Pathetic Pelosi... just PATHETIC....

apple0154 said:
We've been through this before. It's not a mystery.

When your mother or wife or whoever asked you to pick up a dozen eggs did you ever come home with a dozen chickens? If not, were you just lucky or could you tell the difference between a chicken and an egg?


Did you ever go to the store for carrots? Did you come home with a packet of carrot seeds? Did you ever go to the store for fish? Did you come home with caviar?

Honestly, Superfreak. You try a man's patience.
Click to expand...

Thanks Darla.... appreciate you confirming there is indeed NO baby fairy. You are a fucking moron. Time for you to go to ignore.
 
apple0154 said:
We've been through this before. It's not a mystery.

When your mother or wife or whoever asked you to pick up a dozen eggs did you ever come home with a dozen chickens? If not, were you just lucky or could you tell the difference between a chicken and an egg?


Did you ever go to the store for carrots? Did you come home with a packet of carrot seeds? Did you ever go to the store for fish? Did you come home with caviar?

Honestly, Superfreak. You try a man's patience.
Click to expand...

By your reasoning; you and your wife didn't decide to have a child, you decided to unite and make a bunch of cells grow.
 
Ice Dancer said:
The human fetus is an individual human being. Its need for nurture continues outside of the womb for several years or it dies.

The human fetus has its own unique fully human dna seperate from the mother. Its own circulatory system and it creates its own source of nutrition via the placenta. It feels pain, gets gas, sucks its thumb.
Click to expand...

A baby's need for nurture is completely different than requiring the use of another human being's body parts.

As for unique DNA I addressed that in a previous post. Some people have two sets of DNA. In one case I noted it was "proven" a woman's biological child was not her child. So much for the infallible DNA argument.

What would happen if a human being was cloned? Both the donor and the clone would have identical DNA. Would that prove neither one was a human being because they didn't have unique DNA?

If unique DNA was the deciding factor whether or not something is a human being then one could argue both those human beings could be killed because neither one would have unique DNA.

The DNA argument is just another thing anti-abortionists have jumped on. It's as easily discounted as St.Augustine sanctioning abortion up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus, in the 4th century, or the State of Connecticut outlawing abortion after quickening, in 1821.

Arguments based on nothing but sheer nonsense.
 
Superfreak said:
Thanks Darla.... appreciate you confirming there is indeed NO baby fairy. You are a fucking moron. Time for you to go to ignore.
Click to expand...

But.... but isn't the baby fairy related to the chicken fairy and the carrot and fish fairies?

Talking about ignore the next time you go out for breakfast order scrambled chickens, bacon, toast and coffee and impress the waitress with your logic. See how quick she puts you on ignore. HAHAHAHAHAHA
 
apple0154 said:
A baby's need for nurture is completely different than requiring the use of another human being's body parts.

As for unique DNA I addressed that in a previous post. Some people have two sets of DNA. In one case I noted it was "proven" a woman's biological child was not her child. So much for the infallible DNA argument.

What would happen if a human being was cloned? Both the donor and the clone would have identical DNA. Would that prove neither one was a human being because they didn't have unique DNA?

If unique DNA was the deciding factor whether or not something is a human being then one could argue both those human beings could be killed because neither one would have unique DNA.

The DNA argument is just another thing anti-abortionists have jumped on. It's as easily discounted as St.Augustine sanctioning abortion up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus, in the 4th century, or the State of Connecticut outlawing abortion after quickening, in 1821.

Arguments based on nothing but sheer nonsense.
Click to expand...

No, apple, nurture is nurture. A baby requires the "body parts" of its mother inside or ouside the womb. Whether it be her uterus or her arms.

The DNA uniquness of each individual human being is present at the moment of conception. The unborn baby is fully human and you have failed to provide anything other than your own bias and non-medical opinion otherwise.
 
What do you think of just letting a baby die after coming out of the womb?

apple0154 said:
A baby's need for nurture is completely different than requiring the use of another human being's body parts.

As for unique DNA I addressed that in a previous post. Some people have two sets of DNA. In one case I noted it was "proven" a woman's biological child was not her child. So much for the infallible DNA argument.

What would happen if a human being was cloned? Both the donor and the clone would have identical DNA. Would that prove neither one was a human being because they didn't have unique DNA?

If unique DNA was the deciding factor whether or not something is a human being then one could argue both those human beings could be killed because neither one would have unique DNA.

The DNA argument is just another thing anti-abortionists have jumped on. It's as easily discounted as St.Augustine sanctioning abortion up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus, in the 4th century, or the State of Connecticut outlawing abortion after quickening, in 1821.

Arguments based on nothing but sheer nonsense.
Click to expand...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
By your reasoning; you and your wife didn't decide to have a child, you decided to unite and make a bunch of cells grow.
Click to expand...

Actually I was in just for the good time but claiming a "higher purpose" does tend to "loosen things up".) :D

It's like planting a garden. I do not go outside one day, plant seeds, then come back in the house and say we have tomatoes and beans and carrots. Hopefully, a few months later, we will have tomatoes and beans and carrots. Even when little green shoots appear above the earth and then leaves and then flowers I still don't have tomatoes and beans and carrots.

Why do some people insist on twisting and convoluting logic? Is it any wonder the pro-choice and the anti-abortionists can't find any common ground? The pro-choice discuss fertilized cells and embryos and fetuses the same way anything else is discussed. Logical comparisons are made.

The anti-abortionists use a completely different language and reference. The passage of time is completely ignored. They make no distinction between the present and the future, what is and what might be.

One is not able to apply anti-abortionist's arguments to other examples or make comparisons because their arguments are irrational. If their arguments were applied to any other situation they would sound ludicrous.

Rational people come to conclusions by comparing. They apply ones arguments/points to other situations. They think things through. How would that argument/point of view apply if such and such a situation arose? In the case of anti-abortionist's arguments as soon as one does that they see all kinds of exceptions are necessary.

Rather than dealing with complex situations one is confronted with absurd situations because the basic premise, that being a fertilized cell is a human being, is absurd.
 
apple0154 said:
Actually I was in just for the good time but claiming a "higher purpose" does tend to "loosen things up".) :D

It's like planting a garden. I do not go outside one day, plant seeds, then come back in the house and say we have tomatoes and beans and carrots. Hopefully, a few months later, we will have tomatoes and beans and carrots. Even when little green shoots appear above the earth and then leaves and then flowers I still don't have tomatoes and beans and carrots.

Why do some people insist on twisting and convoluting logic? Is it any wonder the pro-choice and the anti-abortionists can't find any common ground? The pro-choice discuss fertilized cells and embryos and fetuses the same way anything else is discussed. Logical comparisons are made.

The anti-abortionists use a completely different language and reference. The passage of time is completely ignored. They make no distinction between the present and the future, what is and what might be.

One is not able to apply anti-abortionist's arguments to other examples or make comparisons because their arguments are irrational. If their arguments were applied to any other situation they would sound ludicrous.

Rational people come to conclusions by comparing. They apply ones arguments/points to other situations. They think things through. How would that argument/point of view apply if such and such a situation arose? In the case of anti-abortionist's arguments as soon as one does that they see all kinds of exceptions are necessary.

Rather than dealing with complex situations one is confronted with absurd situations because the basic premise, that being a fertilized cell is a human being, is absurd.
Click to expand...

Anytime and everytime you find the need to use such lengthy responses, is a sure sign that you're just trying to to bluff and bluster your way through the post.
 
Ice Dancer said:
No, apple, nurture is nurture. A baby requires the "body parts" of its mother inside or ouside the womb. Whether it be her uterus or her arms.[/QU

No it doesn't. If that was the case there would be no single fathers.

The DNA uniquness of each individual human being is present at the moment of conception. The unborn baby is fully human and you have failed to provide anything other than your own bias and non-medical opinion otherwise.
Click to expand...

I've supplied links to this nonsense about unique DNA. Some people have two different DNAs. Some fetuses even have some of the mother's DNA as it occasionally passes through the placenta.

Let's start here. The point is the fact of simply having unique DNA does not mean something is a human being. Here are a few reasons.
1. Animals have unique DNA. They are not human beings.
2. Some human beings have two sets of DNA.
3. Some human beings have bits of their mother's DNA

If you read the links I posted the DNA makeup can change after conception. Bits of the mother's DNA can be obtained through the placenta. Also, if two cells are fertilized and one does not progress it's possible one cell or embryo will consume the other cell. That means the DNA makeup of the embryo changes after it was fertilized. Please, read the links I posted.

We've barely started to understand DNA and that's the problem I have with anti-abortionists running around as if they've found the meaning of life. Their arguments have been weak throughout history, yet, they grab on to anything passing by.

If you read the links I posted the unique DNA argument means nothing. The DNA makeup of a fertilized cell/embryo is neither unique nor unchanging. Check the links.

In another few years you can bet the anti-abortionists will be jumping on something else.
Click to expand...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Anytime and everytime you find the need to use such lengthy responses, is a sure sign that you're just trying to to bluff and bluster your way through the post.
Click to expand...

The reason for the lengthy responses is because I state something, usually with collaborating links, and I'm asked the same question again a few posts later.

The only argument I hear from the anti-abortionists is DNA. Well, I've posted links that show DNA is not the be-all-and-end-all especially after DNA "proved" a woman's biological child was not her own.

I've posted other links concerning DNA. We certainly don't know enough about DNA to say it proves a fertilized cell is a human being so I try to tackle the problem using common sense. I pose different scenarios. Many times I don't receive any reply presumably because no one has a logical one.

In msg 360 even Ice Dancer agreed that the moral argument of life VS life (mother vs cell/embryo/fetus) fails the test.

It's easy to say they are human beings until one start to think. Then the responses are filled with exceptions and suggestions things can be worked out. Perhaps the people who feel a cell/embryo/fetus is a human being should work out things before they come up with such ludicrous ideas?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But it's so dependent upon others.
Why should anyone be saddled with taking care of something incapable of surviving on it's own?
Click to expand...

Often people are taken care of such as when one has a accident or illness. Consider Stephen Hawking.

Not wanting to be accused of bluffing and blustering I'll cut to the bottom line. Once a baby is born the laws and conventions for human beings can be easily applied. Such is not the case with fertilized cells/embryos/fetuses. How many times can we say "this is an exception" until we come to the point where there are more exceptions than similarities?

From a woman being denied the right to do as she pleases with her body because another supposed "human being" is sharing it to knowing 25-50% of those supposed human beings die and we have neither the knowledge nor the apparent will to find out why, we're just scratching the surface.

Classifying a fertilized cell/embryo/fetus a human being results in making a mockery of everything we ascribe to human beings. Taking freedoms away for one (the mother) and giving undeserved recognition to something else (the fetus) turns common sense on it's head. In effect, it devalues every other human being. It sets a precedent. If we can make exceptions for one type or class of human being we can make exceptions for others and that's the road to Hell.
 
apple0154 said:
Often people are taken care of such as when one has a accident or illness. Consider Stephen Hawking.

Not wanting to be accused of bluffing and blustering I'll cut to the bottom line. Once a baby is born the laws and conventions for human beings can be easily applied. Such is not the case with fertilized cells/embryos/fetuses. How many times can we say "this is an exception" until we come to the point where there are more exceptions than similarities?

From a woman being denied the right to do as she pleases with her body because another supposed "human being" is sharing it to knowing 25-50% of those supposed human beings die and we have neither the knowledge nor the apparent will to find out why, we're just scratching the surface.

Classifying a fertilized cell/embryo/fetus a human being results in making a mockery of everything we ascribe to human beings. Taking freedoms away for one (the mother) and giving undeserved recognition to something else (the fetus) turns common sense on it's head. In effect, it devalues every other human being. It sets a precedent. If we can make exceptions for one type or class of human being we can make exceptions for others and that's the road to Hell.
Click to expand...

It's not a mockery of humanity. It's refraining from the full dehumanization of in utero babies you prefer to oversimplify things.

I too agree that to deny a woman control of her body, and FORCING her to bare a child she truly doesn't want for whatever reason is a horrible thought, and for that reason I am pro choice. But that doesn't require full dehumanization, as you think it does.
 
Its so good to see republicans so focused on the heart of the matter. Clearly in the grand scheme of things whether or not she lied about water boarding is way more important than whether or not it actually happened.

Fight the good fight repubs.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not a mockery of humanity. It's refraining from the full dehumanization of in utero babies you prefer to oversimplify things.

I too agree that to deny a woman control of her body, and FORCING her to bare a child she truly doesn't want for whatever reason is a horrible thought, and for that reason I am pro choice. But that doesn't require full dehumanization, as you think it does.
Click to expand...

But it does require full dehumanization because once that door is opened there will be no closing it.

Remember the Scott Peterson case? If his wife would have had an abortion it would have been legal, however, because he killed her while she was pregnant the State decided to charge him with two murders. Of course, the State knew that such an horrendous crime would sway the jury to convict him on the murder of the fetus.

As I mentioned about the case in Quebec, Canada the man tried to prevent his girlfriend from having an abortion and the Supreme Court of Canada had to rule that a fetus is not a human being. If it was a human being surely the father would have the right to stop the mother from killing his child. How could we possibly make an exception without being the ultimate hypocrite?

There was a time when some women would deliberately get pregnant in order to snag the man. I can see the reverse happening if a fetus is considered a human being. Some jackass will deliberately try to impregnate a gal knowing if they have a child together he will be in her life for the next 18 years, one way or another, with visiting rights.

If the fetus is granted any rights or if there is any alluding to the fetus being a human being some case will come up where the line will be pushed and a precedent set. Any half way measure will not work. There will always be people looking to exploit an opportunity until abortion is completely outlawed.

I think the problem stems from folks believing abortion could be outlawed and things would go back to how they were pre Row vs Wade. Those were different times. People tended to accept religious and government policy without too much question.

Today, people are more educated and aware. They can see further down the road. They want to know exactly where things will lead and not have a "group" or "panel" making arbitrary decisions about their life.
 
Do you know what you get if you run a DNA test on an embryo, a fetus, and a baby? Human, I expect, and I would be very shocked to hear anyone even try to maintain otherwise. Too easy to take samples to labs and have the matter settled once and for all. I mean, you could hardly screen for Down Syndrome in utero if you didn't know where in the human DNA sequence to look for the genetic problem, could you? In the case of a human pregnancy, "embryo" is an early stage in human development. "Fetus" is a later stage in human development. "Baby" is, in Abortion Rights terms, a still later stage in human development. What cannot be so easily escaped at this point is that we are talking about an early stage in human development: the developing human being is not fully developed but is fully human. The Abortion Rights supporters have long confused the two issues, equating "human" with a certain developmental stage. This is the ground on which they are, factually, simply wrong. We have some options in bringing this to light. We could factually call that which is aborted:
human life in the early stages of development
the embryonic (or fetal) stage of human development
developing humans at the embryonic (or fetal) stage.
Here we will bring home the entirety of our point, what is occurring during a pregnancy is that a human life is growing through different stages of development. The life that is ended is not fully developed, but it has been fully human all along.
 
Obviously Obama doesn't agree with you. Excerpt taken from the Washington Post.

But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

apple0154 said:
I don't agree with that.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top