it's classifying something solely by DNA (scrambled chickens for breakfast, anyone?) to saying something is a complete, self-contained human being when the blood and organs and metabolism of another human being is vital to it's survival. And as for something producing cells our liver produces cells and it's alive but it sure as hell isn't a human being.
Click to expand...

A liver is not an independent living organism, a fetus is. A liver is part of an independent living organism, a fetus is it's own organism, and actually already contains the cells to grow it's own liver. A fetus is a self-contained living human organism in the state of being, therefore, it is a living human being. Is it a "sentient" human being? We're not having that argument, are we? Is it a "viable" human being? Again, not the argument we're stuck on, is it? The organism is defined in biology, and the fetus meets every criteria, it is a living human organism. A human being.

Now any argument you want to have from that point, I am fine with, Apple. If you want to argue that, well... it's a human being, but it doesn't feel pain... or it doesn't have awareness yet... or it hasn't developed a cerebral cortex... that's fine, I have no problem with those very valid and legitimate points being made, because those are arguable statements. But for nearly two years, we've gone over this same topic a hundred times, you repeat the same idiocy, you get debunked with the same facts, and we are getting nowhere. All I can say is, go read up on some biology books, you obviously didn't pass biology in high school, and it would probably be beneficial to you to gain some basic understandings before you attempt to carry on a conversation on this subject. I know you fancy yourself a know-it-all on every topic, but you are in way over your head on this.


Life begins at conception.
 
apple0154 said:
Then livers are human beings.
Click to expand...

No, livers are PART of human beings. The liver is an organ OF a human being. The human being is an organism, the liver is an organ OF the organism. A fetus is an organism, and already has the cells to form it's own liver, and in time, will do so all by itself. All the fetus needs is time, nutrients and environment of a womb. Just as a newborn baby needs time, nutrients an environment... just as a 3 month old needs time, nutrients and environment... etc. A fetus isn't a baby, just like a baby isn't a toddler and a toddler isn't an adolescent. But they are ALL human beings at different stages of development.
 
apple0154 said:
DNA shows human material. That's all. If the material is taken from a liver it shows human material, not a human being. If the material is taken from a kidney it will show human material, not a human being.

I'll try to dumb this down for you. If we place a human liver in a room and tell the person doing the test the object from which the sample was taken is in the next room the person doing the test will not know if there is just a liver or if there is a human being in the next room. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

lol.....you mean the guy might think the liver came from a duck......keep dumbing things down.....it seems to be a natural talent for you....
 
The Dude said:
Still no woman conservatards against abortion!
You fat old white guys are used to being without woman!
Click to expand...
You are a living abortion...Ja Ja Ja...Why did you get booted off this Forum, because you were not on the Forum Member's list? What part of New York are you from, I bet LI? You are a first class example of a Lib girleyman, no huevos....Ja Ja Ja...The Feminazis give you your orders, don't they? I bet that you brush your teeth with Nair.....Ja Ja Ja

:good4u::(:good4u::):good4u::palm::good4u::mad::good4u::troll::good4u::rolleyes::good4u::whoa::good4u::awesome:
 
SJJRSJJS said:
You are a living abortion...Ja Ja Ja...Why did you get booted off this Forum, because you were not on the Forum Member's list? What part of New York are you from, I bet LI? You are a first class example of a Lib girleyman, no huevos....Ja Ja Ja...The Feminazis give you your orders, don't they? I bet that you brush your teeth with Nair.....Ja Ja Ja

:good4u::(:good4u::):good4u::palm::good4u::mad::good4u::troll::good4u::rolleyes::good4u::whoa::good4u::awesome:
Click to expand...
Shocking another fat old white guy yelling about abortions.
Stop worrying you aren't getting anybody pregnant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top