When Does Life End?

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, it explains your ignorance not only to genetics but to things in general.

Do a Google. Learn. You already know genetic deficiencies exist. Why would it not be possible to have deficiencies to such an extent a human being does not exist?

The logical conclusion is that's exactly what happens as we have witnessed babies being born with severe genetic deficiencies. In order for nature to abort it's both reasonable and logical to conclude the deficiencies were of such a nature that the clump of cells were not a human being.

Because that is not how genetics works. You continue saying 'the logical conclusion'... I am beginning to believe you don't understand the definition of 'logic'.

It is certainly possible for the deficiencies to exist to the extent that it is impossible for the zygote to live. But again.... and do try to pay attention this time.... when the sperm and egg cell combine, the zygote then possesses the unique DNA of a human being.... REGARDLESS of how many deficiencies it has.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Also Apple, while you may have a lack of understanding that does not allow you to see the zygote as a human being, what is your excuse for those that DO implant?

Why do you continue to insist they are also non-human? do you believe in a 'magic baby fairy'?

 

[NOVA]

I have no doubt you're familiar with that old adage.

I should...its been part of my sig. for months....and without doubt, applies to you....

 

[Damocles]

You are the clown and a deceitful one at that. You know as well as I that a 12 week old fetus will not survive regardless of how it's removed so to suggest removing it without killing it is nonsense. Why are you even mentioning that?

Let me guess. It looks like you're all for a woman's right to her own body by saying let's remove it without killing it but you know that is not possible.

Your argument reminds me of the typical father response to their 16 year old son wanting a car. When the son asks for his own car the father responds, "As soon as you can afford one you can have your own car."

Rather than say "No" the father is using the financial aspect knowing his son can't afford a car.

In case you miss the analogy both arguments are BS.

The "I know you are but what am I" defense, with the addition of another distraction.

 

[Damocles]

Also Apple, while you may have a lack of understanding that does not allow you to see the zygote as a human being, what is your excuse for those that DO implant?

Why do you continue to insist they are also non-human? do you believe in a 'magic baby fairy'?

Channeling Apple:

How come you didn't answer my questions about chimeras and the one in the car analogy?

You keep saying it is human life, but I need answers about chimeras.

Here's another inept analogy for you to ponder. Later I will call on it in the argument as another thing you didn't answer.

Two cars are going down the road and one gets in the accident, how do you know there was a person driving if you don't know their name?!!!11 Riddle me that!

I know you won't answer it because I'm testing your logic to see if you've thought everything through!

I mean, there is a change in blood flow! A cHANGE IN BLOOD FLOW! And it was living in liquid, so it can't be human!

 

[apple0154]

Because that is not how genetics works. You continue saying 'the logical conclusion'... I am beginning to believe you don't understand the definition of 'logic'.

It is certainly possible for the deficiencies to exist to the extent that it is impossible for the zygote to live. But again.... and do try to pay attention this time.... when the sperm and egg cell combine, the zygote then possesses the unique DNA of a human being.... REGARDLESS of how many deficiencies it has.

I understand logic very well.

What is illogical is accepting whatever forms, regardless of the extent of genetic mutations, and comparing it's value to that of born females. That is totally illogical from both a biological and ethical standpoint.

 

[apple0154]

Also Apple, while you may have a lack of understanding that does not allow you to see the zygote as a human being, what is your excuse for those that DO implant?

Why do you continue to insist they are also non-human? do you believe in a 'magic baby fairy'?

No, no magic baby fairy.

There is no lack of understanding. It's a matter of common sense. Two human beings can not possess or occupy or own part of the same body. That is not what a human being is.

Our society, our culture, out most cherished beliefs is each human being is an individual. Our laws and customs are all based on the understanding that each human being owns their own body.

Also, laws and customs are based on each individual having equal rights. No group of human beings are valued less. Certainly not to the point where innocent humans are killed so defective ones may live.

I'm sure we've all heard stories about criminals in communist countries being killed so as to harvest a needed organ for some high ranking party member. Whether true or not I'm equally sure we all find that idea repulsive.

I see very little difference between that and classifying something as a human being and then having the right to kill it so a defective human may live.

It's easy to say something is a human being. That would stop abortion.The problem is what are the consequences. What does it mean in every day life? For starters, it means innocent human beings can be killed because of the defective body of another human being. It means people can kill their offspring if the killing may prevent their own death. It means the scenario I posed with the woman standing on the ledge with her 10 year old child can push him off to certain death assuming there is no difference between the unborn and the born.

That's why I ask if people have thought it through.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I understand logic very well.

What is illogical is accepting whatever forms, regardless of the extent of genetic mutations, and comparing it's value to that of born females. That is totally illogical from both a biological and ethical standpoint.

No, you apparently do NOT understand logic. As the above is simply absurd.

You can argue that the unborn should not be entitled to the same basic human rights that the 'born' have. That is a subjective argument and while I disagree with that position, it is viable.

You think that by calling the zygote a human being that somehow means that we LEGALLY must afford it basic human rights. That is not correct.

That is why you continually spin this insanity you have concocted in an attempt to pretend that somehow deficiencies in zygotes = non human being.

I ask again.... WHAT is your justification for the unborn that DO possess brain activity and DO NOT have the deficiencies. What is your justification for dehumanizing THEM?

 

[apple0154]

I should...its been part of my sig. for months....and without doubt, applies to you....

Well, old wise one, try answering the questions in msg 630.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, no magic baby fairy.

There is no lack of understanding. It's a matter of common sense. Two human beings can not possess or occupy or own part of the same body. That is not what a human being is.

You are too ignorant to even see the contradiction in the above statements?

You have subjectively decided that there is a point in time that the progeny magically becomes human. That somehow its genetics suddenly 'turn' human.

That is absurd.

Our society, our culture, out most cherished beliefs is each human being is an individual. Our laws and customs are all based on the understanding that each human being owns their own body.

Also, laws and customs are based on each individual having equal rights. No group of human beings are valued less. Certainly not to the point where innocent humans are killed so defective ones may live.

I'm sure we've all heard stories about criminals in communist countries being killed so as to harvest a needed organ for some high ranking party member. Whether true or not I'm equally sure we all find that idea repulsive.

I see very little difference between that and classifying something as a human being and then having the right to kill it so a defective human may live.

It's easy to say something is a human being. That would stop abortion.The problem is what are the consequences. What does it mean in every day life? For starters, it means innocent human beings can be killed because of the defective body of another human being. It means people can kill their offspring if the killing may prevent their own death. It means the scenario I posed with the woman standing on the ledge with her 10 year old child can push him off to certain death assuming there is no difference between the unborn and the born.

That's why I ask if people have thought it through.

The above is laughable.

It IS a human being. THAT is why the pro-life movement is so adamant about stopping abortions. They DO see it for what it is... the killing of an innocent human being.

Your analogy of the woman on the ledge is faulty. It is not the same thing.

She does not have the right to push the child and kill it in an attempt to save herself. She DOES have the right to jump/escape and leave the kid behind to die. THAT is putting the two situations on the same level.

 

[Damocles]

No, you apparently do NOT understand logic. As the above is simply absurd.

You can argue that the unborn should not be entitled to the same basic human rights that the 'born' have. That is a subjective argument and while I disagree with that position, it is viable.

You think that by calling the zygote a human being that somehow means that we LEGALLY must afford it basic human rights. That is not correct.

That is why you continually spin this insanity you have concocted in an attempt to pretend that somehow deficiencies in zygotes = non human being.

I ask again.... WHAT is your justification for the unborn that DO possess brain activity and DO NOT have the deficiencies. What is your justification for dehumanizing THEM?

They live in liquid and their blood flow changes. So far that's all I got from him. It's baffling.

 

[NOVA]

Well, old wise one, try answering the questions in msg 630.

Post 630 deals with subjective nonsense...
personal morals, personal values, and abortion.
I was debating science, something out or your realm....

But...what the hell....

woman with a faulty body deliberately murdering an innocent, defenseless human being in order to save her own life.

What about a serious medical problem? Should she be allowed to murder an innocent human being if she may partially lose her eye sight?

You've been told numerous times that all people have a right, actually a duty to preserve their own lives...its called 'self defense' and its perfectly natural to abort a pregnancy to save ones life or to prevent becoming disabled in some serious way....
....but only if its necessary and not just because its convienent...so if the babys life can be spared in saving a mothers life, it must be that way....

If she wants an abortion because the pregnancy gives her a headache, that ain't gonna cut it

 

[USFREEDOM911]

(Excerpt) According to most studies, the human brain stops growing in its early 20s, after which it starts to contract. Muscle strength peaks as a rule around 25. Aerobic strength or oxygen intake maxes out a couple of years later. Height loss starts around 30 in most people, which is around when bones reach their maximum density. The eyes start to go in your 40s and your intestines even begin to shrink. (End)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/health/aging.html

So when it is then; because all you did was post a list of different ages and reasons.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

"Person Faerie" You research nothing, repeat propaganda, then plagiarize Damocles' words, as well. Talk about being a parrot.

It is you who believes Fairy Dust is sprinkled on fertilized cells. Your opinions are nothing more than a remake of the "quickening", male fetuses become human beings before female fetuses, antiquated nonsense with an added bit of DNA thrown in there to sound scientific.

The word "buffoon" come to mind.

AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, did I hit a nerve that you couldn't dance around!!

 

[apple0154]

You have subjectively decided that there is a point in time that the progeny magically becomes human. That somehow its genetics suddenly 'turn' human.

There is a point in time when a human comes into existence and it is not always at conception as I showed with the example of Bill and Jane.

It IS a human being. THAT is why the pro-life movement is so adamant about stopping abortions. They DO see it for what it is... the killing of an innocent human being.

Then any medical damage short of certain death occurring to the woman should not be sufficient reason to abort. Unless you feel it's OK to kill an innocent human being as a precaution.

BTW, what about loss of vision? I asked that question in msg 630. If a woman risks partial loss of vision which will result in her losing her job and, consequently, her home should she be allowed to kill an innocent human being in order to prevent that from happening?

Your analogy of the woman on the ledge is faulty. It is not the same thing.

She does not have the right to push the child and kill it in an attempt to save herself. She DOES have the right to jump/escape and leave the kid behind to die. THAT is putting the two situations on the same level.

No it's not. When an abortion takes place the fetus is removed from the woman so the child should be removed from the woman, as well. Not the woman from the child.

 

[apple0154]

They live in liquid and their blood flow changes. So far that's all I got from him. It's baffling.

You forgot veins atrophying and becoming cords.

Of course, we can always say a human being comes into existence at conception as a female with it's unique DNA, then splits and produces a male and then absorbs the male resulting in it becoming a female with different DNA. Yea, that makes more sense

 

[apple0154]

Post 630 deals with subjective nonsense...
personal morals, personal values, and abortion.
I was debating science, something out or your realm....

But...what the hell....

That's what we are debating, science. Like a female zygote producing a male and then absorbing the male and becoming a female with different DNA makeup. As everyone swears unique DNA constitutes a human being so when did the last human being come into existence?
Hint: It was not at conception. Care to offer a guesstimate, oh so wise one?

You've been told numerous times that all people have a right, actually a duty to preserve their own lives...its called 'self defense' and its perfectly natural to abort a pregnancy to save ones life or to prevent becoming disabled in some serious way....
....but only if its necessary and not just because its convienent...so if the babys life can be spared in saving a mothers life, it must be that way....

If she wants an abortion because the pregnancy gives her a headache, that ain't gonna cut it[/COLOR][/B]

Great. So if I require a certain drug in order to live, say insulin, and the pharmacist won't give me the insulin because I don't have enough money I have the right to kill him? You did say I had the right to preserve my own life.

The fetus is not doing anything wrong, whatsoever, and neither is the pharmacist. If the woman is allowed to kill the fetus then a diabetic should be allowed to kill the pharmacist. The death of both will result in the other two living. Well, until time runs out on death row.

 

[apple0154]

So when it is then; because all you did was post a list of different ages and reasons.

That was the point, different ages. Not starting the moment something comes alive as you suggested.

 

[apple0154]

AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, did I hit a nerve that you couldn't dance around!!

Hit a nerve? Surely you jest. I've heard that nonsense many, many times before.

 

[Damocles]

You forgot veins atrophying and becoming cords.

Of course, we can always say a human being comes into existence at conception as a female with it's unique DNA, then splits and produces a male and then absorbs the male resulting in it becoming a female with different DNA. Yea, that makes more sense

One cell didn't create two lives in the case of the chimera you posted about (somebody watches too much CSI). The Chimera is an oddity, but it was two human lives (two eggs fertilized by separate sperm) that created the one that you posted about, it was fraternal, not identical, twins where one superseded the other which was an unfortunate, but natural, occurence.

Abortion is directed action to kill human progeny. Something one chooses enters the arena of morality.