Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
No, fertilized cells do. Human beings do not.
Fertilized cells are just really young human beings. You know that.
No, fertilized cells do. Human beings do not.
Fertilized cells are just really young human beings. You know that.
All you do with your rhetoric is display your willful ignorance of science in place of the poack of liberal lies told over and over again. You have no idea the difference between an unfertilized chicken egg and a fertilized chicken egg, so you mock the idea of calling a dozen eggs a pack of chickens. You are ignorant of the difference between a genome and the specific genes of an individual organism, so you haul out a case where genetic analysis could not trace the relationship of related people.
Then you use your ignorance to defend the indefensible. Calling an unborn human a fertilized egg no more changes the fact it is human than calling a newborn human an infant, except in your narrow inhumanistic mind.
Yours is the same crap used throughout history to justify the willful abuse of a selected class of humans. You use every excuse in the book to dehumanize the unborn, just as pre-1860 America as a whole used every excuse in the book to dehumanize blacks, how they used every excuse in the book until the early 1900s to dehumanize Native Americans, how Nazi Germany used every excuse in the book to dehumanize Jews, and how modern radical Islamists use every excuse in the book to dehumanize non-believers. Because once dehumanized, any treatment of the targeted class of humans is easily justified.
Fertilized cells are just really young human beings. You know that.
Apple is on what I refer to as "round room mode". You may as well save your energy.
Soon schools will asert full dominance over the bodies of their students. Then the government will get them pregnant, send them to the clinic and then use the fetus in a massive government run biomedical tissue business. For the people.
Could you keep me posted if you hear any news on a related company and/or an IPO?
It's a "joke" to say a fertilized cell is a human being when that cell may develop into two human beings or no human beings. Or it may develop into two human beings and then one of them will absorb the other.
I explained all that in post #28. Human beings do not divide into two people and then one absorbs the other.
Have you been over-indulging on the sci-fi channel lately?
You sure parade your ignorance in pride.If I'm on "round room mode" there are a few here on "padded room mode".
The bottom line is a fertilized cell changes. It may become one person or two people or a mixture of both or none of the above so common sense and logic dictates not all fertilized cells are a person or a human being, assuming any of them are. If it is a Bill then it is not a Jane and one cell is definately not a Bill and a Jane so where would one get the idea that a fertilized cell is a human being?
Again, the anti-abortionists have jumped on this DNA wagon without knowing where it's going. This DNA science is new and things are being discovered all the time and mistakes made like "proving" the biological children of a woman are not hers.
Sure, let's grab on to something we know very little about and understand even less and use it to designate what is and what isn't a human being.
A fertilized cell is not always a unique human being. It's possible it might end up being one or two or a mixture of human beings. It is not a unique human being from the moment of conception. That much is known.
Too late. I have two children.
The fact is I place a high value on human beings. That's why I don't want their value compared to that of a fertilized cell. I don't want them compared to things that have a death rate of 25-50% and society does not even care enough to conduct a full investigation (spontaneous abortion). I don't want their value to be so small that depending on how they were created (rape) one has the option of murdering it.
It is I who places a high value on human beings by finding it repulsive to designate something that is not a human being as a human being thereby lowering the value of all human beings.
I guess you didn't read and absorb post #29 in this thread...
BTW, on the Pledge of Allegiance...
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898). Bellamy's original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8th issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's discovery of America, conceived by James B. Upham.
Bellamy's original Pledge read:
"I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
Reciting of the pledge is accompanied by a salute. An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It ended with the arm outstretched and the palm upwards. Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute, President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute to be rendered by civilians during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem in the United States, instead of the Bellamy salute. This was done when Congress officially adopted the Flag Code on June 22, 1942.
![]()
Under God Added
The Knights of Columbus, the world's largest Catholic fraternal service organization, in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity. Appealing to the authority of Abraham Lincoln, the Knights felt that the words "under God" which were from Lincolns Gettysburg Address were most appropriate to add to the Pledge.
wiki
You're morally repulsive.
I'm sure its an economic matter rather than a moral matter. Americans would never slaughter actual human beings. There was a time when comparing an ethnic minority to a purebread white could bring mock indignation as well.
Anyway, who am I to get in the way of a good mass murder. Its good sport, and it keeps the population levels down.
You sure parade your ignorance in pride.
Never in the history of human reproduction has a single fertilize ovum produced two genetically different humans. That is why we call them IDENTICAL twins. Nor does gender change back and forth, and I doubt you have ever read anything describing such an even. (In short, you are lying through your pathetic little keyboard.) The only time you can have twins of opposite genders is when two separate ova are fertilized by two separate sperm, one containing an X chromosome, one containing a Y chromosome.
Now it is possible that a fertilized ovum may split into identical twins, and one of the twins does not live through the development process. Sometimes they die early in the development process in which case they are reabsorbed, sometimes by the mother, sometimes by the surviving twin. Sometimes they die later in the development process and are only partially reabsorbed, causing later health problems or even death for the surviving twin.
All of the above is part of the natural process of human development. Not all humans survive the process NONE of it changes the base fact that a fertilized human ovum is a living human by scientific definition. Your allusions to Sci Fi channel just point out how truly ignorant you are. You just find out enough to continue your lies in dehumanizing unborn humans.
You talk about survival? Well, not all infants survive the birth process. Not all toddlers survive to be teenagers. Not all teens live to be adults. Death at any age is part of nature. Some deaths are due to illness, some to accident. They are regrettable at any age or stage of development. You certainly don't see a women who just have a miscarriage talking about her lost unborn child the way you do aborted children.
Then there are the deaths that occur (again at all ages and stages of development) through the deliberate actions of another human or humans. Our society does it's best to prevent deliberate homicide, and attempts to find and punish those who commit deliberate homicide. Except, of course, the unborn - innocent humans who subhuman shits like yourself have removed their humanity so you can kill them at will.
I have relatives who were allowed to be killed at will by your type. And I am not talking about abortions. I am talking about the time when it was perfectly acceptable to kill a Native American out of hand, because people like yourself had taken it on yourselves to define us as not worthy of human rights.
There is no functional difference between removing the human rights of a class of humans based on their race, and removing the human rights of a class of humans because of their developmental level. Those of you who practice the despicable art of dehumanizing the target class of the unborn wallow in the same muds of inhumanity as all the racists, slavers, and Hitlers of history.
This goes to show how shallow you truly are.
The only thing that is of value to you, is something tangible
I'm sure its an economic matter rather than a moral matter. Americans would never slaughter actual human beings. There was a time when comparing an ethnic minority to a purebread white could bring mock indignation as well.
Anyway, who am I to get in the way of a good mass murder. Its good sport, and it keeps the population levels down.
When it comes to my wife or daughter you can bet on it.
As for being shallow I'd beware of anyone who would even contemplate the value of a fertilized cell being comparable to the health and well being of their wife or daughter.
Talk about dehumanizing!
Awww, come on, now. Surely a good Conservative like yourself has nothing against a guy making a dollar.
Keep posting like that and I'll have to report you to Joe the Plumber.
Slow down there cowboy or cowgirl, which ever you may be.
First, when I mentioned "genetically indentical" one of your pals so elegantly explained they are not identical due to the genes expressing themselves differently, such as in the case of different finger prints.
My point was how does one unique human being become two? One is not two, thus, a fertilized cell is not necessarily one unique individual. If you don't understand the difference between one and two may I suggest a refresher kindergarten course?
If you had read the links I supplied you would see that a fertilized cell can change sex. It happens when two cells are fertilized at the same time. Let's say a Bill and a Jane.
Bill has predominately male characteristics, however, he does contain female DNA/traits/characteristics. The fertilized cell known as Jane stops growing and is absorbed by Bill. Now Bill has more female DNA/traits/characteristics than he has male which means.....ready for the answer?....Bill becomes Billie Jean.
So, do us all a favor, crawl out from under your historical rock and deal with reality. Realizing fertilized cells are not unique human beings has absolutely nothing to do with cowboys and Indians or Hitler.
If a fertilized cell can divide and eventually become two human beings it means that from the moment of conception to the moment it divides it is not a unique being. One is not two.
The rest of your post is a rant by someone with a huge chip on their shoulder.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I believe business needs to be conducted inside a moral framework, a framework of other consideration besides profit.
This why im also against globalization, the notion that short term fiat currency profit should sculpt all of human society on earth.