Liberals Perverted Science

Dixie said:
Apple, if something dies, I agree, it is no longer a living human organism and I don't care what happens to it after it dies. Once the living human organism has died, it is no longer a living human organism, it is dead. How many times are you going to make this ridiculous point? I am not arguing that dead organisms are organisms or living. They are dead tissue at that point, and nothing more. If they do not die, they remain living human organisms, and will always be that until they do die. This happens when the sperm cell enters the egg, and is called conception. A living organism is produced in the process of chemical reactions which begin immediately, when the sperm cell fuses with the egg cell. The life process begins here, nowhere else. If it expires one second later, it doesn't change the fact that it WAS living.

You can make any number of arguments for what condition the living human organism is in, what stage it has reached in development, whether it feels pain, if it has cognition, if it has a functional heart or brain... all sorts of things can be argued for the condition of the living human organism, but it is indeed human life in the state of being. A human being.
Click to expand...

Do we know that in the case of self-aborted/absorbed cells the chemical reactions did begin? The fact is we do not know. The sperm may enter the egg and everything stops at that very instant. Or only a portion of the necessary chemical reactions occur.

Again, the point is over 50% of the time nothing happens after the sperm enters the egg and we all know something is supposed to happen.

This is where the discussion jumps the rails. When it comes to discussing human beings some folks discount the most basic logic. If something happened less than 1/2 the time we would not say it always happened.

You are assuming a human being is created every time and we do not know that. Logically, considering over 50% of fertilized cells do not progress, it's reasonable to conclude no conception took place if conception means a human being came into existence.
 
apple0154 said:
Do we know that in the case of self-aborted/absorbed cells the chemical reactions did begin? The fact is we do not know. The sperm may enter the egg and everything stops at that very instant. Or only a portion of the necessary chemical reactions occur.

Again, the point is over 50% of the time nothing happens after the sperm enters the egg and we all know something is supposed to happen.

This is where the discussion jumps the rails. When it comes to discussing human beings some folks discount the most basic logic. If something happened less than 1/2 the time we would not say it always happened.

You are assuming a human being is created every time and we do not know that. Logically, considering over 50% of fertilized cells do not progress, it's reasonable to conclude no conception took place if conception means a human being came into existence.
Click to expand...

But if it gets to the point where an abortion is needed to end the in utero human being, successful conception definitely has already occured, 100% of the time.
 
Dixie said:
If it DIES it had to be LIVING first! Before they died, they were able to carry on the process of life and were a living human organism, THEN they died. It doesn't matter how long humans usually live, they don't always live more than a nanosecond. There is no criteria you can logically set with regard to how long a human has to survive as an organism to determine it is an organism, and to assert this is beyond stupid. It becomes a unique living human organism (not tissue) at the point of conception, when the sperm cell enters and fuses with the egg cell. This is when HUMAN LIFE begins, it is totally irrelevant when it ends!
Click to expand...

Maybe what appears to scientists/doctors as a conception is not a full or completed conception. It's a possibility considering over 1/2 of what we now refer to as conceptions do not progress.

Does an organism fully come into existence? We do not know and the logical thing to conclude is one does not as nothing progresses. Does it stop at the very instant a sperm enters an egg? Does it stop, as you assert, at some later point meaning an organism came into existence and lived for a period of time. We do not know and claiming something is a human being when we do not know cheapens what it means to be a human being.
 
apple0154 said:
Maybe what appears to scientists/doctors as a conception is not a full or completed conception. It's a possibility considering over 1/2 of what we now refer to as conceptions do not progress.

Does an organism fully come into existence? We do not know and the logical thing to conclude is one does not as nothing progresses. Does it stop at the very instant a sperm enters an egg? Does it stop, as you assert, at some later point meaning an organism came into existence and lived for a period of time. We do not know and claiming something is a human being when we do not know cheapens what it means to be a human being.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know logic if it assraped you with a fifteen inch dildo.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I love the way that as soon as someone shows you are wrong with your "50% aren't organisms" claim you jump right back to your "human beings" claim....why not stop to admit you were wrong about "organisms" first?.......
Click to expand...

No one has shown I am wrong concerning organisms. We do not know if those 50%+ were organisms. Again, it's logical to conclude they were not because they did not carry on the processes of life.
 
egordon0315 said:
Apple, i love ya, cher, but life begins at conception. The joining of 23 + 23 chromosomes when a sperm cell injects itself into an egg cell. Granted, sometimes the numbers are skewed.

I appreciate your enlightened approach to pro-choice, but it needs to be more enlightened. A woman has every right to terminate a pregnancy. Even a healthy one. Your reasons about defective embryos is useless and undermines the premise that a woman has final control over what happens with her body. Your premise determines that the adorable Downs Syndrome boy next door is not human.

Am I pro-choice? Of course I am! But not for the reasons you put forward.

I am disappointed in you.
Click to expand...

Hi Sweety. :)

My premise does not determine that the adorable Downs Syndrome boy next door is not human. In fact, my premise is the opposite. The processes of life did occur and a baby boy was the result.
 
Taichiliberal said:
First you claim the argument isn't about abortion, then you jump right into the usual rhetoric used by anti-abortionist.

Bottom line: if you were so adamant about perserving life, you would a virulent pacifist.

You are anything but, and I dare say neither are the majority of genuflecting, myopic science spouting anti-abortionist.

Also, with all the medical scientific devices that are easily mass produced and available....there should NEVER be another abortion in America based on an unwanted pregnancy (unless rape based or a threat to the life of the mother). But thanks to the congenital mental defect of puritanism and religious dogma...our children grow up virtually ignorant about sex and ways to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's.

The old argument that sex education promotes teen sex and pregnancy is a tired old joke. WITHOUT sex education in the schools, the aforementioned increased over the years...which elicited the reaction to do something about it.

If sex education were given the same treatment as indoctrinating our kids about sports and car ownership, the need for abortions would plummet (IMHO).

But since the anti-abortionist are dead set against such changes, abortions will continue to exists.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

You make an excellent point.

Frequently a parent will give their teenager some money and tell them that if the driver drinks they are to use the money and call a taxi. I doubt anyone would say the parent is encouraging the teen to go out with drinkers.

Strange how the same logic doesn't apply to sex. I wonder how many parents give their teenager a condom before leaving the house on a Saturday night? :cof1:

And another thing. If teenagers did carry condoms and the parent found one they'd hit the roof. Sort of like screaming at ones teen for wearing a seat belt.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
But if it gets to the point where an abortion is needed to end the in utero human being, successful conception definitely has already occured, 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

That's a different discussion. As you or others have mentioned we have to agree on when life starts and as I have explained not all conceptions are the start of life or the start of an organism.
 
apple0154 said:
No one has shown I am wrong concerning organisms. We do not know if those 50%+ were organisms. Again, it's logical to conclude they were not because they did not carry on the processes of life.
Click to expand...

then you won't mind answering the question that you dodged earlier.....what would science normally conclude about the "things" which did not survive the first two days when an examination of 100% of those same things which did survive shows that they are organisms?.......
 
apple0154 said:
No one has shown I am wrong concerning organisms. We do not know if those 50%+ were organisms. Again, it's logical to conclude they were not because they did not carry on the processes of life.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have been proven wrong. In 1832, scientists observed the fusion of a sperm cell with an egg cell, and announced the discovery of when life begins. The dictionary definition of human conception, states this is where life begins. Every science book on the planet says life begins at conception. The American Medical Journal concludes that conception is the creation of a living organism. If a living organism is not produced, conception did not occur.

Yes, we know that all 100% were living human organisms, and 50% died. Your silly proposition is, since 50% died, we can't count them as living organisms, and your own definition of an organism says nothing about the odds of survival being a criteria. So please, either shut the fuck up, or produce some goddamn evidence to support your bird-brain notion.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that's my point....it cannot be falsified in principle......one need only say "you haven't looked at the right meteorite yet"......it isn't physically possible to look at every meteorite in the universe.....
Click to expand...
No, again you are wrong. Sure it's possible to falsify this hypothesis. It may not be probable to test all extraterestrial objects and thus would make it a weak hypothesis but it is certainly possible.
 
apple0154 said:
Do we know that in the case of self-aborted/absorbed cells the chemical reactions did begin? The fact is we do not know. The sperm may enter the egg and everything stops at that very instant. Or only a portion of the necessary chemical reactions occur.

Again, the point is over 50% of the time nothing happens after the sperm enters the egg and we all know something is supposed to happen.

This is where the discussion jumps the rails. When it comes to discussing human beings some folks discount the most basic logic. If something happened less than 1/2 the time we would not say it always happened.

You are assuming a human being is created every time and we do not know that. Logically, considering over 50% of fertilized cells do not progress, it's reasonable to conclude no conception took place if conception means a human being came into existence.
Click to expand...

You need to go look up "human conception" and see what it says. IF a living organism is not produced, there was no conception. Life begins AT conception! FACT!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
apparently you have forgotten that it must be an hypothesis for the origin of life...."it came from someplace else" isn't an explanation for origin.....
Click to expand...
and again, you're confusing theory with hypothesis. Hypothesis don't explain phenomena theories do. As for a hypothesis for the origin of life on earth, the extraterretrial hypothesis is certainly a testable hypothesis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top