Baby killers cause Komen to cave

apple0154 said:
A lot more happens that simply a fetus being expelled. Going from a liquid environment to a gaseous one. Change in blood flow direction. Atrophy of veins....Check out the changes sometime. You might learn something.
Click to expand...

It's still a human being, being expelled from the womb and into this world. :)
 
Socrtease said:
Lefties! You have got to stop trying to say that a fetus is not a human being. You sound stupid. At the point of conception, the zygote is genetically human. It has 23 pairs of large linear nuclear chromosomes (22 pairs of autosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes). It is a living creature from that point. By denying that, you sound barbaric. I am pro-choice. I believe that up to point in gestation, a woman's right to terminate, overrides the state's interest in preserving life. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks, and ALMOST all occur within the first 20 weeks. Late term abortions are rare. I digress. Your refusing to acknowledge that a fetus is a growing, developing human life is every bit as insane as the righties comparing a 12 week fetus to a born child. Stop fucking doing it. It makes you look ghoulish and uncaring. Tell a woman who is 14 weeks pregnant that she is not pregnant with a baby and I will come to help pull her foot out of your ass.
Click to expand...

A fetus is human material. It is not a human being.

Talk about being stupid. There is no other situation where we classify a thing that is in the process of becoming something as being that something which it currently is not. An acorn is not a an oak tree whether or not it has the same scientifically defined make-up any more than a liver cell is a kidney cell although they may have the same DNA.

Defining something genetically is only one way to define something and there are numerous ways to define things. An human being has to qualify as an organism according to science and an organism has to have the ability to carry on the processes of life. To suggest fertilized cells are organisms when 50% of them spontaneously abort, to suggest fertilized cells are human beings and half of all created human beings die within hours or a day or two after coming into existence.....it doesn't get more ghoulish than that. To suggest a woman of 20 or 30 years of age has no more inherent value than a cell or two formed after the joining of an egg and sperm not only debases women but devalues the lives of all human beings and dangerously corrupts what it means to be a human being.

Any thing, from plants to animals to inanimate objects, is not classified as being something while the process of becoming whatever it is they eventually become transpires. Classifying a fertilized cell as a human being is as ludicrous as saying squirrels bury oak trees or the small farmer raising chickens eats scrambled chickens for breakfast. Ghoulish, indeed!
 
Dixie said:
No, skin cells do not replicate. The human body replicates skin cells as old ones die. Skin cells, therefore, are not a living organism.

Once the sperm penetrates the egg, a successful fertilization produces a living human organism. The act of this organism replicating cells, makes it a living thing...organic. It is scientifically and biologically impossible for it to be inorganic and NOT a living human organism. If there is no successful fertilization, there is no organism produced and no process to abort... the cells decay and are discarded by the body. In ALL other cases, a living human organism is produced. It may only be a living human organism for a micro-second... it may be a living human organism which one day accepts the prize as oldest living human being of all time... we don't know. It doesn't matter. It will ALWAYS be a living human organism until it dies, and nothing can change that.
Click to expand...

We, doctors, scientists or anyone else, do not know if fertilized cells have all the necessary components to carry on the processes of life and considering 50% don't carry on the processes of life the logical conclusion is they didn't have the necessary components.

There's two ways to look at this. One is that a lot of fertilized cells don't have the necessary components to become human beings or they are all human beings and half of all human beings die within hours of coming into existence. Logic tells me the first conclusion is the correct one.
 
Dixie said:
What about people paying their tax dollars to fund abortions? Why should they have to pay for something they are so fundamentally opposed to? You can't really tell people it's none of their business, but they are going to pay for it anyway.

I'd appreciate it if lefties stopped calling a fetus a clump of cells, or arguing that a human life is not a human life. I think there is room for a rational and reasonable dialogue if we can ever get to the point of acknowledging what abortion is. That's why those on the right call it "murder" ...because technically speaking, it kinda is. The left wants to remain in this delusional funk... where they completely ignore biological fact and insist that a living human organism is anything BUT. Admit what the hell it is, admit what we are doing, then we can have a grown-up conversation about when it may or may not be appropriate to take the life of another human.
Click to expand...

Why are people obliged to contribute tax dollars to the war machine? And as far as when it's appropriate to take the life of another human being it appears the majority of those who oppose abortion on the grounds it's taking the life of a human being have little objection to that happening when it's classified as "collateral damage". Seems like a massive case of cognitive dissonance, supporting an action they know will result in the death of innocent human beings while championing the protection of so-called human beings that haven't even been born.

How is one to have a "grown-up conversation" with people possessing such cognitive disabilities?
 
Conservative said:
And a fetus killed for the convenience of a whore never will carry on the process of life.
Click to expand...

And what kind of life would a child have that's brought into the world by a whore? A warm, nurturing environment or abuse and neglect? And after suffering such abuse and neglect, when the "child" grows older and seeks belonging in some local gang and gets into trouble with the law, what will people say?

Well, we all know the story. It's repeated every day as witnessed by the prison population. Why didn't the kid grow up like the kids from middle class families and attend college and get a job? He/she never took responsibility. It's the "kid's" fault. Throw the bum in jail.

Unfortunately, that's how our society operates.
 
apple0154 said:
And fish live in trees and birds live at the bottom of the ocean and :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nice to see you're back into your normal spin mode; but we weren't talking about fish and birds. :awesome:
I am positive though that this information won't stop you from attempting to spin this in a direction that makes you feel more comfortable, just like you've done in the past. :)
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Nice to see you're back into your normal spin mode; but we weren't talking about fish and birds. :awesome:
I am positive though that this information won't stop you from attempting to spin this in a direction that makes you feel more comfortable, just like you've done in the past. :)
Click to expand...

We're talking about characteristics associated with things. That's the point. Fish live in a liquid environment. It would not be a fish if it lived on land and breathed in a gaseous atmosphere. Likewise, a bird wouldn't be a bird if it lived deep in the ocean. It follows that something which lives in a liquid environment is not a human being.

Another problem that arises when discussing abortion is the terms we apply to anything else and everything else are grossly distorted or simply not applied to human beings. From plants and animals to inanimate objects there is a past, present and future. There is a time line. There is a process. That's why we do not refer to acorns as oak trees or eggs as chickens or a foundation hole as a house. Language and concepts are distorted to the point where an understanding between opposing views becomes impossible because the ability to compare and relate to other things is removed.
 
apple0154 said:
And DNA can not tell the difference between a liver cell and a COMBINED egg and sperm cell meaning, once again, that the only thing DNA can prove is something is human material. DNA does not and can not prove something is a human being and that is the point of this entire discussion. The anti-abortionist's argument that DNA proves something is a human being is not correct. It is made up lie.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... you don't think Science is able to discern the difference between a liver cell and a fertilized egg?

Yes, it does. A defective group of cells not able to carry on the processes of life is not an organism. Sorry, but that's the scientific definition. An organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life in order to be classified as an organism.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Just because it DIES does not negate what it was prior to death. By your warped stretch of the definition, anything that dies is not an organism.
 
apple0154 said:
We're talking about characteristics associated with things. That's the point. Fish live in a liquid environment. It would not be a fish if it lived on land and breathed in a gaseous atmosphere. Likewise, a bird wouldn't be a bird if it lived deep in the ocean. It follows that something which lives in a liquid environment is not a human being.

Another problem that arises when discussing abortion is the terms we apply to anything else and everything else are grossly distorted or simply not applied to human beings. From plants and animals to inanimate objects there is a past, present and future. There is a time line. There is a process. That's why we do not refer to acorns as oak trees or eggs as chickens or a foundation hole as a house. Language and concepts are distorted to the point where an understanding between opposing views becomes impossible because the ability to compare and relate to other things is removed.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... seriously, an average third grader is going to have a better grasp on genetics than you. You have to be the most ignorant poster on this topic. You have no fucking clue what genetics tells us. Do you honestly believe that it isn't human ten minutes before birth? You have proven in the above that you DO believe in the magic human fairy that comes and turns it human so that it can 'live outside of water'.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO... you don't think Science is able to discern the difference between a liver cell and a fertilized egg?
Click to expand...

Naughty, naughty, Superfreak. :nono:

You had to "pull a Repub", didn't you? "Pull a Repub". It's a new term I've coined to denote when one twists or deliberately distorts the conversation. Anti-abortionists are masters at it.

We were talking about DNA and DNA can only tell if something is human material. Material. DNA can not tell, specifically, where the material came from, thus, it can not tell if it came from a liver cell or a fertilized egg or a toe or anywhere else. That is why it's nonsensical for one to say DNA can prove something is a human being. It can only determine if something is human material.

So, as to your statement implying I said "science" can't discern the difference between a liver cell and a fertilized egg you deliberately twisted what I actually said which was DNA can not tell the difference. You pulled a Repub.

You are missing the point. Just because it DIES does not negate what it was prior to death. By your warped stretch of the definition, anything that dies is not an organism.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it is you who is missing the point. We don't know what it was, as far as the internal make-up is concerned, before it spontaneously aborted. When a fertilized cell divides we do not know if that cell divided correctly so we don't know the internal make-up of the resulting division and, again, considering 50% spontaneously abort it's both reasonable and logical to conclude that some, if not many, did not contain the necessary components to be considered an organism. That would be the rational conclusion, however, anti-abortionists discount the rational and not only insist every fertilized cell is the start of a human being's life but extrapolate their illogical reasoning to the point of insisting it holds the same value as the life of a woman inside which it's located. The inherent value of the woman is based on an illogical assumption, at best, although it would be more accurate to say the value of the woman is based on an outrageous, repulsive idea without a shred of proof.
 
apple0154 said:
Naughty, naughty, Superfreak. :nono:

You had to "pull a Repub", didn't you? "Pull a Repub". It's a new term I've coined to denote when one twists or deliberately distorts the conversation. Anti-abortionists are masters at it.

We were talking about DNA and DNA can only tell if something is human material. Material. DNA can not tell, specifically, where the material came from, thus, it can not tell if it came from a liver cell or a fertilized egg or a toe or anywhere else. That is why it's nonsensical for one to say DNA can prove something is a human being. It can only determine if something is human material.

So, as to your statement implying I said "science" can't discern the difference between a liver cell and a fertilized egg you deliberately twisted what I actually said which was DNA can not tell the difference. You pulled a Repub.
Click to expand...

lol... tell us Apple... how can we tell what type of cell it is? If we took a liver cell and a fertilized egg cell and put them in petri dishes how does the scientist know which is which?

Unfortunately, it is you who is missing the point. We don't know what it was, as far as the internal make-up is concerned, before it spontaneously aborted.
Click to expand...

That is where you are wrong. No matter how many times you state the above nonsense, we know. What you continue to ignore is that your very own site said that those 50% that spontaneously abort do so for reasons other than genetic defects. What part of that are you too ignorant to grasp?

When a fertilized cell divides we do not know if that cell divided correctly so we don't know the internal make-up of the resulting division and, again, considering 50% spontaneously abort it's both reasonable and logical to conclude that some, if not many, did not contain the necessary components to be considered an organism.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you state the above nonsense, it won't change the facts of genetics. Just because the organism dies doesn't mean it was never an organism. That is yet another basic fact of biology that you can't seem to grasp. By your definition, nothing could be classified as an organism.

That would be the rational conclusion, however, anti-abortionists discount the rational and not only insist every fertilized cell is the start of a human being's life but extrapolate their illogical reasoning to the point of insisting it holds the same value as the life of a woman inside which it's located. The inherent value of the woman is based on an illogical assumption, at best, although it would be more accurate to say the value of the woman is based on an outrageous, repulsive idea without a shred of proof.
Click to expand...

Now you are just tossing out crap and hoping something sticks. NONE of the above has been any part of my argument on genetics. NONE of the above has anything to do with GENETICS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top