We were all female
- Thread starter apple0154
- Start date
apple0154
MEOW
From someone who doesn't understand the biological implications of redirected blood flow I find your comments quite amusing.
007
New member
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Okay, Apple, I am not even engaging you in this thread, and we see your arguments contradict each other and you've become a laughing stock for the rest of the board. This is because you continue to fail recognizing basic biological fact. Every 'argument' you present, is full of self-defeating comments, which render your point invalid. But it's as if you are oblivious to this, and you just keep right on going. I've never seen anything like this behavior before, and I am suspecting it may be caused by drug abuse, causing you to obsessively type your repeated nonsense like Jack Nicholson in an isolated winter retreat. If that is the case, please seek help.
Biology 101: IF a "clump of cells" exists at any point in time, they had to be the product of reproduction by an organism. They can not appear any other way, there is no 'magic cell fairy' who turns the egg and sperm cell into a "clump of cells." So the question then becomes, did the host (Mom) organism produce these new cells? Well, up until about 150 years ago, that's precisely what folks believed... or worse... that the woman, through the miracle of God Almighty, "made" a new baby. But scientists have studied these things, every day, waking up and going to work to look under microscopes and stuff, and they've discovered an amazing amount of detail regarding the process of life. The organism producing the new cells is not the mother, and it's not Gawd. It is it's own organism, independent from the mother, and it has been reproducing new cells since conception, and will continue to produce new cells for as long as it's a living organism.
We have to begin ANY conversation regarding abortion, from this fundamental basis in fact. We can certainly disagree on when the living organism in question becomes "a person" or has sentience, feeling, brain stem activity, etc. But we simply can't argue that it's not a living human organism in the state of being, because that is what it is. As much as you will attempt to DENY this fact, it keeps slapping you in your stupid face with your own words. It's really quite amusing to me.
Hey Apple.... tell us about how a woman has the power to instruct her fetus not to grow!
Biology 101: IF a "clump of cells" exists at any point in time, they had to be the product of reproduction by an organism. They can not appear any other way, there is no 'magic cell fairy' who turns the egg and sperm cell into a "clump of cells." So the question then becomes, did the host (Mom) organism produce these new cells? Well, up until about 150 years ago, that's precisely what folks believed... or worse... that the woman, through the miracle of God Almighty, "made" a new baby. But scientists have studied these things, every day, waking up and going to work to look under microscopes and stuff, and they've discovered an amazing amount of detail regarding the process of life. The organism producing the new cells is not the mother, and it's not Gawd. It is it's own organism, independent from the mother, and it has been reproducing new cells since conception, and will continue to produce new cells for as long as it's a living organism.
We have to begin ANY conversation regarding abortion, from this fundamental basis in fact. We can certainly disagree on when the living organism in question becomes "a person" or has sentience, feeling, brain stem activity, etc. But we simply can't argue that it's not a living human organism in the state of being, because that is what it is. As much as you will attempt to DENY this fact, it keeps slapping you in your stupid face with your own words. It's really quite amusing to me.
Hey Apple.... tell us about how a woman has the power to instruct her fetus not to grow!
apple0154
MEOW
All embryos have the same sexual designation, female, for a period of time. Obviously they're not human beings as some babies are male.
What can I say? The absurdity that a human being is female and then changes sex by itself......what are males supposed to say? I used to be a female? I was a female and then became a male?
Picture two groups of teenagers in a small town. It's Halloween. One group picked up a dozen eggs from a local farmer and a couple of the eggs had been fertilized. The other group picked up a dozen baby chicks. They both proceeded to throw them up against the house of someone they didn't like. Would they face different charges? How would the rest of the town residents view the event vis-a-vis the two groups?
That's why eggs are not considered chickens regardless of how science wishes to classify them. Science, DNA, is one way to classify something. It is not the only way and certainly not the generally accepted way in every day society. Just like apples do not have petals. An pollinated apple blossom does but not an apple.
I honestly don't understand why anti-abortionists resort to the nonsense they do except to control women/sex. The way they classify human beings can not be rationally used for anything else. As a society we compare things and there is a consistency, a coherency, a logic when deciding things and classifying things and making laws and everything else we do. Besides the absurdity of only classifying things by DNA the changes that happen during and after birth show the dis-similarity between a fetus and a human being. Just the idea of going from a liquid environment to a gaseous one surely is evidence enough we are not dealing with the same thing. Then the changes in blood flow direction. Those are not minor differences. If an animal that lived under water changed so that it could breath air and live in an atmosphere would we consider it the same animal?
I can understand people believing in church doctrine regarding souls. I can understand people accepting the deal between Napoleon of France and the Pope. Times were different and people just didn't question things like they do today. (Mind you, that's only a guess but I can see if that was the reality.) But today it's different. People are educated. They have the ability to reason, to check thing out, to research. We all make decisions in our life by using a comparison method or a relationship method for lack of a more "scientific" term.
What similar decisions have we made? What can we compare this situation to (meaning any situation we face)? Roughly the same way courts make decisions. When we do that we see embryos and zygotes and fetuses are not human beings anymore than eggs are chickens.
I chalk it up to religion and/or the desire to dominate females. Certainly not logic and reason.
apple0154
MEOW
I linked the video on epigenetics. If you insist on being an azzhole that's your right. If you want to find the answer to your question find my post and the link or do a Google. I referred you to the video a number of times and you refused to watch it so I'm not doing that again.
Impossible, things that are not alive, but are part of something else have no sex of their own. In apple0154's previous arguments "he" has presented that this particular "life" is not anything but "tissue" that is attached to something else. Such a "thing" cannot have a sex of its own.
In your world it isn't a "human being", you have always stated so, even when it has progressed past the point of being capable of individual thought and self-discovery. You ignore science in one circumstance then give "it" being status in another, you are inconsistently ignoring science in an obvious need to deny any sort of "human being" status to "it" then suddenly "it" is a human being which during its early life cycle changes sex.
Both groups would be charged with theft of livestock. This one I know. If you are breeding chickens fertilized eggs are livestock in the case of theft.
You are wrong.
I'll never understand why abortion apologists cannot simply read a simple life science book rather than try to twist knowledge to make it okay to actively kill progeny.
Whether a soul exists or not, the embryo is alive, notwithstanding the impossibility between apple's two divergent ideas. "We were all female" suggests that we were alive at some point in the womb, yet apple insists that "we" never were alive until we took a breath of air. Science is against you on the latter, it is with you on the former. One should not insist science is valid on the one point, then tell me that science cannot be right on the second.
Incorrect, many states, including California, have laws that will convict you of capital murder if you prematurely end the life of an embryo... capital murder, man.
You "chalk it up" to whatever you think makes you look better to chicks, logic be damned.
You know I am against forcing a woman to be an incubator, but I am also against actively taking a human life simply because it is in early development, and therefore I present a third option. We've spoken of it before, and my option has the amazing extra benefit of progressing biological science so that all women will have a better choice, to self-incubate or to incubate a child ex-utero.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Apple, you do realize that a chicken and human reproductive process is very different, as well as apples and oranges? You keep making irrelevant analogies to eggs and chickens, and fruits. All of these reproductive processes are distinctly different in how they work, so they are not a comparative example with humans. If you are too dumb to know this, I am dreadfully sorry about that, I hope you will find it within you to become more educated on the subject.
A "clump of tissue" can't be male or female, so your OP has been PWNED. You've single handedly refuted your own argument. Previously, you refused to acknowledge any kind of organism existed. Now, it supposedly was female and turned male... yet it doesn't exist, remember? It's just a random clump of cells, how can it be male or female, or change from one to the other? And while we're on the topic... how did 2 cells, the sperm and egg, become a "clump?" Did the laws of the universe temporarily suspend themselves and allow matter to create matter or something? Again... IF a "clump" of cells exist, they must have been reproduced by some organism, there is no other plausible explanation. They are not being reproduced by the mother, we know this for certain.... you keep yapping about how the mother "influences" development, but fuck, Apple... I'm 53 years old and my mother still "influences" my development. That doesn't change what I am. The fact that the fetus is connected is a factor of developmental environment, every human being has gone through this exact same development process.
When you are born, you can't walk. Is that because you're not yet a human being? Or is it because of development process, and the fact that you, as an organism, have existed this far in life without the need to use your legs? What about pubic hair? Do you have that when you are a baby yet? Of course not, it comes during another development stage. None of it changes what we are, we are still human organisms.
A "clump of tissue" can't be male or female, so your OP has been PWNED. You've single handedly refuted your own argument. Previously, you refused to acknowledge any kind of organism existed. Now, it supposedly was female and turned male... yet it doesn't exist, remember? It's just a random clump of cells, how can it be male or female, or change from one to the other? And while we're on the topic... how did 2 cells, the sperm and egg, become a "clump?" Did the laws of the universe temporarily suspend themselves and allow matter to create matter or something? Again... IF a "clump" of cells exist, they must have been reproduced by some organism, there is no other plausible explanation. They are not being reproduced by the mother, we know this for certain.... you keep yapping about how the mother "influences" development, but fuck, Apple... I'm 53 years old and my mother still "influences" my development. That doesn't change what I am. The fact that the fetus is connected is a factor of developmental environment, every human being has gone through this exact same development process.
When you are born, you can't walk. Is that because you're not yet a human being? Or is it because of development process, and the fact that you, as an organism, have existed this far in life without the need to use your legs? What about pubic hair? Do you have that when you are a baby yet? Of course not, it comes during another development stage. None of it changes what we are, we are still human organisms.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
are you saying I don't understand why you are unable to think clearly when the blood fails to reach your brain?...........
apple0154
MEOW
Yes, it’s alive but it’s not a human being. All cells are alive (OK, not hair) when attached to a living being. It’s not about being “alive”. It’s about being a human being. Every cell in our body has the potential to become a human being so every cell in our body is capable of being male or female. That does not mean every cell is a human being.
That is where the confusion lies. Science does not know if a fertilized cell or conception has all the necessary ingredients to become a human being. They don’t know if the cell or cells have the proper programming. We do know a lot of them never do become human beings so it’s logical and rational and just common decency to not say they are human beings and take away a woman’s right to her body. That’s really the bottom line.
Of course and when did that come about? Remember the guy who killed the pregnant woman? The prosecution used a grisly crime to include a fetus as a human being. What did anyone expect the Jury to say? They would have convicted the guy of anything the prosecution tossed them.
Again, where is the logic, the rationale, when people can agree with abortion and still convict a person of murdering a fetus? Where is the common sense when anti-abortionists claim women should have the right to abort in cases of rape or incest? Do we kill innocent human beings because of who their father was? Can the regard for supposed human life be lowered any further? Where is the discernment when a woman with a faulty body can kill an innocent human being in order to save her own life? Or are anti-abortionists deceitful liars and would stop all abortions if they could?
And now they’re finding out, as noted in the video I posted, stress on the woman can negatively affect the fetus. Hmmm. Let’s see what’s hiding in that can of worms. What responsibility does society have to the fetus when, say, they incarcerate a woman? Surely that would fall under fetal abuse. If the woman is married and both the mother and father object to such fetal abuse what would happen? What right does the State have to subject an innocent fetus, an innocent human being, to a punishment that will have lifelong, negative effects? Or will that be viewed with the same empathy as rape and the hell with what happens to the fetus, the innocent human being?
You see, by classifying a fetus as a human being and not being able to protect the human rights of the fetus all that does is lower the rights of all other human beings. It makes an exception to human rights.
I must have missed that as I don’t recall any third option. Would you mind elaborating a bit?
As for abortion I’m not pro-abortion. I am pro-human being. What I consider are the consequences to both the woman and the prospective child. There are many solutions but until society changes there are few choices. Will the woman and child get the necessary help to advance in life or will she end up uneducated and not able to afford medical care or medication, if needed, later on? What about the child? Give him/her the proverbial Gingrich toilet brush. (God, what a disgusting man!)
Young women see what happens when motherhood starts too early. In most cases the woman’s life is ruined and the child gets the dirty end of the stick. It’s a lose-lose situation but it doesn’t have to be. If the goal is to restrict abortion then contingency plans have to be put in place first. Support systems for single moms. Volunteer babysitting so the young mother can go out once in a while and associate with her friends. Programs for children of poor parents.
As for my trying to look better to chicks, LOL. I assure you I haven’t PM’d any here trying to win favor although I will admit the thought did cross my mind. A few of them sure come across as real sweet.
If you mean I’m an advocate of good sex, you got that right! I’m a firm believer marriages end because sex stops and then problems arise. Not the other way around. When a young couple (moving in together/getting married) ask me for advice I tell them to keep a pocket calendar to use like a diary and simply put a checkmark beside every day they have sex. When problems keep arising, when they notice they’re not getting along well, check the calendar. They’ll see the cause and effect. That’s why a person finds certain quirks/habits about their partner cute when first getting together and later find such quirks/habits extremely annoying. The quirk/habit never changed so what changed?
As a society we’ve belittled and disparaged and devalued sex to the point it’s either dirty or a laughing stock. Instead of being something one leisurely enjoys it’s hidden and rushed. In any case we're not going to stop sex so, as a society, we better take another approach. A war on sex/abortion isn't going to work any better than the war on drugs.
Well, time to get off my stump and do some work. I have to clean the ashes out of the wood stove in the rec room. It’s -13C or 8F here. Besides, a little work will reduce my testosterone levels.
Hope you're having a good day!
apple0154
MEOW
Obviously it's your brain that lacks blood as you are the person who doesn't understand.
Do you think, at all, before you post? It's going from amusing to pathetic.
(Apple subtly shakes his head and leaves the computer.)
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's just simply wrong Apple. To assume that a similiarity in morphology equate to undifferentiated tissue being "female" is a collosal, even willful, misrepresentation of embryological development. Your position and that of the video simply isn't borne out by the facts. We are not all first physically female. You could make an argument that at the early stages of fetal development that we are gender neutral simply cause anatomical gender simply hasn't differentiated into the different sexual organs. It's a nonsense argument.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's not quite true Dixie. A clump of tissue can be genetically male or female. Where Apples argument falls apart is by making an assumption that because in human embryology that at an early stage of development undifferentiated tissue bears some morphological resemblence to female reproductive organs, ergo, that embryo is therefore female makes no sense because it is undifferentiate tissue. The tissue has not developed, at that stage, into either male or female anatomical structure. It's like saying that because arm and leg buds in early embrylogical development look like fins and that early lung development looks like gills, that at these stages of development we are all fish. It's seriously bad logic.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
They can genetically belong to a male or female organism. Gender, however, is an attribute of an organism.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Just stop it. This is not correct. NO cell has the potential to become a human being. It always requires TWO cells, a sperm cell and egg cell, specifically, to create a human organism. No other cells will work, no other combination of cells will produce a living organism.
It is alive, and it is carrying on the process of life, therefore, it is an organism. Other cells which are 'alive' are not reproducing their own cells and carrying on the process of life, they simply belong to the organism which is reproducing them. Now, fucking save yourself the time and trouble of simply re-typing your entire diatribe over and over again, and go read some information about reproduction and organisms. That's the only way you are going to ever learn anything. This silliness has gone on long enough, you are more mature than this.
uhh yeah they are. cells reproduce all the time.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The CELL does NOT reproduce itself, sorry. If it did, it would be "an organism" because that is what organisms do. Cells are reproduced by an organism.
cells are organisms dumbass. They are individual life.