Baby killers cause Komen to cave

apple0154 said:
How can you possibly be so dense? There are people who have two sets of DNA. TWO SETS.

Now tell me, are there two different human beings in that body? One person. One heart. And TWO sets of DNA. One person can have a liver where the DNA test shows it is different than the DNA sample taken from their skin. Who owns the liver? Where is that unique human being? How is the person, from whom the skin sample was taken, living when they don't have a liver....well, not a liver that belongs to them according to your convoluted logic?

Honestly, PmP. If I were you I wouldn't go around questioning someone else's intelligence.
Click to expand...

I will question yours.....do you really think the fact that a handful of people have two sets of DNA negates the fact that the unborn fetus has a distinctive DNA that identifies it as a unique human being?........
 
apple0154 said:
No, they would have an abortion.



Ah, yes. Another fine example of "family values". The kid doesn't need their biological parent. We'll find somewhere to put it.
Click to expand...

face it, it is an outright lie to say that there's a high risk of blindness among women who give birth......most women have given birth, why aren't a large percentage of women blind.....

and yeah, placing a child with someone who want's it is a fine example of family values.....it certainly trumps killing the child or forcing a mother who doen't want it to keep it.......
 
Dixie said:
If a cell was produced, the criteria for "organism" is met. Inorganic material can't produce necessary or unnecessary ingredients, inorganic material can't reproduce. It simply doesn't matter if we know the cell produced met anything, if a cell was produced, the process of life was carried on, and an organism existed.



You said yourself, DNA doesn't tell us if something is living or dead, and here you seem to want DNA to confirm something is life? I am not sure what to make of this, other than you are a brain-dead moron who doesn't understand the first basic thing about science or biology. If a cell was produced, something had to produce it, right or wrong? If a cell was produced by another cell, it carried on the process of life and became an organism, because non-organisms can't do that.



Yes, we DO know! Beyond any question of doubt, beyond any reason, based on nothing more than basic scientific knowledge and biology. At the moment conception successfully happens, a new organism comes into existence.



The cells can't abort if there is no process occurring. The fact that you admit they stop living and abort the process, is proof they are living organisms. That's a simple fact. It doesn't matter when something stops living, that isn't what defines it as an organism. You are applying a false definition "must be able to carry on the process of life" to a ridiculous extreme which was never intended. To illustrate the stupidity of what you are saying, we could take your same argument, and apply it to any infant not old enough to fend for itself and survive. If it is not able to carry on living, it must not really be a person, huh?



We don't have to assume anything, we know these things for absolute certain. The female human produces an egg cell... the male human ejaculates into the female during copulation, and his sperm cells make their way to the egg cell. One sperm cell penetrates the egg cell, and the chemical reaction begins, the fused cells (two cells now) will either reproduce another cell, or they will fail. If they fail, no organism is produced and the fused cells decay, incapable of sustaining life on their own. However, if they produce another cell, the fused cells have crossed an important threshold, they have carried on the process of life and the evidence is the production of another cell. It doesn't matter if that cell is not complete, or defective, or whatever... the action of producing another cell is carrying on the process of living, it is an organism, we have defined it as such in biology, and there is no doubt whatsoever.



DNA tells us it is human, from a human organism. More specifically, it tells us which human organism. In the case of a reproduced cell from a fertilized egg, it tells us the organism is an individual separate from the host organism.... an organism inside an organism.
Click to expand...

OK This nonsense has been going on long enough.

Do you know they can take a skin cell and grow more skin cells in a dish? That is organic material. Human material. However, and here comes the important part, those skin cells are not a human being. I swear on Zeus they are not a human being. Not one of those organic cells are a human being. Do you understand that?

So, stop with the craziness of interchanging the words "organic" and "organism". They are not the same thing.

P.S. Pass this info along to 3-D and the rest of your biologically stunted comrades. :)
 
apple0154 said:
OK This nonsense has been going on long enough.

Do you know they can take a skin cell and grow more skin cells in a dish? That is organic material. Human material. However, and here comes the important part, those skin cells are not a human being. I swear on Zeus they are not a human being. Not one of those organic cells are a human being. Do you understand that?

So, stop with the craziness of interchanging the words "organic" and "organism". They are not the same thing.

P.S. Pass this info along to 3-D and the rest of your biologically stunted comrades. :)
Click to expand...

Skin cells are not organisms. You are referencing a revolutionary scientific breakthrough, where skin cells are harvested and given massive amounts of nutrients under controlled environments, to eventually generate more cells. The cells are incapable of carrying on the process of life, if not for the nutrients and special environment and the technician's assistance, the cells would not reproduce.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I will question yours.....do you really think the fact that a handful of people have two sets of DNA negates the fact that the unborn fetus has a distinctive DNA that identifies it as a unique human being?........
Click to expand...

What is does negate is anyone trying to say we know that every unique DNA is a human being. In other words everyone has one or, on occasion, two sets of DNA that we know of. Obviously a person with two sets of DNA is not two people (or are not two people). That means a distinct set of DNA does not necessarily mean there is a distinct person unless you believe there is one person in hiding.

This is just more of the same nonsense that has gone on since time began. People throwing out ideas off the top of their head or pulling them out of somewhere else and telling everyone when a human being arrives with no more proof or assurance than Alice and the rabbit. I and the majority of people want more proof than some scientific knowledge of which we've barely scratched the surface.

If DNA proves there is a unique human being I want to know, in human beings with two sets of DNA, where the other person is hiding. Is that too much to ask before we arbitrarily interfere in the reproductive rights of half the population? I want to see some kind of proof why 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort and not "well it could be" or "we think" or "it's plausible" or some other off-the-cuff conjecture.

But, hey. I happen to value human rights. What about you?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
face it, it is an outright lie to say that there's a high risk of blindness among women who give birth......most women have given birth, why aren't a large percentage of women blind.....
Click to expand...

Don't pull a Repub. I never said there's a high risk of blindness among women who give birth. I said it was possible for those who have uncontrolled diabetes. But you know that.

and yeah, placing a child with someone who want's it is a fine example of family values.....it certainly trumps killing the child or forcing a mother who doen't want it to keep it.......
Click to expand...

You forgot the third option. Don't have a child. :)
 
apple0154 said:
What is does negate is anyone trying to say we know that every unique DNA is a human being. In other words everyone has one or, on occasion, two sets of DNA that we know of. Obviously a person with two sets of DNA is not two people (or are not two people). That means a distinct set of DNA does not necessarily mean there is a distinct person unless you believe there is one person in hiding.

This is just more of the same nonsense that has gone on since time began. People throwing out ideas off the top of their head or pulling them out of somewhere else and telling everyone when a human being arrives with no more proof or assurance than Alice and the rabbit. I and the majority of people want more proof than some scientific knowledge of which we've barely scratched the surface.

If DNA proves there is a unique human being I want to know, in human beings with two sets of DNA, where the other person is hiding. Is that too much to ask before we arbitrarily interfere in the reproductive rights of half the population? I want to see some kind of proof why 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort and not "well it could be" or "we think" or "it's plausible" or some other off-the-cuff conjecture.

But, hey. I happen to value human rights. What about you?
Click to expand...

What are you trying to prove? How long you can ramble on like a complete idiot, oblivious to basic biology and understanding of DNA, or anything you are prattling on about? You have had one person after another, tell you why your assessment of thing is just absolutely flawed, from top to bottom, you are just not right about this. Yet... you continue on, page after page, repeating and more importantly, retyping the exact same idiotic arguments, over and over again. Even when your very own words and arguments prove you are wrong, you continue to deny it and repeat the same old shit. There is a difference between being ignorant, and just being plain stupid. You're just plain stupid.

Life begins at conception. An individually unique human organism is produced as a result of conception. It can begin at no other time, there is no other point at which you can say that life begins, because science has proven this conclusively. As SF and Damo have pointed out, you can have any argument you wish on the validity of that life, and whether it qualifies as a "being" or not, but the "fact of life" is that is what we're talking about.... a life.
 
Dixie said:
Skin cells are not organisms. You are referencing a revolutionary scientific breakthrough, where skin cells are harvested and given massive amounts of nutrients under controlled environments, to eventually generate more cells. The cells are incapable of carrying on the process of life, if not for the nutrients and special environment and the technician's assistance, the cells would not reproduce.
Click to expand...

Noooooo??? Reeeealy??? A scientific breakthrough, huh?

"If not for the nutrients and special environment and the technician's assistance, the cells would not reproduce", you say. Hmmm, I'm sure I've heard of something similar. Give me a moment to think...........YES! I remember. It's called pregnancy! The mother provides nutrients and a special environment and the next thing you know cells are dividing and growing but they, also, are unable to carry on the processes of life without assistance.

Darn those humans are smart creatures! ;)
 
Dixie said:
What are you trying to prove? How long you can ramble on like a complete idiot, oblivious to basic biology and understanding of DNA, or anything you are prattling on about? You have had one person after another, tell you why your assessment of thing is just absolutely flawed, from top to bottom, you are just not right about this. Yet... you continue on, page after page, repeating and more importantly, retyping the exact same idiotic arguments, over and over again. Even when your very own words and arguments prove you are wrong, you continue to deny it and repeat the same old shit. There is a difference between being ignorant, and just being plain stupid. You're just plain stupid.

Life begins at conception. An individually unique human organism is produced as a result of conception. It can begin at no other time, there is no other point at which you can say that life begins, because science has proven this conclusively. As SF and Damo have pointed out, you can have any argument you wish on the validity of that life, and whether it qualifies as a "being" or not, but the "fact of life" is that is what we're talking about.... a life.
Click to expand...

Refer to msg #369. It's siesta time now.
 
apple0154 said:
Noooooo??? Reeeealy??? A scientific breakthrough, huh?

"If not for the nutrients and special environment and the technician's assistance, the cells would not reproduce", you say. Hmmm, I'm sure I've heard of something similar. Give me a moment to think...........YES! I remember. It's called pregnancy! The mother provides nutrients and a special environment and the next thing you know cells are dividing and growing but they, also, are unable to carry on the processes of life without assistance.

Darn those humans are smart creatures! ;)
Click to expand...

Except that, the mother doesn't provide the egg and sperm cell anything, other than a place to fuse. After the ORGANISM grows and develops to a particular stage, it will attach to the womb and THEN the mother provides nutrients for the growing organism, but the process of life has already begun. You see, in your skin cell example, the process of life was begun by the host of the skin cell, it produced a living skin cell, and other were artificially produced from that one. This could not happen with a dead skin cell, and the skin cell is never able to regenerate itself, or become anything more than a skin cell, incapable of carrying on the process of life.

The sperm and the egg is all that is needed. Both are organic human cells, or human material, but not organisms. They can't carry on the process of life alone, they are like skin cells. Once the conception happens, an instantaneous chemical process begins, it is most importantly noted in the immediate blocking of any further sperm penetrating the egg cell. We now have two fused cells, not one. No other element or material is required from the mother or father, the body doesn't give it something else along the line, it has everything it ever needs to become an organism at this point. It's important to note, the fused cells have not yet met the requirement of an organism, they must successfully generate a cell... but once that happens, the two fused cells, along with the newly-arrived baby cell, comprise a great big happy family known as a living human organism.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
which will serve to prove they aren't their parents sperm or egg.......yes, we've already covered that......
Click to expand...

No, we haven't covered that. Where is the other person hiding? You and/or your cohorts (after a while you sort of merge into one) keep telling me unique DNA verifies there is a unique person so where is the other person hiding in those folks who have two sets of DNA? There has to be another human being in there, somewhere. At least according to your/their argument OR DNA does not prove there is a human being.

Either two distinct sets of DNA mean there are two human beings or DNA does not necessarily prove the existence of a human being. Those are the only two conclusions one can draw. One is logical and one is....well, shall we say, anti-abortionist clap-trap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top