Baby killers cause Komen to cave

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're clearly out of control, and are hyperventilating. Go sit down somewhere.

hmm... to paraphrase you... 'you don't know me so shut the fuck up'

Funny how you can determine my physical state from reading words off your computer. You moron.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Maybe the third, but not the first or second.

Nope. It fits all three.

There is no dispute that newborns and toddlers are children. The question is whether a fertilized egg fits the definition. It doesn't. There are various stages in the development of a fertilized egg to a child. The magical time when it becomes a child is birth.

Tell us genius... how does it 'become' a child? What changes other than the location of the child from inside its mother to outside of its mother? Is that the moment you claim the magic child fairy appears?

There is NO question as to whether the fertilized egg is the progeny/offspring/child of the parents. NONE. It is genetically speaking a FACT.

 

[Bonestorm]

Nope. It fits all three.



Tell us genius... how does it 'become' a child? What changes other than the location of the child from inside its mother to outside of its mother? Is that the moment you claim the magic child fairy appears?

There is NO question as to whether the fertilized egg is the progeny/offspring/child of the parents. NONE. It is genetically speaking a FACT.

Like I said, no point in arguing it with you, but you should at least be aware that it isn't a FACT, genetically speaking or otherwise.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But it is not capable of "carrying on". Carrying on the processes of life and that's the definition of organism and a necessity in order for it to be classified as a human being. The cell divides but is incapable of continuing. It is defective. It is missing the components necessary to carry on the processes of life.

again, read your own site moron. it is NOT that it it missing anything. It is normally OUTSIDE factors that lead to spontaneous abortion.

How do we know that? Do you know if the 50% of fertilized cells all had the necessary components to carry on the processes of life?

Obviously the SAME PEOPLE you source for your 50% number say it is NOT typically due to the GENES. So which is it... is YOUR SOURCE reliable or not?

So it was unable to carry on the processes of life.

when someone dies, that is ALWAYS the case.

Sure, that's why people spend thousands of dollars on IVF. After treatment they go to the bar and then for a hamburger and fries.

ROFLMAO... the above is pure nonsense. YOUR site, the one YOU rely on for your 50% number stated that. Not me. Funny how you think they are reliable when it comes to the 50% number, but you think they are making up the fact that most spontaneous abortions are NOT due to the genes. But rather due to extraneous circumstances. So what do you do? You get all defensive and absurd trying to justify your previous stupidity.

You are sorely mistaken as far as what science knows and can determine. The latest guesstimate is there are approximately 20,000 genes and science has a basic understanding of a handful and even less understanding of how they interact with each other.

There is much still to be learned, but you are 100% incorrect in stating that we don't know how to tell if something is human or not. You are 100% incorrect to state that we cannot tell the genetic makeup of a fertilized human egg cell. We most certainly CAN do that.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Hilarious. Let me show you what I have:



A fertilized egg doesn't qualify.

actually, it does under the first one....
1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.

So go right ahead and insist that a fertilized egg is a "child."

took you long enough....

 

[apple0154]

again, read your own site moron. it is NOT that it it missing anything. It is normally OUTSIDE factors that lead to spontaneous abortion.

Why don't you research this instead of acting like an idiot. Here's another excerpt. "Chromosome abnormalities describe alterations in the normal number of chromosomes or structural problems within the chromosomes themselves. Both kinds of chromosome abnormalities may result from an egg (ovum) or sperm cell with the incorrect number of chromosomes, or with a structurally faulty chromosome uniting with a normal egg or sperm during conception.

Some chromosome abnormalities may occur shortly after conception. In this case, the zygote, the cell formed during conception that eventually develops into an embryo, divides incorrectly. Other abnormalities may lead to the death of the embryo. Zygotes that receive a full extra set of chromosomes, a condition called polyploidy, usually do not survive inside the uterus, and are spontaneously aborted (a process sometimes called a miscarriage).
http://science.jrank.org/pages/1470/Chromosomal-Abnormalities.html

Take note of the bold part. "Divides incorrectly." Got that? Just ONE cell that can be shown to not contain the necessary components kills the argument ALL fertilized cells are human beings. All fertilized cells are not human beings and would never become human beings. So now the discussion turns to should we consider women equal to something that is not a human being? Actually, that has been the discussion all along but anti-abortionists never had the balls to say so. They knew they couldn't prove EVERY fertilized cell was a human being but they twisted the DNA argument to say human material equates to a human being and we know that is a bald-faced lie.

Obviously the SAME PEOPLE you source for your 50% number say it is NOT typically due to the GENES. So which is it... is YOUR SOURCE reliable or not?

It doesn't matter if only ONE is shown to lack the necessary components. One exception negates your argument that ALL fertilized cells are human beings. Of course, that's assuming any are. If someone says all cars are black all one has to do is produce ONE car that's not black. (Thought I'd throw a little color in here.)

ROFLMAO... the above is pure nonsense. YOUR site, the one YOU rely on for your 50% number stated that. Not me. Funny how you think they are reliable when it comes to the 50% number, but you think they are making up the fact that most spontaneous abortions are NOT due to the genes. But rather due to extraneous circumstances. So what do you do? You get all defensive and absurd trying to justify your previous stupidity.

Again, it doesn't matter if it's 50% or 0.00000001%. Your argument had been falsified. Scientifically speaking, it means you get to go back in your corner and try again.

There is much still to be learned, but you are 100% incorrect in stating that we don't know how to tell if something is human or not. You are 100% incorrect to state that we cannot tell the genetic makeup of a fertilized human egg cell. We most certainly CAN do that.

The genetic make-up can be determined in a broad, very broad sense. If science was as advanced as you imply we could determine who would get ill but we can't. And we can't determine what cells are going to grow into a human being. That's why IVF involves the implanting of a number of cells hoping one will "sprout". Got it?

Now sharpen your pencil and return to your corner and put on your thinking cap because, quite frankly, I'm losing patience with you.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"the organism may fail to form, in which case, it is never a living organism." That is precisely my point. The cell may fertilize but not contain the necessary components, thus, such a cell is not and never was a human being.

If an organism ever existed, it was a living organism, there is no other kind, hence the name. If the organism never exists because it failed to form, it never became an organism, it was a single fertilized cell which failed to become an organism. I have no problem with aborting those.

Therefore, all fertilized cells are not human beings and all fertilized cells are not the start of a human being's life and according to scientific findings there is a 50/50 chance that is the case.

A fertilized cell which has started the process of replication, is a living organism, and is a living human organism until it dies. Sorry, that is the case 100% of the time. A fertilized cell which never began the process of replication, and never became an organism, was never human life, and again... no problem with aborting dead cells.

You're missing the point, Dixie. I mentioned those things as examples. If a fertilized cell can result in such abnormalities it's reasonable to conclude there are other abnormalities that may occur to the point where there is no human being. Such cells do not fully develop to the point of a birth so we do not know. Again, it's reasonable to conclude that happens considering 50% do not develop to the point of birth leading to only one logical conclusion which is all fertilized cells are not human beings.

Again, you are claiming that because something died, it never lived, and that is absurd. If the fertilized cell replicated, it became a living organism... if it didn't, it was an unsuccessful fertilization, so yes.... a successfully fertilized cell is a living human organism at it's smallest state of development. If it does not continue to carry on the process of life, it is dead... again... no problem with expelling dead things from the body... perfectly normal function. But you simply can't say that because it didn't continue to live, that it never was living. You and I will not continue to live, we could be gone at any moment.... does it mean we never existed?

Basic biology? I'm asking you to comprehend basic common sense. If a fertilized cell can result in such gross abnormalities it's logical to conclude a fertilized cell can possess abnormalities to such a degree it is not nor ever will develop into a human being. That means not all fertilized cells are human beings even if one assumes any fertilized cell constitutes a human being.

If it has already began to replicate, it is already a human being. Every ingredient it will need is there, it only takes time. If it never replicated, the cell stopped functioning and was expelled by the body. If what you continue to call a "fertilized cell" did ANYTHING it had to be LIVING! If it PRODUCED ANYTHING it had to be LIVING! It is biologically impossible for inorganic material to develop anything or perform ANY FUNCTION. How about YOU comprehend some basic common sense, idiot?

So, a fertilized cell is not necessarily the start of a human being's life.

Yes, again, it IS! There is no other point you can give me, at which something is added to make it a human being. There is no other criteria beyond replication it has to meet, to be a living organism, a living human organism, a human life, a human being. You have not proven otherwise, and you can't prove otherwise, because every time you open your ignorant pie hole, you refute your own argument.

And, again, with 50% spontaneously aborting it's logical to conclude a lot of fertilized cells are not the start of any human being's life.

No, it's highly ILLOGICAL to conclude that ANYTHING which was living, was not alive before it died, because it died. In fact, it goes beyond "illogical" straight into mentally retarded and spectacularly ridiculous.

Are you not able to follow the basic logic?

Take note fellow JPP members.... IF I EVER BEGIN TO EXHIBIT THE ABILITY TO FOLLOW THIS MORON'S LOGIC, PLEASE HAVE ME COMMITTED TO THE NEAREST MENTAL INSTITUTION!!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

More accusations. No proof. Same old. Same old.

You give a really good description of your behavior.
Now if you would just work on changing it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Good job, Yurt. Your prognosticating abilities are unparalleled.

translaton:

yurt used my own logic against me, so i will whine like a baby and insult him in order to deflect from the fact i used the same logic and it was good for me, but not for him.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Hilarious is right. your determination to dehumanize the child is sad, but amusing.

Note... a fertilized egg does fit the 1st, 2nd and 3rd definitions above.

Note 2... a new born is also not capable of an independent existence. It too must be nurtured or it will die. Same for a toddler. But let me guess, you believe in the magic human fairy don't you? There is some magical time that a fairy appears and suddenly turns it human. Please define this magical time for us.

I tried to ask him the same question, several months ago, and he said it was when the birth was recorded (ie: time).
I then asked him about the births who aren't recorded immediately (home birth, in the car, in an elevator, etc) and he ran from the question.

 

[apple0154]

If an organism ever existed, it was a living organism, there is no other kind, hence the name. If the organism never exists because it failed to form, it never became an organism, it was a single fertilized cell which failed to become an organism. I have no problem with aborting those.

A fertilized cell which has started the process of replication, is a living organism, and is a living human organism until it dies. Sorry, that is the case 100% of the time. A fertilized cell which never began the process of replication, and never became an organism, was never human life, and again... no problem with aborting dead cells.

Try and follow the logic here. An organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life and some cells “divide incorrectly” so that means they were unable to carry on the processes of life. The fertilized cell was defective. How defective? Do we know? Did that cell contain all the necessary components to do its job? It would appear not so the only logical conclusion is not all fertilized cells are human beings.

Again, you are claiming that because something died, it never lived, and that is absurd. If the fertilized cell replicated, it became a living organism... if it didn't, it was an unsuccessful fertilization, so yes.... a successfully fertilized cell is a living human organism at it's smallest state of development. If it does not continue to carry on the process of life, it is dead... again... no problem with expelling dead things from the body... perfectly normal function. But you simply can't say that because it didn't continue to live, that it never was living. You and I will not continue to live, we could be gone at any moment.... does it mean we never existed?

We have a case of your not seeing the forest for the trees. You wrote, “A fertilized cell which has started the process of replication, is a living organism….” Then you wrote, “If the fertilized cell replicated, it became a living organism...” Do you see the contradiction?

“A fertilized cell which has started the process of replication” is not the same as “the fertilized cell replicated” and that’s precisely my point. Not all fertilized cells are capable of replicating “properly” meaning not all fertilized cells are organisms which mean not all fertilized cells are human beings as a human being has to qualify as an organism.

So, because some fertilized cells are not human beings that means life does not always begin at the time of fertilization so we have to discard that assumption, an assumption that is broadcast far and wide and is erroneous.

If it has already began to replicate, it is already a human being. Every ingredient it will need is there, it only takes time. If it never replicated, the cell stopped functioning and was expelled by the body. If what you continue to call a "fertilized cell" did ANYTHING it had to be LIVING! If it PRODUCED ANYTHING it had to be LIVING! It is biologically impossible for inorganic material to develop anything or perform ANY FUNCTION. How about YOU comprehend some basic common sense, idiot?

If I were you I wouldn’t go around calling people idiots when you directly contradicted yourself from one paragraph to the next.

Yes, again, it IS! There is no other point you can give me, at which something is added to make it a human being. There is no other criteria beyond replication it has to meet, to be a living organism, a living human organism, a human life, a human being. You have not proven otherwise, and you can't prove otherwise, because every time you open your ignorant pie hole, you refute your own argument.

You insist on continuing down the blind path. It is not a matter of adding anything. It is a matter of either something is missing or something is defective which results in the same conclusion; IE: not all fertilized cells are organisms/human beings, again, assuming that any actually are human beings.

Now, if you want to talk about adding something, which is another topic altogether, something is added all the time by the mother. Obviously, you never watched the video I posted so there’s little point in my going any further with this until you do because your ignorance is blocking any understanding.

No, it's highly ILLOGICAL to conclude that ANYTHING which was living, was not alive before it died, because it died. In fact, it goes beyond "illogical" straight into mentally retarded and spectacularly ridiculous.

I really wish you’d look into your reading comprehension. I have never denied the egg was alive. I have said there is no human being. A liver is alive. Our skin is alive. Sperm and eggs are alive but none of those things constitute a human being. When an egg spontaneously aborts it means an egg dies. A human being does not die because there is no human being.

The problem is you start out with a conclusion and try to build a case for it and you’re flailing badly. You read things and/or meanings into my posts that aren’t there. You contradict yourself. You’re stumbling around in the dark and getting angry due to a lack of understanding.

I posted a video to help Superfreak. I suggest you watch it unless you, too, wish to maintain your ignorance.

 

[apple0154]

I tried to ask him the same question, several months ago, and he said it was when the birth was recorded (ie: time).
I then asked him about the births who aren't recorded immediately (home birth, in the car, in an elevator, etc) and he ran from the question.

It's rather amusing you'd continually post something that exemplifies your lack of reading comprehension after I explained you misunderstood. I guess some people like to look silly.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Try and follow the logic here. An organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life and some cells “divide incorrectly” so that means they were unable to carry on the processes of life. The fertilized cell was defective. How defective? Do we know? Did that cell contain all the necessary components to do its job? It would appear not so the only logical conclusion is not all fertilized cells are human beings.

SHIT you are thick headed!

If the cell divided, regardless of whether it was correctly, incorrectly, flawed, or defective... it replicated.... and at that precise moment, became officially known as an "organism." It may have failed to continue the process of life more than a nano-second.... it may have only replicated once... but for that one nano-second, it was a living human organism, and then it failed to live. It simply doesn't matter how long something carries on the process of life, as long as it is living, and comprised of more than one cell, it is a living organism. The living human organism might expire in a few moments, a few days, a few weeks, months, years, decades, or a century later.

We have a case of your not seeing the forest for the trees. You wrote, “A fertilized cell which has started the process of replication, is a living organism….” Then you wrote, “If the fertilized cell replicated, it became a living organism...” Do you see the contradiction?

Nope. Once the cell begins to replicate, it is a living human organism. If it does not replicate, fertilization was unsuccessful, and the cell decays, it never was an organism.

“A fertilized cell which has started the process of replication” is not the same as “the fertilized cell replicated” and that’s precisely my point. Not all fertilized cells are capable of replicating “properly” meaning not all fertilized cells are organisms which mean not all fertilized cells are human beings as a human being has to qualify as an organism.

It doesn't matter if cells replicate "properly" ...Inorganic material can't replicate. Are you stating that you believe inorganic material is capable of replication, apple? Surely, you understand this is quite impossible? If the cell replicated, it became more than one cell, which is what replication means... at that point, it has met the criteria of an organism.

So, because some fertilized cells are not human beings that means life does not always begin at the time of fertilization so we have to discard that assumption, an assumption that is broadcast far and wide and is erroneous.

Again... A successfully fertilized cell, has become an organism, and no longer a single cell. An unsuccessful fertilization can happen, the cell never becomes an organism or replicates, it expires and is passed by the body. I have no problem with these cells being aborted.

If I were you I wouldn’t go around calling people idiots when you directly contradicted yourself from one paragraph to the next.

LOL... Really, how ironic does it get?

You insist on continuing down the blind path. It is not a matter of adding anything. It is a matter of either something is missing or something is defective which results in the same conclusion; IE: not all fertilized cells are organisms/human beings, again, assuming that any actually are human beings.

Again... Unsuccessful fertilization results in a cell which decays and is expelled from the body. A successfully fertilized cell replicates into two cells, once that event takes place... *poof* a living human organism is created. All successfully fertilized cells are living human organisms, 100% of the time. By your own admission, they require no other ingredient.

Now, if you want to talk about adding something, which is another topic altogether, something is added all the time by the mother. Obviously, you never watched the video I posted so there’s little point in my going any further with this until you do because your ignorance is blocking any understanding.

Nothing is added to make it a living human organism, all it needed to be that, was in the sperm cell and egg cell. The fact the maternal host contributes a lot to the development of the organism, doesn't somehowwwwwwww refute the fact it's an organism. lol

I really wish you’d look into your reading comprehension. I have never denied the egg was alive. I have said there is no human being. A liver is alive. Our skin is alive. Sperm and eggs are alive but none of those things constitute a human being. When an egg spontaneously aborts it means an egg dies. A human being does not die because there is no human being.

A human egg is one cell, a human sperm is one cell. They are not organisms, they are not capable of replication on their own, and they can't sustain the process of life. These two cells are not much different than your liver cells or skin cells, but it is when conception takes place, and the sperm fertilizes the egg, that a human organism is produced. If the egg dies, if the sperm dies, no organism is produced. You should read up on your basic biology.

The problem is you start out with a conclusion and try to build a case for it and you’re flailing badly. You read things and/or meanings into my posts that aren’t there. You contradict yourself. You’re stumbling around in the dark and getting angry due to a lack of understanding.

Funny, that is what I think you are doing!

I posted a video to help Superfreak. I suggest you watch it unless you, too, wish to maintain your ignorance.

Nah. I don't watch videos posted here. Sorry....principles.

 

[apple0154]

SHIT you are thick headed!

If the cell divided, regardless of whether it was correctly, incorrectly, flawed, or defective... it replicated.... and at that precise moment, became officially known as an "organism." It may have failed to continue the process of life more than a nano-second....

Talking about thick headed if it replicated "incorrectly, flawed, or defective" that means an organism probably wasn't formed considering it did not carry on the processes of life. That's why the stipulation is there defining an organism; the ability to carry on the processes of life. The replication resulted in a product that was not able to do so and it quickly expired.

A living cell, when dividing, can start dying as it is dividing. Therefore, the product is a division but not capable of sustaining life. That is the logical conclusion as opposed to saying 50% of human beings die within hours of coming into existence.

You sure know how to cheapen human life.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

SHIT you are thick headed!

If the cell divided, regardless of whether it was correctly, incorrectly, flawed, or defective... it replicated.... and at that precise moment, became officially known as an "organism." It may have failed to continue the process of life more than a nano-second.... it may have only replicated once... but for that one nano-second, it was a living human organism, and then it failed to live. It simply doesn't matter how long something carries on the process of life, as long as it is living, and comprised of more than one cell, it is a living organism. The living human organism might expire in a few moments, a few days, a few weeks, months, years, decades, or a century later.



Nope. Once the cell begins to replicate, it is a living human organism. If it does not replicate, fertilization was unsuccessful, and the cell decays, it never was an organism.



It doesn't matter if cells replicate "properly" ...Inorganic material can't replicate. Are you stating that you believe inorganic material is capable of replication, apple? Surely, you understand this is quite impossible? If the cell replicated, it became more than one cell, which is what replication means... at that point, it has met the criteria of an organism.



Again... A successfully fertilized cell, has become an organism, and no longer a single cell. An unsuccessful fertilization can happen, the cell never becomes an organism or replicates, it expires and is passed by the body. I have no problem with these cells being aborted.



LOL... Really, how ironic does it get?



Again... Unsuccessful fertilization results in a cell which decays and is expelled from the body. A successfully fertilized cell replicates into two cells, once that event takes place... *poof* a living human organism is created. All successfully fertilized cells are living human organisms, 100% of the time. By your own admission, they require no other ingredient.



Nothing is added to make it a living human organism, all it needed to be that, was in the sperm cell and egg cell. The fact the maternal host contributes a lot to the development of the organism, doesn't somehowwwwwwww refute the fact it's an organism. lol



A human egg is one cell, a human sperm is one cell. They are not organisms, they are not capable of replication on their own, and they can't sustain the process of life. These two cells are not much different than your liver cells or skin cells, but it is when conception takes place, and the sperm fertilizes the egg, that a human organism is produced. If the egg dies, if the sperm dies, no organism is produced. You should read up on your basic biology.



Funny, that is what I think you are doing!



Nah. I don't watch videos posted here. Sorry....principles.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Try and follow the logic here. An organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life and some cells “divide incorrectly” so that means they were unable to carry on the processes of life. The fertilized cell was defective. How defective? Do we know? Did that cell contain all the necessary components to do its job? It would appear not so the only logical conclusion is not all fertilized cells are human beings.



We have a case of your not seeing the forest for the trees. You wrote, “A fertilized cell which has started the process of replication, is a living organism….” Then you wrote, “If the fertilized cell replicated, it became a living organism...” Do you see the contradiction?

“A fertilized cell which has started the process of replication” is not the same as “the fertilized cell replicated” and that’s precisely my point. Not all fertilized cells are capable of replicating “properly” meaning not all fertilized cells are organisms which mean not all fertilized cells are human beings as a human being has to qualify as an organism.

So, because some fertilized cells are not human beings that means life does not always begin at the time of fertilization so we have to discard that assumption, an assumption that is broadcast far and wide and is erroneous.



If I were you I wouldn’t go around calling people idiots when you directly contradicted yourself from one paragraph to the next.



You insist on continuing down the blind path. It is not a matter of adding anything. It is a matter of either something is missing or something is defective which results in the same conclusion; IE: not all fertilized cells are organisms/human beings, again, assuming that any actually are human beings.

Now, if you want to talk about adding something, which is another topic altogether, something is added all the time by the mother. Obviously, you never watched the video I posted so there’s little point in my going any further with this until you do because your ignorance is blocking any understanding.



I really wish you’d look into your reading comprehension. I have never denied the egg was alive. I have said there is no human being. A liver is alive. Our skin is alive. Sperm and eggs are alive but none of those things constitute a human being. When an egg spontaneously aborts it means an egg dies. A human being does not die because there is no human being.

The problem is you start out with a conclusion and try to build a case for it and you’re flailing badly. You read things and/or meanings into my posts that aren’t there. You contradict yourself. You’re stumbling around in the dark and getting angry due to a lack of understanding.

I posted a video to help Superfreak. I suggest you watch it unless you, too, wish to maintain your ignorance.

So when an adult is unable to carry on the process of life, it should be discontinued.
Okey-Dokey; Dr. K.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's rather amusing you'd continually post something that exemplifies your lack of reading comprehension after I explained you misunderstood. I guess some people like to look silly.

There was no misunderstanding.
It was your words and you're the one who posted them.

You've been looking silly for so long; that it while it would be refreshing, your system probably couldn't handle the shock of logic.

 

[Granule]

But medically correct.

It's a woman's decision. I fail to see Komen offering to raise any of the already overblown foster children, or taking care of the educational expenses of a mom whose husband left here and their 5 children, etc.

It's hypocritical to put even an opinion into what a woman should do with her reproductive organs given that the same group that does it wants to give all the tax dollars to the rich.

This kind of response is really getting old. Must you view babies as parasites? Can't you show a little more insight into human life? I thought your side of the spectrum was supposed to be the compassionate side.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Talking about thick headed if it replicated "incorrectly, flawed, or defective" that means an organism probably wasn't formed considering it did not carry on the processes of life. That's why the stipulation is there defining an organism; the ability to carry on the processes of life. The replication resulted in a product that was not able to do so and it quickly expired.

A living cell, when dividing, can start dying as it is dividing. Therefore, the product is a division but not capable of sustaining life. That is the logical conclusion as opposed to saying 50% of human beings die within hours of coming into existence.

You sure know how to cheapen human life.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

If it replicated, an organism had to be formed, because inorganic material doesn't replicate. Whether it continued to carry on the process of life, is academic. If it had the ability to replicate, it met the requirement, however brief the moment. You again admit that "it quickly expired" but how can something "expire" that isn't alive? If something "can start dying" it has to be alive, it is impossible for something to die that isn't alive. When something organic becomes no longer able to sustain life, it is dead, and I have not argued that point... still, that point does not mean that something which died was never alive.

 

[Conservative]

Abortion is contraception for those too lazy or stupid to fuck without precautions.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why don't you research this instead of acting like an idiot. Here's another excerpt. "Chromosome abnormalities describe alterations in the normal number of chromosomes or structural problems within the chromosomes themselves. Both kinds of chromosome abnormalities may result from an egg (ovum) or sperm cell with the incorrect number of chromosomes, or with a structurally faulty chromosome uniting with a normal egg or sperm during conception.

Some chromosome abnormalities may occur shortly after conception. In this case, the zygote, the cell formed during conception that eventually develops into an embryo, divides incorrectly. Other abnormalities may lead to the death of the embryo. Zygotes that receive a full extra set of chromosomes, a condition called polyploidy, usually do not survive inside the uterus, and are spontaneously aborted (a process sometimes called a miscarriage).
http://science.jrank.org/pages/1470/Chromosomal-Abnormalities.html

Take note of the bold part. "Divides incorrectly." Got that? Just ONE cell that can be shown to not contain the necessary components kills the argument ALL fertilized cells are human beings. All fertilized cells are not human beings and would never become human beings. So now the discussion turns to should we consider women equal to something that is not a human being? Actually, that has been the discussion all along but anti-abortionists never had the balls to say so. They knew they couldn't prove EVERY fertilized cell was a human being but they twisted the DNA argument to say human material equates to a human being and we know that is a bald-faced lie.

Seriously, you are truly embarrassing yourself. Having a defect that causes death does not change whether or not it is human. It simply doesn't. It can be nothing other than human. Some people with defects are born. Many are not. ALL are human. As long as they are alive, they are a human being.

It doesn't matter if only ONE is shown to lack the necessary components. One exception negates your argument that ALL fertilized cells are human beings. Of course, that's assuming any are. If someone says all cars are black all one has to do is produce ONE car that's not black. (Thought I'd throw a little color in here.)

The stupidity in the above has gone beyond the 1/3 discussions stupidity. All fertilized cells are not human beings. All human ovum that are fertilized by human sperm ARE human beings. Just because something is defective doesn't change what it is. Using your car analogy: If one car comes off the assembly line with a defect that causes it to not work... is it still a car? Think long and hard on that moron.

Again, it doesn't matter if it's 50% or 0.00000001%. Your argument had been falsified. Scientifically speaking, it means you get to go back in your corner and try again.

In NO way have you falsified my argument. You have simply proven to the board beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have NO understanding of genetics.

The genetic make-up can be determined in a broad, very broad sense. If science was as advanced as you imply we could determine who would get ill but we can't. And we can't determine what cells are going to grow into a human being. That's why IVF involves the implanting of a number of cells hoping one will "sprout". Got it?

ROFLMAO...

1) Can we or can we not tie DNA to a SPECIFIC human being?
2) With genetic mapping, we CAN determine who is more susceptible to certain diseases.