Abortion: wrong or just sort of wrong?

USFREEDOM911 said:
No, that's not what I said.
It may be what you're last working brain cell made you believe that was what I said; but it's in error.

I'll try to assist you again; but if you're still having a problem understanding Sun Devil's question and my response, then see if your neighbors child can help you figure it out.
Click to expand...


Fail! If dna is THE characteristic that makes humans human then the liver cell is human. Change it if you like, but your answer means that and only that. Sorry you gave such a stupid response.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Don't get scared now, biatch.
Take up the challenge or else just show that you're an idiot.
Your choice; but my bet is that you're to big of a biatch to do it.
Click to expand...

I don't need help from the mods. Maybe you do, chickenshit.

Here is my challenge to you, explain how dna makes humans human if a living thing possessing human dna is not a human? Can you do that on your own or are you gonna need help?
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
You are simply ignoring the science, I even quoted the book, gave you page numbers and everything. This is flat deliberate ignorance at this point.
Click to expand...


Bullshit, damo. You are making an argument from authority. One textbook is not going to do it. I have sourced science textbook authors that disagree.

http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

I’m the author of an intro college biology textbook called “Life,” my having nabbed that title before Keith Richards did. Life science textbooks from traditional publishers (I’m with McGraw-Hill) don’t explicitly state when life begins, because that is a question not only of biology, but of philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, technology, and emotions. Rather, textbooks list the characteristics of life, leaving interpretation to the reader.


...


The ability to survive outside the body of another sets a practical limit on defining when a sustainable human life begins.


Having a functional genome, tissue layers, a notochord, a beating heart … none of these matter if the organism cannot survive where humans survive.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
don't be silly.....of course it is......assuming you're referring to a human zygote instead of a donkey zygote, that is.....
Click to expand...

Don't be silly, humans are multi cellular and a zygote is but a single cell. Just like a human haploid the zygote is not a human organism or do you think that the human haploid is a donkey?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I don't need help from the mods. Maybe you do, chickenshit.

Here is my challenge to you, explain how dna makes humans human if a living thing possessing human dna is not a human? Can you do that on your own or are you gonna need help?
Click to expand...
/shrugs....the same way that a desk having a drawer does not make a drawer a desk.....the fact a human being has a liver does not make a liver a human being....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs....the same way that a desk having a drawer does not make a drawer a desk.....the fact a human being has a liver does not make a liver a human being....
Click to expand...

You fucked it all up. His argument was not that because it is human in origin that that makes it human but that what makes it human is dna. The liver has dna. So why isn't a human? The answer is obvious, because possessing dna is not THE defining characteristic of a human.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
The liver has dna. So why isn't a human? The answer is obvious, because possessing dna is not THE defining characteristic of a human.
Click to expand...

a liver is a drawer, not a desk.......an unborn child has a liver....a liver does not have an unborn child.......

His argument was not that because it is human in origin that that makes it human but that what makes it human is dna
Click to expand...

no, his argument is that a zygote is not human....he thinks its a zebra.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
bullshit.....no scientist is confused about whether a zygote is alive.....
Click to expand...

No scientist is confused about whether the human haploid is alive, i.e., the sperm/egg, or a liver cell. Your response is beside the point and another example of your inability to maintain context. I am not arguing that the zygote is not alive. I don't believe anyone has. But, again, many other things of human origin, possessing human dna and that are not dead but alive are nevertheless not humans.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
a liver is a drawer, not a desk.......an unborn child has a liver....a liver does not have an unborn child.......

no, his argument is that a zygote is not human....he thinks its a zebra.....
Click to expand...

An unborn child may have a liver, but a zygote does not and has almost no other parts characteristic of humans. You are arguing that the zygote is a desk without drawers, legs, a surface area or any other parts that a desk has.

No, usf, does not think a zygote is a zebra. You are very confused. He thinks that dna makes humans human and the zygote human. But the liver has dna.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top