Abortion

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

When you have people who steep their beliefs in religious dogma, there is no rational argument with them. Pressed, they lie and deny like our Dixie Dunce and his compadres....yet the conclusion of their train of thought/logic is the same irrational nonsense that we've seen here. this is why the "conservative" movement in this country is imploding, and the GOP is fast losing support.

My beliefs are not steeped in religious dogma. The rational argument presented by me, is based on biological fact, physics and logic. The rebuttal from my detractors is based on irrational emotive pleas and denigration. You have been given every opportunity to make a case, and you continue to choose denigrating others, hurling baseless insults, and being a general shithead. I really don't mind you being a shithead, every time you decide to pop off, it only serves to illustrate my points and show how devoid of a response you are. Not only does it show you have nothing in the way of rebuttal, but that you are actually so defeated, the only rational thing you can think to do, is insult people.

It's really sad to watch you people, you actually believe you are going to be able to keep killing a million unborn babies each year, because you are really good at hurling derogatory insults at others.

 

[apple0154]

My beliefs are not steeped in religious dogma. The rational argument presented by me, is based on biological fact, physics and logic. The rebuttal from my detractors is based on irrational emotive pleas and denigration. You have been given every opportunity to make a case, and you continue to choose denigrating others, hurling baseless insults, and being a general shithead. I really don't mind you being a shithead, every time you decide to pop off, it only serves to illustrate my points and show how devoid of a response you are. Not only does it show you have nothing in the way of rebuttal, but that you are actually so defeated, the only rational thing you can think to do, is insult people.

It's really sad to watch you people, you actually believe you are going to be able to keep killing a million unborn babies each year, because you are really good at hurling derogatory insults at others.

There is no unborn baby just as there is no undead corpse. The word "corpse" denotes there has been a death and the word "baby" means there has been a birth. You can rant all you want about unique DNA and organisms and conceptions but a clump of cells is not a human being and they sure as hell are not on par with a woman of childbearing age.

It is nothing more than certain human beings who have decided a clump of cells are an organism and an organism is a human being. It is nothing more than a classification system devised by certain human beings and to make matters worse those human beings don't even know what a particular clump of cells contain. Human beings are composed of cells which are instructed/grow/shape themselves according to how genes express themselves and they don't even know how many genes human beings are supposed to have.

Talk about grasping in the dark. We do know babies are born missing vital parts, parts as vital as a brain! You talk about biological facts and logic. Try using a little logic here. If some babies can be born missing such vital parts have you ever considered other clumps of cells could be missing even more parts and that's why they spontaneously abort? Have you ever considered clumps of cells may be nothing more than human material, material missing parts and instructions to such a degree they are no more a human being than a flake of skin?

Try using a little common sense.

 

[NOVA]

Your denying standard biology won't change the scientific facts of life....but do continue to make a fool of yourself.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is no unborn baby just as there is no undead corpse. The word "corpse" denotes there has been a death and the word "baby" means there has been a birth. You can rant all you want about unique DNA and organisms and conceptions but a clump of cells is not a human being and they sure as hell are not on par with a woman of childbearing age.

It is nothing more than certain human beings who have decided a clump of cells are an organism and an organism is a human being. It is nothing more than a classification system devised by certain human beings and to make matters worse those human beings don't even know what a particular clump of cells contain. Human beings are composed of cells which are instructed/grow/shape themselves according to how genes express themselves and they don't even know how many genes human beings are supposed to have.

Talk about grasping in the dark. We do know babies are born missing vital parts, parts as vital as a brain! You talk about biological facts and logic. Try using a little logic here. If some babies can be born missing such vital parts have you ever considered other clumps of cells could be missing even more parts and that's why they spontaneously abort? Have you ever considered clumps of cells may be nothing more than human material, material missing parts and instructions to such a degree they are no more a human being than a flake of skin?

Try using a little common sense.

And your "clump of cells" claim has already been debunked, numerous times here. In fact, I showed you where it defies logic for your "clump of cells" to even exist, unless a living organism exists. You've not refuted my point, and you can't. Every time the words "clump of cells" comes from your fingertips, it confirms that a living organism MUST exit, which produced the so-called "clump of cells" because there is no other scientific explanation for their existence. So you can keep on typing "clump of cells" and we can translate that into "confirmed living organism." Now, the living organism has to be human, we also know this for a fact, it can't be anything else. Since it does exist and is in the state of being, we can call it a "human being" from the point it comes into existence.

A living organism is different than a skin cell. We've also been over this. It seems we're stuck in an endless loop here. You keep being shown the evidence, having biological facts explained to you like a 6th grader, patiently being corrected on your errors, and you just keep on refusing to accept anything and stubbornly clinging to what you want to believe. As long as you refuse to acknowledge biological fact, and reject basic logic and physics, it simply doesn't matter what anyone posts. There are no secret words we can say, which will suddenly make the light-bulb go off in your head, and it doesn't matter how many times we post or how long we continue to post.

 

[apple0154]

Your denying standard biology won't change the scientific facts of life....but do continue to make a fool of yourself.

Standard biology can classify anything any way they want just like a Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich.

 

[apple0154]

And your "clump of cells" claim has already been debunked, numerous times here. In fact, I showed you where it defies logic for your "clump of cells" to even exist, unless a living organism exists. You've not refuted my point, and you can't. Every time the words "clump of cells" comes from your fingertips, it confirms that a living organism MUST exit, which produced the so-called "clump of cells" because there is no other scientific explanation for their existence. So you can keep on typing "clump of cells" and we can translate that into "confirmed living organism." Now, the living organism has to be human, we also know this for a fact, it can't be anything else. Since it does exist and is in the state of being, we can call it a "human being" from the point it comes into existence.

A living organism is different than a skin cell. We've also been over this. It seems we're stuck in an endless loop here. You keep being shown the evidence, having biological facts explained to you like a 6th grader, patiently being corrected on your errors, and you just keep on refusing to accept anything and stubbornly clinging to what you want to believe. As long as you refuse to acknowledge biological fact, and reject basic logic and physics, it simply doesn't matter what anyone posts. There are no secret words we can say, which will suddenly make the light-bulb go off in your head, and it doesn't matter how many times we post or how long we continue to post.

Here's the problem. Something that produces a clump of cells is classified an organism. That's a purely arbitrary designation. Is it capable of continual division until it becomes a human being? No one knows but they do know that 50% of fertilized cells or conceptions spontaneously abort. Then the leap is made that if it's an organism it must be a human being. How many times do I have tell you no one, not you nor me nor any scientist knows what that "organism" contains. They don't even know the number of genes it's supposed to contain so how the hell can they possibly know if it's a human being, let alone a properly functioning organism. It contains human DNA. Big deal! Every piece of a human being, cell, sperm, liver, etc contains human DNA so it's natural a cell or cells inside a human being, a woman, is likely to contain human DNA.

So I really don't give a damn what conclusions people draw or what terminology they use. I will never accept the idea a clump of cells which may or may not contain the necessary material, genes and instructions, is a human being and, by implication, deny a woman the sole right to her body. It's vile and disgusting.

We know babies are born with missing parts, be they arms or legs or even a brain. Common sense dictates it is logical to conclude other cells are missing even more material. To claim they are all human beings goes against both logic and common sense.

On that note it's bedtime for Apple. Have a good night.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Here's the problem. Something that produces a clump of cells is classified an organism. That's a purely arbitrary designation.

No, i's not arbitrary at all. It's not "classified" it is "defined." If you eat a ham sandwich, you don't "classify" it as a meal, you "define" it as one. You want to use the word "classify" to suggest that someone simply made an arbitrary judgement and that is not the case. Once the two cells have fused and begin reproducing cells, they have met the criteria of an organism. We didn't classify them as this, they defined themselves as this by their action. You simply wish to IGNORE scientific distinctions and definitions, and pretend those don't apply.

Is it capable of continual division until it becomes a human being?

It becomes a living organism as soon as it reproduced one cell. It doesn't have to do anything more.

No one knows but they do know that 50% of fertilized cells or conceptions spontaneously abort.

Yes, they know that as soon as something begins reproducing cells, it can't be anything BUT an organism. And AGAIN... if 50% of something dies, it means that 100% of that same something, was alive. Things can't possibly die, which aren't alive. By admitting 50% spontaneously abort, you admit that 100% were alive, otherwise, there is nothing to abort from.

Then the leap is made that if it's an organism it must be a human being. How many times do I have tell you no one, not you nor me nor any scientist knows what that "organism" contains.

Again, you are wrong. It's not a leap to conclude the organism is human, it resides inside a human, it's originally comprised of two cells, both from humans, and it can't possibly be any other kind of organism other than human.

They don't even know the number of genes it's supposed to contain so how the hell can they possibly know if it's a human being, let alone a properly functioning organism. It contains human DNA. Big deal! Every piece of a human being, cell, sperm, liver, etc contains human DNA so it's natural a cell or cells inside a human being, a woman, is likely to contain human DNA.

They don't have to know the number of genes it is supposed to contain. Do you know how many genes your ham sandwich contains? Does that change what it is? They know it must be a functioning organism because it is reproducing cells, and only living organisms can do this. DNA has nothing to do with it, but the organism can be confirmed to have human DNA, proving conclusively it is a human organism.

So I really don't give a damn what conclusions people draw or what terminology they use. I will never accept the idea a clump of cells which may or may not contain the necessary material, genes and instructions, is a human being and, by implication, deny a woman the sole right to her body. It's vile and disgusting.

And you can deny science all you like, refuse to accept biological facts, and stubbornly remain ignorant, it doesn't change a thing. You can get mad and call me names, you can infer that you are disgusted and science is vile, and you can even set your hair on fire and run around screaming.... it does not change biological facts.

We know babies are born with missing parts, be they arms or legs or even a brain. Common sense dictates it is logical to conclude other cells are missing even more material. To claim they are all human beings goes against both logic and common sense.

Regardless of what they are not born with, it never changes what they are. You are dangerously close to Eugenics. This is where we define things based on concept rather than science. Where we determine a living organism is not worthy of this distinction because it doesn't meet the predefined qualifications. If the fetus doesn't have blonde hair and blue eyes, it's not human....if the fetus has high pigmentation and subsequently, darker skin, it's not REALLY a person... that sort of thing. You want to talk vile and disgusting?

 

[apple0154]

No, i's not arbitrary at all. It's not "classified" it is "defined." If you eat a ham sandwich, you don't "classify" it as a meal, you "define" it as one. You want to use the word "classify" to suggest that someone simply made an arbitrary judgement and that is not the case. Once the two cells have fused and begin reproducing cells, they have met the criteria of an organism. We didn't classify them as this, they defined themselves as this by their action. You simply wish to IGNORE scientific distinctions and definitions, and pretend those don't apply.

Tell me, who defined organism? Who determined what the criteria is? Human beings can define or classify anything any way they want. Who do you think makes those decisions? Aliens?

It becomes a living organism as soon as it reproduced one cell. It doesn't have to do anything more.

According to how MAN has defined things. Again, man does not even know how many genes that so-called organism is supposed to have let alone if it does have the necessary ones. Talk about stumbling around in the dark and pulling conclusions out of a very dark place.

Yes, they know that as soon as something begins reproducing cells, it can't be anything BUT an organism. And AGAIN... if 50% of something dies, it means that 100% of that same something, was alive. Things can't possibly die, which aren't alive. By admitting 50% spontaneously abort, you admit that 100% were alive, otherwise, there is nothing to abort from.

More absurdity. What has it reproduced? Again, no one has any idea what that cell contains in the sense of genes or the instructions that sometimes accompany them. It’s like seeing a cake pan come out of the oven and say, “There’s a cake.” You have no idea if it’s a cake. It could be a loaf of bread in a cake pan.

As for being alive so is ones liver. That doesn’t mean the liver is a human being. If those cells were organisms and able to carry on the processes of life why do 50% die? Obviously they were not able to carry on the processes of life and nobody knows why.

Again, you are wrong. It's not a leap to conclude the organism is human, it resides inside a human, it's originally comprised of two cells, both from humans, and it can't possibly be any other kind of organism other than human.

It’s possible it isn’t an organism to start with. It doesn’t even fulfill man’s definition of organism as it wasn’t able to carry on the processes of life. No one knows what’s inside that so-called organism as far as genes and instructions. It’s a piece of human material. No one has any idea if it contains the necessary genes and instructions to develop into a human being and we have plenty of examples where babies are born with parts missing. Logic dictates there is a distinct possibility other groups of similar cells also have something missing.

They don't have to know the number of genes it is supposed to contain. Do you know how many genes your ham sandwich contains? Does that change what it is? They know it must be a functioning organism because it is reproducing cells, and only living organisms can do this. DNA has nothing to do with it, but the organism can be confirmed to have human DNA, proving conclusively it is a human organism.

My sandwich is after the fact. Do we know by watching pigs mating that one day we’ll get a ham sandwich? No, we do not. As for reproducing cells we don’t know what was reproduced. That is the point you are unable to grasp. It could be an incomplete cell as in genes are missing. As in instructions for those genes are missing.

This is not speculation or a hypothetical scenario I’m talking about. Go to any hospital that specializes in caring for babies with birth defects. You’ll see all you need to know and that is babies are born with parts missing. Could a cell that was reproduced lack the necessary genes/instructions to develop a torso? A head with legs. That’s it. Is that a human being? We know some babies that are born with severe defects die shortly after leaving the woman’s body. Those babies never had the ability to carry on the processes of life. The woman’s body carried on the processes for it. Those babies never qualified as an organism, let alone a human being, according to science that stipulates an organism must be able to carry on the processes of life.

And you can deny science all you like, refuse to accept biological facts, and stubbornly remain ignorant, it doesn't change a thing. You can get mad and call me names, you can infer that you are disgusted and science is vile, and you can even set your hair on fire and run around screaming.... it does not change biological facts.

And there is no biological fact that contradicts my position that a reproduced cell could lack the necessary ingredients to become a human being. The fact is a preponderance of the evidence, the proof babies are born missing parts, leads any sensible individual to the same conclusion as mine. There is nothing scientific nor logical to assume otherwise and using nothing but assumptions and suppositions to say they are human beings as a justification to defile a woman’s body is what I find disgusting and vile. If you don’t know how to treat a woman’s body leave it to those who do.

Regardless of what they are not born with, it never changes what they are. You are dangerously close to Eugenics. This is where we define things based on concept rather than science. Where we determine a living organism is not worthy of this distinction because it doesn't meet the predefined qualifications. If the fetus doesn't have blonde hair and blue eyes, it's not human....if the fetus has high pigmentation and subsequently, darker skin, it's not REALLY a person... that sort of thing. You want to talk vile and disgusting?

Blue eyes and blonde hair? While I find blonde gals quite becoming those with darker body hair present a bold contrast when showcased against a background of peaches and cream skin but I digress. As to predefined qualifications a human being and an organism has to have the ability to carry on the processes of life and a baby born without a brain is not able to do that as witnessed by it/them dying shortly after being disconnected from the woman’s body. Thankfully, nature looks after the more severe mistakes and automatically aborts them before they do start growing but, again, there are enough mistakes that do slip by for any rational person to understand not all conceptions/reproductions are organisms or human beings.

There is a time to say, “Enough is enough.” First, the “authorities” told us male souls are faster than female souls and enter male fetuses before female fetuses. Then we were told “quickening” was the movement of the soul entering the body not unlike a new tenant moving into an upstairs duplex. After thousands of years of getting away with that nonsense the date was further pushed back and abortion was forbidden at any time so women would bear more male babies to be sent to the slaughter of war when they got older. (The deal made between Napoleon and the Pope.)

Then, along came DNA and the anti-abortionists jumped on that wagon as it sailed over the cliff taking biological children away from their natural mother. Not content with such injustice “authorities” demanded a witness be present in the birthing room to verify if babies do, indeed, exit the woman through her vagina. Can you say sick? Perverted? Vile? Out-fuckin-rageous?

Has the insanity ended? Noooo. Now we have people telling us a bunch of cells barely visible to the naked eye are/is really a human being while epigenetics is trying to tell those stunted folks that a woman has far more influence on those cells than anyone previously realized. The “it’s an independent, separate, completely apart from the woman” argument is being flushed as we speak. But the anti-abortionists will go on like they have for thousands of years throwing out whatever they can to mislead the people but like with the “unique DNA proves they’re a unique human being” argument their lies get shut down as quick as one can say, “Chimera.” They suffer from what is called RENS; Rovian Election Night Syndrome. They refuse to believe they're wrong even as everything points to the fact they are wrong. Most unfortunate.

 

[Taichiliberal]

When you have people who steep their beliefs in religious dogma, there is no rational argument with them. Pressed, they lie and deny like our Dixie Dunce and his compadres....yet the conclusion of their train of thought/logic is the same irrational nonsense that we've seen here. this is why the "conservative" movement in this country is imploding, and the GOP is fast losing support.

How's this for dogmatic faith?

HIV = AIDS

A prime example, because to date there is NO SCIENTIFIC PAPER that proves that equation. Let us know when you produce such. In the mean time, note that there are people with HIV who NEVER developed AIDS, people with AIDS who have NO HIV in their systems. I can provide documentation if you like.

But rather than you blow hot air and smoke on another subject, try sticking to the subject title of this thread....and maybe answering the questions I put forth that your like-minded compadres dare not deal with. I'll wait.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
When you have people who steep their beliefs in religious dogma, there is no rational argument with them. Pressed, they lie and deny like our Dixie Dunce and his compadres....yet the conclusion of their train of thought/logic is the same irrational nonsense that we've seen here. this is why the "conservative" movement in this country is imploding, and the GOP is fast losing support.

My beliefs are not steeped in religious dogma. The rational argument presented by me, is based on biological fact, physics and logic. The rebuttal from my detractors is based on irrational emotive pleas and denigration. You have been given every opportunity to make a case, and you continue to choose denigrating others, hurling baseless insults, and being a general shithead. I really don't mind you being a shithead, every time you decide to pop off, it only serves to illustrate my points and show how devoid of a response you are. Not only does it show you have nothing in the way of rebuttal, but that you are actually so defeated, the only rational thing you can think to do, is insult people.

It's really sad to watch you people, you actually believe you are going to be able to keep killing a million unborn babies each year, because you are really good at hurling derogatory insults at others.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I asked you a few simple questions that YOU refuse to answer because YOU fear an honest answer jeopardizes your dogmatic parroting.

The sheer absurdity of some of your answers to Apple make your feeble attempts to appear rational hysterical.

Bottom line: people like you fight tooth and nail to prevent comprehensive sex education in the schools, fight against making contraceptives available to teenagers, whine about welfare and public daycare, balk about "nanny states" and "gov't interference" in your private lives and rail against such innovations as the "morning after" pill.....that you cannot/will not see the connection to forcing people to have unwanted children is just mind staggering. Carry on, my Dixie Dunce.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Tell me, who defined organism? Who determined what the criteria is? Human beings can define or classify anything any way they want. Who do you think makes those decisions? Aliens? .....According to how MAN has defined things. Again, man does not even know how many genes that so-called organism is supposed to have let alone if it does have the necessary ones.

Yes, Apple, how men define things! We define things as "living" because they are not what we've defined as "dead" and we call young humans "babies" because we don't call them "post-birth fetuses." Everything around us is defined and means something, and you are indicating you believe we should discard how we've defined things so we can see things your way. Unfortunately, this is a losing argument, because if we can't depend on how we've defined things and what words mean, then nothing we're saying to each other can be clear or understood. We may as well speak gibberish to each other....which, you basically are.

Yes, some time long ago, some scientist observed cells reproducing and growing, and in the process of life, so they defined these cells and this activity as "a living organism" because compared to something inorganic, that is what it was. You're arguing we should simply ignore this definition and pretend a living organism doesn't exist, so that you can win the argument. Never has such an absurd demand been made in any debate.

Talk about stumbling around in the dark and pulling conclusions out of a very dark place.

That's what YOU are doing, Apple. My conclusions are based on science and biological fact, which you simply want to ignore. I'm not the one trying to make the argument that the problem is how we define things, and we shouldn't be constrained by definitions. I'm not the one arguing that things should mean what we want them to mean, and to hell with the definitions.

More absurdity. What has it reproduced? Again, no one has any idea what that cell contains in the sense of genes or the instructions that sometimes accompany them. It’s like seeing a cake pan come out of the oven and say, “There’s a cake.” You have no idea if it’s a cake. It could be a loaf of bread in a cake pan.

If it reproduced ANYTHING, it has to be a living organism, it can't be anything else. Matter can't produce matter, it completely defies physics. Inorganic material doesn't reproduce cells, so it can't be inorganic. If we opened a box of Duncan-Hines yellow butter cake mix, and prepared it according to instruction, and this is what is inside the cake pan in the oven, we KNOW FOR CERTAIN what it is, and the only way to deny what is in the pan, is to deny how we define things. We can make silly arguments, like the cake is only a "cake" because of how man defines cakes. We can pretend that we don't know for sure if there might be some strawberries in the cake, even though that wasn't what the box said. We can even call the cake a "lump of dough" and pretend it's not a cake. We can point at the cake and laugh, as we mock it, recalling what fully-decorated cakes look like, and how the baking cake doesn't appear to be the same thing, even though it is, it's just in a different stage of development.

Yes, you are correct, Apple, some of us can be complete idiots and go to any extreme to deny the truth.

As for being alive so is ones liver. That doesn’t mean the liver is a human being. If those cells were organisms and able to carry on the processes of life why do 50% die? Obviously they were not able to carry on the processes of life and nobody knows why.

How many times do we have to go through this? The liver is an organ inside an organism, it is not an organism. It does not live. It is only alive because the organism is alive, and is incapable of carrying on the process of life. Again... for the millionth time... if things DIE, they had to be ALIVE! It's not possible for something to DIE if it wasn't ALIVE! It may have not been able to CONTINUE carrying on the process, but if it was ALIVE it WAS, it could not be ALIVE it wasn't. There is absolutely NO criteria requiring an organism to be an organism for a certain amount of time. If it reproduced one cell, it fulfilled the role, and will forever have the distinction of being a living organism. It will continue to be a living organism until it no longer carries on the process of life, then it will be inorganic and not an organism. If you chop off your finger, it is not a living organism, it won't grow a liver, and continue being alive. The finger will immediately stop carrying on the process of life, the cells which comprise the finger will begin to die by the thousands and millions, and the finger will rapidly become completely inorganic, because it is incapable of carrying on the process of life. Even though there is temporarily 'life' in the cells of the finger, it is never a living organism, it has not met the criteria of reproduction.

Living organisms die all the time, Apple. No living organism has ever continued the process of life forever. You continue to make the illogical argument that in order to be a living organism, it has to be immortal and never die. This is due to a gross misconception of the definition. One of these days, when your old tired body is unable to continue carrying on the process and you die, shall we "determine" that you were never really a human being, because you didn't continue carrying on the process of life? That's the stupidity of your argument here.

It’s possible it isn’t an organism to start with.

No, it's not really possible. Matter doesn't produce matter. Inorganic material doesn't reproduce itself. If there are ever a "clump of cells" then they had to come from some living organism, there is no other plausible way for them to exist in our physical universe. We know with absolute certainty that it must be a living organism, and you admit that we must have a living organism because 50% "die," and that's impossible to do unless they lived.

It doesn’t even fulfill man’s definition of organism as it wasn’t able to carry on the processes of life.

Apparently it did, because it died. Here's a newsflash: No organism has ever carried on the process of life forever. By your interpretation, there is no such thing as living organisms. Everything living, will someday be unable to carry on the process of life.

No one knows what’s inside that so-called organism as far as genes and instructions.

Oh, they know a great deal of what's inside and what is happening with the organism, and they know for a fact it is an organism, because it can't be anything else. As for genes and instructions, etc.; You can open a coffee pot as a present, and because the box is missing the instruction book, does that make it not a coffee pot? What if you plug it in and actually make a pot of coffee or two, and then it blows up? Was it never really a coffee pot? I'm just curious how you logic works here.

It’s a piece of human material.

No, a piece of human material is incapable of carrying on the process of life. How many times do we have to go over this? If there is a "clump of cells" they are the result of a living organism, and can't exist otherwise. If the host organism isn't doing the reproducing, the "clump of cells" have to be the living organism responsible for producing the cells. We've confirmed this to be the case. Even you admit this to be the case, because you claim 50% of them die and spontaneously abort. So we know without any doubt, it is not simply human material. You've proven this with your own explanation, what can I say?

No one has any idea if it contains the necessary genes and instructions to develop into a human being and we have plenty of examples where babies are born with parts missing. Logic dictates there is a distinct possibility other groups of similar cells also have something missing.

It's already a human being. It came into being at conception, and can't be anything other than human. Babies with missing parts aren't some other species of living organism, and they are most certainly living human organisms. Again, it's a scary redefinition you wish to make here, and I can't let it stand. Organisms and humans are NEVER defined by what they may be lacking or missing, or what YOU feel they need. This is what Hitler thought... people with blonde hair and blue eyes were the 'perfect' race and if your 'organisms' lacked that attribute, they were 'inferior' and worthy of the gas chambers.

My sandwich is after the fact. Do we know by watching pigs mating that one day we’ll get a ham sandwich? No, we do not. As for reproducing cells we don’t know what was reproduced. That is the point you are unable to grasp. It could be an incomplete cell as in genes are missing. As in instructions for those genes are missing.

Again, if ANYTHING is reproduced, a living organism did the reproducing, because physics prohibits all other plausible explanation. We don't have to know the human being will have blonde hair and blue eyes, it is STILL a human being.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Tell me, who defined organism? Who determined what the criteria is? Human beings can define or classify anything any way they want. Who do you think makes those decisions? Aliens? .....According to how MAN has defined things. Again, man does not even know how many genes that so-called organism is supposed to have let alone if it does have the necessary ones.

Yes, Apple, how men define things! We define things as "living" because they are not what we've defined as "dead" and we call young humans "babies" because we don't call them "post-birth fetuses." Everything around us is defined and means something, and you are indicating you believe we should discard how we've defined things so we can see things your way. Unfortunately, this is a losing argument, because if we can't depend on how we've defined things and what words mean, then nothing we're saying to each other can be clear or understood. We may as well speak gibberish to each other....which, you basically are.

Yes, some time long ago, some scientist observed cells reproducing and growing, and in the process of life, so they defined these cells and this activity as "a living organism" because compared to something inorganic, that is what it was. You're arguing we should simply ignore this definition and pretend a living organism doesn't exist, so that you can win the argument. Never has such an absurd demand been made in any debate.

Talk about stumbling around in the dark and pulling conclusions out of a very dark place.

That's what YOU are doing, Apple. My conclusions are based on science and biological fact, which you simply want to ignore. I'm not the one trying to make the argument that the problem is how we define things, and we shouldn't be constrained by definitions. I'm not the one arguing that things should mean what we want them to mean, and to hell with the definitions.

More absurdity. What has it reproduced? Again, no one has any idea what that cell contains in the sense of genes or the instructions that sometimes accompany them. It’s like seeing a cake pan come out of the oven and say, “There’s a cake.” You have no idea if it’s a cake. It could be a loaf of bread in a cake pan.

If it reproduced ANYTHING, it has to be a living organism, it can't be anything else. Matter can't produce matter, it completely defies physics. Inorganic material doesn't reproduce cells, so it can't be inorganic. If we opened a box of Duncan-Hines yellow butter cake mix, and prepared it according to instruction, and this is what is inside the cake pan in the oven, we KNOW FOR CERTAIN what it is, and the only way to deny what is in the pan, is to deny how we define things. We can make silly arguments, like the cake is only a "cake" because of how man defines cakes. We can pretend that we don't know for sure if there might be some strawberries in the cake, even though that wasn't what the box said. We can even call the cake a "lump of dough" and pretend it's not a cake. We can point at the cake and laugh, as we mock it, recalling what fully-decorated cakes look like, and how the baking cake doesn't appear to be the same thing, even though it is, it's just in a different stage of development.

Yes, you are correct, Apple, some of us can be complete idiots and go to any extreme to deny the truth.

As for being alive so is ones liver. That doesn’t mean the liver is a human being. If those cells were organisms and able to carry on the processes of life why do 50% die? Obviously they were not able to carry on the processes of life and nobody knows why.

How many times do we have to go through this? The liver is an organ inside an organism, it is not an organism. It does not live. It is only alive because the organism is alive, and is incapable of carrying on the process of life. Again... for the millionth time... if things DIE, they had to be ALIVE! It's not possible for something to DIE if it wasn't ALIVE! It may have not been able to CONTINUE carrying on the process, but if it was ALIVE it WAS, it could not be ALIVE it wasn't. There is absolutely NO criteria requiring an organism to be an organism for a certain amount of time. If it reproduced one cell, it fulfilled the role, and will forever have the distinction of being a living organism. It will continue to be a living organism until it no longer carries on the process of life, then it will be inorganic and not an organism. If you chop off your finger, it is not a living organism, it won't grow a liver, and continue being alive. The finger will immediately stop carrying on the process of life, the cells which comprise the finger will begin to die by the thousands and millions, and the finger will rapidly become completely inorganic, because it is incapable of carrying on the process of life. Even though there is temporarily 'life' in the cells of the finger, it is never a living organism, it has not met the criteria of reproduction.

Living organisms die all the time, Apple. No living organism has ever continued the process of life forever. You continue to make the illogical argument that in order to be a living organism, it has to be immortal and never die. This is due to a gross misconception of the definition. One of these days, when your old tired body is unable to continue carrying on the process and you die, shall we "determine" that you were never really a human being, because you didn't continue carrying on the process of life? That's the stupidity of your argument here.

It’s possible it isn’t an organism to start with.

No, it's not really possible. Matter doesn't produce matter. Inorganic material doesn't reproduce itself. If there are ever a "clump of cells" then they had to come from some living organism, there is no other plausible way for them to exist in our physical universe. We know with absolute certainty that it must be a living organism, and you admit that we must have a living organism because 50% "die," and that's impossible to do unless they lived.

It doesn’t even fulfill man’s definition of organism as it wasn’t able to carry on the processes of life.

Apparently it did, because it died. Here's a newsflash: No organism has ever carried on the process of life forever. By your interpretation, there is no such thing as living organisms. Everything living, will someday be unable to carry on the process of life.

No one knows what’s inside that so-called organism as far as genes and instructions.

Oh, they know a great deal of what's inside and what is happening with the organism, and they know for a fact it is an organism, because it can't be anything else. As for genes and instructions, etc.; You can open a coffee pot as a present, and because the box is missing the instruction book, does that make it not a coffee pot? What if you plug it in and actually make a pot of coffee or two, and then it blows up? Was it never really a coffee pot? I'm just curious how you logic works here.

It’s a piece of human material.

No, a piece of human material is incapable of carrying on the process of life. How many times do we have to go over this? If there is a "clump of cells" they are the result of a living organism, and can't exist otherwise. If the host organism isn't doing the reproducing, the "clump of cells" have to be the living organism responsible for producing the cells. We've confirmed this to be the case. Even you admit this to be the case, because you claim 50% of them die and spontaneously abort. So we know without any doubt, it is not simply human material. You've proven this with your own explanation, what can I say?

No one has any idea if it contains the necessary genes and instructions to develop into a human being and we have plenty of examples where babies are born with parts missing. Logic dictates there is a distinct possibility other groups of similar cells also have something missing.

It's already a human being. It came into being at conception, and can't be anything other than human. Babies with missing parts aren't some other species of living organism, and they are most certainly living human organisms. Again, it's a scary redefinition you wish to make here, and I can't let it stand. Organisms and humans are NEVER defined by what they may be lacking or missing, or what YOU feel they need. This is what Hitler thought... people with blonde hair and blue eyes were the 'perfect' race and if your 'organisms' lacked that attribute, they were 'inferior' and worthy of the gas chambers.

My sandwich is after the fact. Do we know by watching pigs mating that one day we’ll get a ham sandwich? No, we do not. As for reproducing cells we don’t know what was reproduced. That is the point you are unable to grasp. It could be an incomplete cell as in genes are missing. As in instructions for those genes are missing.

Again, if ANYTHING is reproduced, a living organism did the reproducing, because physics prohibits all other plausible explanation. We don't have to know the human being will have blonde hair and blue eyes, it is STILL a human being.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, Apple, how men define things! We define things as "living" because they are not what we've defined as "dead" and we call young humans "babies" because we don't call them "post-birth fetuses." Everything around us is defined and means something, and you are indicating you believe we should discard how we've defined things so we can see things your way. Unfortunately, this is a losing argument, because if we can't depend on how we've defined things and what words mean, then nothing we're saying to each other can be clear or understood. We may as well speak gibberish to each other....which, you basically are.

Yes, some time long ago, some scientist observed cells reproducing and growing, and in the process of life, so they defined these cells and this activity as "a living organism" because compared to something inorganic, that is what it was. You're arguing we should simply ignore this definition and pretend a living organism doesn't exist, so that you can win the argument. Never has such an absurd demand been made in any debate.

Wrong. I’m saying a bunch of cells in the uterus attached to a woman and a liver attached to a woman have more in common than a bunch of cells attached to a woman and a human being.

That's what YOU are doing, Apple. My conclusions are based on science and biological fact, which you simply want to ignore. I'm not the one trying to make the argument that the problem is how we define things, and we shouldn't be constrained by definitions. I'm not the one arguing that things should mean what we want them to mean, and to hell with the definitions.

You’re the one who claims a bunch of cells attached to a human being who bodily functions and organs not only support those cells but whose body sends instructions to the bunch of cells via “markers” on the genes is an independent human being themselves. It is neither independent nor a human being.

If it reproduced ANYTHING, it has to be a living organism, it can't be anything else. Matter can't produce matter, it completely defies physics. Inorganic material doesn't reproduce cells, so it can't be inorganic. If we opened a box of Duncan-Hines yellow butter cake mix, and prepared it according to instruction, and this is what is inside the cake pan in the oven, we KNOW FOR CERTAIN what it is, and the only way to deny what is in the pan, is to deny how we define things. We can make silly arguments, like the cake is only a "cake" because of how man defines cakes. We can pretend that we don't know for sure if there might be some strawberries in the cake, even though that wasn't what the box said. We can even call the cake a "lump of dough" and pretend it's not a cake. We can point at the cake and laugh, as we mock it, recalling what fully-decorated cakes look like, and how the baking cake doesn't appear to be the same thing, even though it is, it's just in a different stage of development.

Let’s say you’re watching a Saturday noon-time TV report claiming that those boxes of cakes had been tampered with at the factory and instead of cake batter they included a type of explosive that detonates when heated in the oven. As soon as the warning ends your 8 year old takes the hypothetical cake box out of the cupboard and whines you promised to bake a cake that day. When you refuse he carries on about knowing those boxes do contain a cake because he’s seen Mommy use them to make a cake and the box shows a picture of a cake. You know some of those boxes do not contain cakes, you know some blew up but your son continually maintains ALL those boxes contain cakes.

How many times do we have to go through this? The liver is an organ inside an organism, it is not an organism. It does not live. It is only alive because the organism is alive, and is incapable of carrying on the process of life. Again... for the millionth time... if things DIE, they had to be ALIVE! It's not possible for something to DIE if it wasn't ALIVE! It may have not been able to CONTINUE carrying on the process, but if it was ALIVE it WAS, it could not be ALIVE it wasn't. There is absolutely NO criteria requiring an organism to be an organism for a certain amount of time. If it reproduced one cell, it fulfilled the role, and will forever have the distinction of being a living organism. It will continue to be a living organism until it no longer carries on the process of life, then it will be inorganic and not an organism. If you chop off your finger, it is not a living organism, it won't grow a liver, and continue being alive. The finger will immediately stop carrying on the process of life, the cells which comprise the finger will begin to die by the thousands and millions, and the finger will rapidly become completely inorganic, because it is incapable of carrying on the process of life. Even though there is temporarily 'life' in the cells of the finger, it is never a living organism, it has not met the criteria of reproduction.

Living organisms die all the time, Apple. No living organism has ever continued the process of life forever. You continue to make the illogical argument that in order to be a living organism, it has to be immortal and never die. This is due to a gross misconception of the definition. One of these days, when your old tired body is unable to continue carrying on the process and you die, shall we "determine" that you were never really a human being, because you didn't continue carrying on the process of life? That's the stupidity of your argument here.

Then remove it. Simple as that. No human being has the obligation to have another human being, real or imagined, living inside them.

No, it's not really possible. Matter doesn't produce matter. Inorganic material doesn't reproduce itself. If there are ever a "clump of cells" then they had to come from some living organism, there is no other plausible way for them to exist in our physical universe. We know with absolute certainty that it must be a living organism, and you admit that we must have a living organism because 50% "die," and that's impossible to do unless they lived.

If you want to define something as a human being because one cell reproduced you’re welcome to it. If you think society is going to compare a woman of childbearing age to that cell you’re in for a disappointment. All I say is don’t wait for it to happen.

Apparently it did, because it died. Here's a newsflash: No organism has ever carried on the process of life forever. By your interpretation, there is no such thing as living organisms. Everything living, will someday be unable to carry on the process of life.

If you think a baby born without a brain is an organism able to carry on the processes of life I’m wasting my time here.

Oh, they know a great deal of what's inside and what is happening with the organism, and they know for a fact it is an organism, because it can't be anything else. As for genes and instructions, etc.; You can open a coffee pot as a present, and because the box is missing the instruction book, does that make it not a coffee pot? What if you plug it in and actually make a pot of coffee or two, and then it blows up? Was it never really a coffee pot? I'm just curious how you logic works here.

If you open the box and find only the lid and the instruction booklet but no pot what do you have?

No, a piece of human material is incapable of carrying on the process of life. How many times do we have to go over this? If there is a "clump of cells" they are the result of a living organism, and can't exist otherwise. If the host organism isn't doing the reproducing, the "clump of cells" have to be the living organism responsible for producing the cells. We've confirmed this to be the case. Even you admit this to be the case, because you claim 50% of them die and spontaneously abort. So we know without any doubt, it is not simply human material. You've proven this with your own explanation, what can I say?

As I previously noted if you believe a cell that reproduces is equivalent to a woman of childbearing age don’t wait for society to agree with you.

It's already a human being. It came into being at conception, and can't be anything other than human. Babies with missing parts aren't some other species of living organism, and they are most certainly living human organisms. Again, it's a scary redefinition you wish to make here, and I can't let it stand. Organisms and humans are NEVER defined by what they may be lacking or missing, or what YOU feel they need. This is what Hitler thought... people with blonde hair and blue eyes were the 'perfect' race and if your 'organisms' lacked that attribute, they were 'inferior' and worthy of the gas chambers.

What was that saying? Oh, yes, I remember. The first person to mention Hitler/Nazis forfeits the argument.

Again, if ANYTHING is reproduced, a living organism did the reproducing, because physics prohibits all other plausible explanation. We don't have to know the human being will have blonde hair and blue eyes, it is STILL a human being.

Of course. And an egg is a chicken. Chickens can have shells. And squirrels bury oak trees. And human beings can have no brains and still be functioning organisms.

If you say so, Dix, but we’re all thankful you’re not in a position to make laws.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wrong. I’m saying a bunch of cells in the uterus attached to a woman and a liver attached to a woman have more in common than a bunch of cells attached to a woman and a human being.

Doesn't matter what something may or may not have in common with something else. You have a LOT in common with chimpanzees, it doesn't make you one, and it doesn't change what you are. The cells in question are reproducing other cells and growing, in the process of life, and doing exactly what living organisms do, which is what the cells are now, a living organism. Since it can't possibly be any other form of living organism, we can conclude it is a human organism. In the case of a liver, it is not reproducing its own cells, it's incapable of this and is not an organism. It may have lots of things in common with organisms, it may even have things in common with inorganic non-organisms, that never changes the facts. Things are what they are, and you have argued that we need to ignore how we've defined things and pretend things are however we want them to be, regardless of the facts. I honestly don't know how we have a rational conversation from there, you have destroyed any meaning in definition, so we don't have any concept of the words we are using anymore. Things just mean whatever Apple decides on the fly, whether they defy logic and physics or not, because that's how Apple has determined we get to the truth.

You’re the one who claims a bunch of cells attached to a human being who bodily functions and organs not only support those cells but whose body sends instructions to the bunch of cells via “markers” on the genes is an independent human being themselves. It is neither independent nor a human being.

I made NO claim. I stated a biological fact. One you haven't refuted yet, and you can't refute without defying logic or abandoning language entirely. From point of conception, it is an organism, it is alive, it is human, and it is in the state of being.

Let’s say you’re watching a Saturday noon-time TV report claiming that those boxes of cakes had been tampered with at the factory and instead of cake batter they included a type of explosive that detonates when heated in the oven. As soon as the warning ends your 8 year old takes the hypothetical cake box out of the cupboard and whines you promised to bake a cake that day. When you refuse he carries on about knowing those boxes do contain a cake because he’s seen Mommy use them to make a cake and the box shows a picture of a cake. You know some of those boxes do not contain cakes, you know some blew up but your son continually maintains ALL those boxes contain cakes.

WTF? Are you smoking crack today or something? Fetuses aren't going to blow up and kill anyone. You attempted to make the bizarre analogy that we don't know if there is a cake or loaf of bread in the oven, but comparing to the fetus, we do know what ingredients were mixed, therefore, we do know there is a "cake in the oven." Your first analogy didn't work, and your modified analogy sounds insane.

Then remove it. Simple as that. No human being has the obligation to have another human being, real or imagined, living inside them.

We can't remove it without killing it, this has already been explained as well. The argument isn't whether you have this obligation, the laws are clearly protective of the right to have an abortion, I haven't argued this is not the case. The argument is, whether you should have this obligation, in fairness to the living organism known as the fetus. If women did absolutely nothing to cause pregnancy, I would totally agree with your point here, but that is not the case. Pregnancy is the result of an action taken, and there should be a consequence, and people should be obligated as a result.

If you want to define something as a human being because one cell reproduced you’re welcome to it. If you think society is going to compare a woman of childbearing age to that cell you’re in for a disappointment. All I say is don’t wait for it to happen.

One cell didn't reproduce. Two cells, the sperm and egg, fused together in conception, and began to function as an organism. I didn't define this process, I didn't create this distinction, it's not my opinion, it's a biological fact. I've also made no argument "comparing" organisms with each other. I've not said the fetus is more important or equally important as any other human organism, just that it IS an organism.

Once was a time, no one thought we'd ever recognize black people as humans. No one thought we'd ever give women the same right to vote as men. No one ever thought we'd be talking about the rights of homosexuals to marry. The fact that we currently don't consistently protect the unborn's constitutional rights, doesn't mean this is always how it will be in America. But you're right, we can't "wait for it to happen" because it never will. We have to actively work for this, and fight for these rights.

If you think a baby born without a brain is an organism able to carry on the processes of life I’m wasting my time here.

Nothing in the history of our known universe, has EVER been able to carry on the process of life indefinitely. You are applying an ignorant and absurd contextual understanding of "must carry on the process of life" and it has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Once the baby organism without a brain ceases to live, it is no longer a living organism. We find not one single solitary word in the science book, about organisms requiring a brain or any other specific part. We find no criteria for an organism having to maintain immortality, which is your interpretation of what constitutes an organism, something that never dies.

If you open the box and find only the lid and the instruction booklet but no pot what do you have?

Again, you are trying to twist and pervert the analogy.

As I previously noted if you believe a cell that reproduces is equivalent to a woman of childbearing age don’t wait for society to agree with you.

Again, no argument has been made about equivalency of organisms, or current law of the land. Something reproducing cells and carrying on the process of life, is a living organism, because it can't be anything else. It's reality, and I believe in reality.

What was that saying? Oh, yes, I remember. The first person to mention Hitler/Nazis forfeits the argument.

Huh? Is that "Skinhead Rules" or something? I never heard of this. I have heard this one: IF THE SHOE FITS...!

 

[patriot66]

Continue to justify murder however you want, it is still the taking of life, baby killers.

 

[The Dude]

Continue to justify murder however you want, it is still the taking of life, baby killers.

Uneducated pagan hillbilly

 

[patriot66]

Uneducated pagan hillbilly

Dope smoking, butt licking, drug addict! again do you understand how insignificant you really are, you do provide some comic relief though.

 

[The Dude]

Dope smoking, butt licking, drug addict! again do you understand how insignificant you really are, you do provide some comic relief though.

Ex marine baby killer in nam who couldn't get in college dumbass. Keep tour pagan beliefs out of my gov!

 

[patriot66]

Ex marine baby killer in nam who couldn't get in college dumbass. Keep tour pagan beliefs out of my gov!

No one is suggesting a theocracy just life, liberty and, the pursuit of happiness, all three things are denied aborted children embc

 

[The Dude]

No one is suggesting a theocracy just life, liberty and, the pursuit of happiness, all three things are denied aborted children embc

And the millions killed by you military dicks