Abortion?

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67813 wrote:

In clones?
Yep. Maybe not in the way or sense you expect. However, clones are not the subject. Why do you keep bringing up clones? Even if we agreed they are 100% identical in every way (DNA or not), you have not explained how this invalidates DNA testing of identity and species.

Strawman

Where did I say anything about invalidating DNA testing? As you may know, I am a man of science. The whole contention here is that DNA does not necessarily indicate if life-form(s) should be considered a single entity or two separate entities. If as you say DNA is useful in identifying if something is a separate entity then we should not find any cases where two entities have the same DNA or where a single entity has two DNA strands.

Quote:

Wasn't it you that said that we will never have fingernail or hair that has different DNA than us?
You are the master of mis-interpretation. That is out of context. That was supposed to tell you "all our cells and body parts share the same DNA". So, the womb-trapped human life-form can be shown not to be a part of the mother's body.

Oh give it up already! You were caught in your own atrocious logic, just admit it.

Quit making excuses.

-you agree that you and your hair have the same DNA because of mitosis
-but you won't accept that clones have the same DNA through the same process.

Why is that?

Quote:

Well, clones have the same DNA for the same reason our hair and fingernails have the same DNA, mitosis. It's the same process involved in both.
In the way you use the word same, that may be right. It is not the correctness of you knowledge I challenge, but it's meaning and relavency to the question.

You claimed that having the same DNA means organic matter is part of the same entity....I gave you an example of this not being the case (clones).

How is this not relevant?

Quote:

Actually it is neither. Lots of lifeforms don't have a beating heart or a brain.
Context, FF, context. I meant a human life-form.

I can't read minds, if you mean something say it BEFOREHAND, don't try to change it after the fact.

Quote:

Your heading said "baby"...that's what I quoted. Dont try and lie now. You were talking a human and so was I. I dont have to be that specific. You are not stupid.We both know it was not a hippopotamus baby.

I was making the distinction between a baby and a clump of human cells.

Quote:

The definition of life is the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
That a definition, not the definition.
I think that a womb-trapped child has all of these, FF.

...as well as sperm.

Quote:

The list I gave was of the differences between a clump of human cells and a baby.
What you do NOT provide is what I have been asking for. Exactly HOW do these differences mean that it is not human, as you keep claiming?

I never said it wasn't human, I said it wasn't a human being.

A cell is not a human being and does not have rights, like a human being.

Perhaps we can give skin cells rights too! :rollinglaugh:

Quote:

I already produced evidence to support My facts. It's human. Common sense also says it is human, it comes from a human, DNA says it is human, you admit it grows into a human, there is no massive mutation involved in the DNA. What else can we conclude?

Being a human being requires more than just a specific deoxyribonucleic acid sequence.

Quote:

We as humans are more than our mere Deoxyribonucleic acid.
Yes, that is correct. But we are also never less than human DNA. Human DNA is the one common thing we all share, that no other life-form has.

And?

Quote:

I notice that you did not address My points in post # 55. I know what this is about. You want to say "humans dont have a right to life. Only citizens of society who obey the law have rights".

I didn't respond to a lot of your points, there are too many I really don't think it's necessary.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

OK, Fatal Freedoms. You cannot admit you are wrong. I see that. You try and just argue words games and deliberate misinterpretations against hard facts. Your "debate class" just taught you how to play games.

All you can do is take Me out of context, read the words and miss the point of same, and make excuses. Oh, and neglect the Q's I ask where you clearly are stumped. You don't answer the hard Q's that are the point.

I never said it wasn't human, I said it wasn't a human being.
Is this the best you have? Another word game? What is it then? A human dying?

Q : What is the difference between a human being and a human? (Dont try and tell Me a fingernail has DNA). Oh, I want an answer that means something relevant to the question. I understand there IS a difference, but what is the relavent difference?

A cell is not a human being and does not have rights, like a human being.
That is nothing more than your personal say-so. That i the only argument that you have. You make the exact same argument as before. Now it is just using the word "human being" instead of "human".

Perhaps we can give skin cells rights too!
Why not do just that? Maybe you should just stop making a fool of yourself, and realise that women do NOT develop skin cells intead of babies in the womb.

2 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67867 wrote:

I never said it wasn't human, I said it wasn't a human being.
Is this the best you have? Another word game? What is it then? A human dying?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

A human being can also be a human dying. But I'm sure you knew that.

A zygote is a human cell, as opposed to a human being. Human beings are made up of many human cells. A human being has several biological systems that work together. A human being is the way all of these distinct processes and systems work together.

Quote:

Q : What is the difference between a human being and a human? (Dont try and tell Me a fingernail has DNA). Oh, I want an answer that means something relevant to the question. I understand there IS a difference, but what is the relavent difference?

above^

Perhaps we can give skin cells rights too!
Why not do just that? Maybe you should just stop making a fool of yourself, and realise that women do NOT develop skin cells intead of babies in the womb.[/QUOTE]

No, woman produce both. As human beings we are constantly producing skin cells.

The difference is that a zygote has the "potential" to become a human being and a skin cell does not.

0 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Reply to FF:

Strawman
Now using name-calling for an argument? If I am such a "strawman", why not answer post #60? I think maybe you are guilty from you or your wife have an abortion, so you can't accept the facts.

I proved, and you accepted :
A) Alive
B) Human
C) It is not a part of the mother's body.

My claim is : "It is a seperate human life-form". You say that is not correct. HOW?

FF (I add underlines) : The whole contention here is that DNA does not necessarily indicate if life-form(s) should be considered a single entity or two separate entities.

It does not prevent it either. I have already proven via DNA evidence that it is not a part of the mother's body. It is a part of Dolly the sheep's body or something?

Although there are some hypothetical scenarios that MAY be contended via your argument, the fact is none of these cases are applicable to the point I made. As post #60 reveals.

You provide nothing but your say-so on this particular point (Its not human because I say so). You were asked to provide a definition of what constitutes a seperate life-form, you gave the "baby" answer. It was wrong, so you invent another tangent regarding that. I know that you know you have lost and you just can't accecpt it. I provide arguments, evidence, common-sense and logic. DISPROVE it is human. Show Me something to prove it is not human.

If as you say DNA is useful in identifying if something is a separate entity then we should not find any cases where two entities have the same DNA or where a single entity has two DNA strands.

Yes we should. That is like saying "If a screwdriver is useful for putting in screws, then we should not find a single example of a screw that cannot be driven home with a screwdriver. Else, it is not a screwdriver." WRONG! Here is why :

Human Hair
Human Clones
Human Twins
Human Mother
Human Womb-trapped life-form

All of these have human DNA. Follow?

SO :
If we have two sheep (clones). We will presume that both have the same DNA. Are you telling Me you can't count them? Are you telling Me I cannot identify that there are two entities, or three entities, just solely because thier DNA is the same?

I told you already. DNA is not the ONLY way of identifying a seperate entity.

By your logic, no-one is a seperate life-form/entity just because clones have the same DNA, as the entity they were copied from. This is not relevant. The mother and child have different DNA. What kind of logic is that?

Oh give it up already! You were caught in your own atrocious logic, just admit it.
See, another claim, another attempt to take the discussion on another tangent, and generate pages and pages to hide your blunderous mistake. You do this by making a side argument.

-you agree that you and your hair have the same DNA because of mitosis
-but you won't accept that clones have the same DNA through the same process.
Why is that?
That is not what I am explaining to you. It just does not have any bearing on what I put to you. AS in post #60.

1 Reply

@Seer Travis Truman,

Reply to Fatal Freedoms :

Caughtcha!

Fatal Freedoms : "You claimed that having the same DNA means organic matter is part of the same entity....I gave you an example of this not being the case (clones)."

"How is this not relevant?"

I notice there is no quote! I never said that. You are resorting to a very low level now.

I did NOT claim having the same DNA matter means organic life is part of the same entity.

I showed that having different DNA is proof of two entities.

This relates to the argument YOU tried to put forth on Page 5, regarding whether or not the womb-trapped life-form was a seperate entity.

What a low shot. :ban:

1 Reply

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67872 wrote:

Reply to Fatal Freedoms :

Caughtcha!

Fatal Freedoms : "You claimed that having the same DNA means organic matter is part of the same entity....I gave you an example of this not being the case (clones)."

"How is this not relevant?"

I notice there is no quote! I never said that. You are resorting to a very low level now.

I did NOT claim having the same DNA matter means organic life is part of the same entity.

I'll bite, if not DNA then how can you tell if it's part of the same entity.

I'm waiting....

Quote:

I showed that having different DNA is proof of two entities.

Not necessarily.

Mutations can occur during ones lifetime.

Quote:

This relates to the argument YOU tried to put forth on Page 5, regarding whether or not the womb-trapped life-form was a seperate entity.

And yet we are still talking about this.....AMAZING!

We've made absolutely no progress.

You just reword the same arguments. And what has it accomplished? Nothing. Even if I were to accept that a zygote is to be considered a separate entity, why should that make it deserving of life?

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Reply to Fatal Freedoms :

You do not answer. You split the answer in 2 so you can take it out of it's intended meaning and answer what we both know was not the Q. Strawman. WHY? To hide your latest error.

I Proved in post #65 that you invent statements and claims that the opponent never said. Thats what you call "a strawman".

I'll bite, if not DNA then how can you tell if it's part of the same entity. I'm waiting....

You are a stubborn liar. You are not waiting...you've been told many times and refused to answer. I told you time and time again. One example is My post #60. Which you still have not answered to.

I see through this latest tactic. It is a case of many things together. You word the Q "if not DNA" to try and exclude DNA from My answer, so you can find some example of something that does not fit. ANSWER IN POST #60. I am NOT going to allow you to keep re-asking the same Q when it is already answered. Read the posts.

Seer TT : "I showed that having different DNA is proof of two entities."

Not necessarily. Mutations can occur during ones lifetime.
I'm sorry, thats a non-sense answer to a Q I never asked you. POST #65 accused you of being a strawman. I can see your weakness and the attempt to slowly back-pedal in that one. ANSWER THE Q PROPERLY : DID YOU MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT REGARDING MY CLAIMS AS ASSERTED IN POST #65 (Strawman). Yes or no? WHY?

Seer TT : "This relates to the argument YOU tried to put forth on Page 5, regarding whether or not the womb-trapped life-form was a seperate entity."

And yet we are still talking about this.....AMAZING!
We've made absolutely no progress.

How can I make progress when you refuse to admit you are wrong, and will not answer? The amazing thing is how you can try and reverse the situation on Me, despite Posts like #60 and #65!!!

You just reword the same arguments. And what has it accomplished? Nothing.

That is solely because you never give answers to My Q. You REPLY to most Q, but you do NOT answer the questions and I put them to you in your replies. You are the strawman all the way. The reason why I re-worded them is because I made them simpler. Even then you fail to stop changing the meaning of My answers. You know what I am saying to you.

Even if I were to accept that a zygote is to be considered a separate entity, why should that make it deserving of life?

First step first. You are trying to go off on a tangent again. We still have to finish the previous step. That includes YOU revealing your position and answering My Q's. I PROVED :
A) Alive
B) Human
C) A new life form, not a part of the mother's body, nor part of Dolly the Sheep's body, either.

Stop with the clones, the twins and so on. Then when (or IF) you finally answer the Q's, you can try and use your last-ditch argument "Oh, its human.....but not a human being" that we both know is your issue. ANd you can lose that, too.

3 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Here is another recent example of how DNA is not the only argument I make :
(Can you just conceed so we can past the issue? It is a new, human life.) Or don't. Prove that you cannot handle reality and facts, despite being a self-proclaimed scientist.

Fatal Freedoms : "If as you say DNA is useful in identifying if something is a separate entity then we should not find any cases where two entities have the same DNA or where a single entity has two DNA strands."

Yes we should. That is like saying "If a screwdriver is useful for putting in screws, then we should not find a single example of a screw that cannot be driven home with a screwdriver. Else, it is not a screwdriver." WRONG! Here is why :

Human Hair
Human Clones
Human Twins
Human Mother
Human Womb-trapped life-form

All of these have human DNA. Follow?

SO :
If we have two sheep (clones). We will presume that both have the same DNA. Are you telling Me you can't count them? Are you telling Me I cannot identify that there are two entities, or three entities, just solely because thier DNA is the same?

I told you already. DNA is not the ONLY way of identifying a seperate entity.

By your logic, no-one is a seperate life-form/entity just because clones have the same DNA, as the entity they were copied from. This is not relevant. The mother and child have different DNA. What kind of logic is that?

SO :
Common sense. I could use My eyeballs. I could present My argument that since the life of the parents is human, then the offspring must be human. Since the DNA test proved that the mother is not the offspring/"foetus" or whatever, what are clones/mutations to do with it? A mutation of DNA localised to the mother and not the life-form in contention?

0 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67901 wrote:

How can I make progress when you refuse to admit you are wrong

[SIZE="5"]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!![/SIZE]

:rollinglaugh:

:rollinglaugh:

:rollinglaugh:

This is is the funniest thing you've said the whole time i've known you. You are either an extremely clever troll or incredibly bull-headed. I'm not getting my hopes up.

0 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

TRAVIS: That was supposed to tell you "all our cells and body parts share the same DNA". So, the womb-trapped human life-form can be shown not to be a part of the mother's body.

[SIZE="1"]a little later...[/SIZE]

FATAL: You claimed that having the same DNA means organic matter is part of the same entity

TRAVIS: I never said that.

FATAL: If not DNA then how can you tell if it's part of the same entity?

> Hmph....this shows us all just how full of **** you're arguments are. Either DNA indicates if two things are part of the same entity or it doesn't. If you say it's not one it MUST be the other.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

You are correct though, I have not responded to your post #60. That's because I responded to the post before it and then you responded back and so forth. I reckon I am several posts behind because you post twice as much as I do. SO quit complaining about me not responding to everything you say.

If you want me to respond to everything you say then you need to make one long post at a time.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Reply to FF post # 70 only. Another straw-man job, I see.

Posts #60 and #65....take your time. It is not necc. for you to answer quickly, just answer properly.

You are ducking again. Post #70 makes no rational sense. You know that DNA proves that the mother and new life form are exactly that : two entities. Right from the start. Are you going to start arguing that they are the same entity again?

If not DNA then how can you tell if it's part of the same entity?
My argument is that the mother and womb-trapped life-form are 2 different entities, as I already told you umpteen times. The mother body has the same DNA in all of it's body parts. The womb-trapped human life-form has different DNA in it's cells to the mother. This is same in all cases. Co-incidence? Hardly.

This is your way of again arguing on some tangent.

1 Reply

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67909 wrote:

Reply to FF post # 70 only. Another straw-man job, I see.

Posts #60 and #65....take your time. It is not necc. for you to answer quickly, just answer properly.

You are ducking again. Post #70 makes no rational sense. You know that DNA proves that the mother and new life form are exactly that : two entities. Right from the start. Are you going to start arguing that they are the same entity again?

If not DNA then how can you tell if it's part of the same entity?
My argument is that the mother and womb-trapped life-form are 2 different entities, as I already told you umpteen times. The mother body has the same DNA in all of it's body parts. The womb-trapped human life-form has different DNA in it's cells to the mother. This is same in all cases. Co-incidence? Hardly.

This is your way of again arguing on some tangent.

If...

Different DNA means different entities

then...

Same DNA means same entity.

Yes or no? If no, explain why.

1 Reply

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67857 wrote:

I will try a new approach :

If I cut My fingernail off, and it was scientificaly tested to have human DNA, and you chopped My fingernail in half, could you be legitimately accused of the murder of human life?

The Forbidden Truth dictates : no. You are correct. That is not where My argument lies.

okay.

Quote:

Problem : DNA testing is not the only indicator here.

What is/are the other indicator(s)?

Quote:

Maybe you have been looking at these arguments seperately. Looking at the combined effect is another matter.

fill in the blank

DNA + ________ = human being ?

Quote:

For example. Common sense. We are talking about a natural process here. There is no way, that despite DNA testing of identity and species, that I, or any genetic scientists, would or could ever fail to tell the difference between a fingernail-clipping and a woman's womb-trapped child.

I can tell the difference between an umbrella and a zygote, but I can also tell the difference between a zygote and a baby. What is your point?

Look at the practicality. It is not just DNA alone.

Quote:

A) Common sense in that - The mother is human, all offspring are the same species as the mother, therefore her offspring is human.

okay.

Quote:

B) DNA scientific testing of species.

okay

Quote:

C) DNA scientific testing of identity to determine that the mother is not the same life as the human womb-trapped life-form.

DNA does not necessarily indicate that.

Quote:

D) Common sense in that - In addition to DNA testing, we are able to eliminate other possibilities such as fingernails, hairs etc.

My skin cells are different from my mother's DNA. So what? Suppose my skin cell was sitting right next to a zygote....what's the difference between the two?

The question here is a question of scale. How many cells does it take to make a human being?

Each cell on it's own is just a cell, but together they make a human being. So at what point does this happen?

Quote:

Your argument:
E) My dictionary/personal definition of the word human (no practicle value, the word was only able to be defined because the subject it refered to existed first) does not match.

What constitutes a human being is largely a subjective matter.

Quote:

Your finger nail example versus more than one point at once:
A) Does not refute a. A holds. E not relevant.
B) Both B and E hold.
C) C holds. E FAILS!!! The DNA of the nail matches the host. However, this is not enough for you due to the twins/clones example. (And I still assert that twins are disinishable and these "lab clones" are not the result of pregnancies)

D) FAIL!!!! I am sorry, there is a simple test that your fingernail clipping/murder concept does not pass : My own eyeballs. Common Sense.

Huh?

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;67912 wrote:

If... Different DNA means different entities

then... Same DNA means same entity. Yes or no? If no, explain why.

OK. The correct answer is no. This is a fallacy of logic. If A is true, then the reverse of B is true. NOT!

I already told you. DNA ID testing is not the only thing we use to evaluate whether or not a sperate life exists.

If you have any vestiage of your sanity and rationality left, marshall those forces in your mind NOW.

Here is the Forbidden Truth : A female creates a new, distinct human life in her womb approx. 72 hours after the sperm enters the egg. It is a new human life-form, and it grows and develops naturally into an adultm providing maniacs like you dont murder it.

Human creatures, being mentally disturbed, have decided to cathartically relieve thier hate/anger by literally committing murder against their womb-trapped children. Society allows its citizen-slaves to murder "thier" womb-trapped children as a drug, so as to keep them from targeting what they malevolentky dictate to be more important possible targets.

All "pro-abortion" advocates are actually Truth-hating, child-hating sponsers of the mass murder children. They are mentally ill, deranged in in denial of reality. Just like you.

This is the Forbidden Truth. It is horrible, it is ghastly, but it IS the Truth. We, Seers, must accept the Truth no matter how horrible that Truth may be.

I will not waste any more time arguing and scientific arguments with a supreme inferior like you, as you are obviously unable to accept reality. You are also a total poseur - you don;t have the credentials that you claim.

Below is a link to a webpage that I just found. It's arguments are all the same as mine, but are nice and scientific, since you pretend that you understand that sort of thing. Although I have used scientific answers, I do not require the mere scientific arguments. The Forbidden Truth arguments are vastly Superior, of course you cannot even recognise a FT.

All six arguments are scientific in nature only and require an answer :

BigBlueWave.ca--Six Horrible Poor-Choice Arguments

SO - Answer to that. I will not waste any more posting space repeating Q's we both know you cannot answer.
DO NOT answer to anything except the arguments 1-6 in the above web link. Do not post silly pictures, use giant text sizes etc. I give you straight Q's and I want straight A's.

3 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Reply to FF :

"What constitutes a human being is largely a subjective matter."

As I said before, that is all your argument consists of. Making up you own lie-based word definition standards and then applying those to the argument.

If Ted Bundy claimed that his own subjective definition of a human being was : "Any human being that has the legal name Theodore Robert Bundy", and therefore he has murdered zero humans, would you accept your arguement in this way? Of course not.

You make your ridiculous definition of "human being" up to sut your argument. You said "human" all the way through the argument, never defining or using "human being". You were trying to say it was not a seperate entity all along, even trying to post diagrams of plants to prove your obviously wrong position.

0 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67920 wrote:

All six arguments are scientific in nature only and require an answer :

BigBlueWave.ca--Six Horrible Poor-Choice Arguments

Before I go onto anything else I just need to point out that a... self-proclaimed conservative blog site is NOT a scientific source.

That fact that you think it is says much about the quality of your sources.

1 Reply

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67920 wrote:

OK. The correct answer is no. This is a fallacy of logic. If A is true, then the reverse of B is true. NOT!

Sorry, I need you to elaborate on this. Specifically what fallacy is it?

There is nothing wrong with proving something is false by proving the opposite true. We do it all the time.

take for example:

CLAIM X "there is money in this red box"

CLAIM Y "there is not money in this red box"

we look in the red box and find no money proving CLAIM Y true thereby proving CLAIM X false.

I think you are a little confused, you are conflating a simplified "process of elimination" with "denying the antecedent". They are not the same thing.

Quote:

I already told you. DNA ID testing is not the only thing we use to evaluate whether or not a sperate life exists.

Then what else do you use?

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;67962 wrote:

Before I go onto anything else I just need to point out that a... self-proclaimed conservative blog site is NOT a scientific source.

That fact that you think it is says much about the quality of your sources.

Another strawman job. You again ommit to quote Me, because you AGAIN lie and say that I said something when I clearly did not. Where do I claim that it was a scientific source? It is a science blog, based on scientific facts that we can easily check upon. If you dispute it's accuracy, then simply tell Me which facts your dispute, and I will find you 5 reputable sources on each.

I, and the guy on the "blog", do not claim it is a scientific source. You did.
If you dispute the accuracy of the scientific testing, you can point that out. You obviously cannot answer.

By the way, I also found the blog I reakon YOU use for your sources. A List of Fallacies In Logic

You know the terms you use to pretend that you are smart and educated. You do not even know how to use the terms properly. By the way, the guy who runs the blog is often happy to come to a forum and blast phonies like you into dust personally. Maybe I will Drop him a line.

STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
You are trying to reverse the burden of proof onto Me. It rests on you, because you make a claim. That claim is that a womb-trapped life-form is not human. Well, what species is it, then?

Common Sense (backed up by biology) says that the offspring is always the same species as the parents. There. You have yet to provide one single reason why it is not human. All you are doing is resorting to arguing in circles and mis-quoting Me.

I will not play your game.

ANSWER REQUIRED : POST NUMBER 75 LINK : BigBlueWave.ca--Six Horrible Poor-Choice Arguments

Answer if you know how.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Reply to Fatal Freedoms :

Sorry, I need you to elaborate on this. Specifically what fallacy is it? There is nothing wrong with proving something is false by proving the opposite true. We do it all the time.

take for example:

CLAIM X "there is money in this red box"

CLAIM Y "there is not money in this red box"

we look in the red box and find no money proving CLAIM Y true thereby proving CLAIM X false.

I think you are a little confused.

Another strawman. What a surprise.

Simple. In your CLAIMS X and Y above, you refer to the exact same thing. A red box. In your argument with Me, My claim refers to many arguments, and you only refer to one (DNA ID) in your claim.

SO :
STT CLAIMS : The DNA test proves that the womb-trapped human life-form is a seperate entity from the mother. (VIA the mis-match of DNA, lack of interaction between the DNA of the 2 entities, common sense, direct observation, the fact the offspring is always the same species as the parents etc)

FF CLAIMS : Since the DNA is different between the mother and new entity in the womb, you must also believe that if 2 entities have the same DNA that automatically means the same life form.

Stupid, because in your example you do not mention that the other factors are not accounted for in your CLAIM. I can count sheep, clone as many Dolly's as you like.

ANSWER POST #75, strawman.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know