Abortion?

BigBlueWave.ca--Six Horrible Poor-Choice Arguments

Numpty, the Seer of Forbidden Truth is always a liar. It is Superior to deceive, as long as one golden rule is never violated.

I must never lie, delude or ignore a Truth to Myself. As long as I internally know what the Truth is, I a not deluding Myself.

The Superior always approaches a situation in such a way as to see what he or she wants, and how to acheive that goal. He never feels obligated to care or consider the other person.

An example :
A) To make a decision based on the god myth or a christian principal. That is a lie, and a lie to Myself. That is unacceptable. That is a betrayal of Self.

B) To lie to another person "Oh, I believe in the god creature and the christian moral principals" in order to manipulate that person into letting his guard down, in order to steal his wallet is a perfectly Truth-based thing to do. It is NOT a betrayal of Self. As long as you DID lie to the other person, and long as you never beleived in or made action because of the god creature myth then that is not a lie to you.

Another example : The pig thugs ask Me whether I committed a certain crime. I can lie, and still be real to the Truth in Myself. It only if I lied to Me, only if I did not recognise and embrace a Forbidden Truth that matters.

Numpty, the Seer of Forbidden Truth is always a liar. It is Superior to deceive, as long as one golden rule is never violated.

2. Even fully grown adults have a lot of inactive DNA.
Fully grown adults are not skin cells,

and those inactive DNA parts are inactive in all the cells, whereas a hair has inactive parts that the organism does not.

You asked "why is a barber not tried for mass murder for cutting my hair". You tried to say that a hair (not human cell) was an anlogy to killing the organism as a whole. Q : Are you saying that a "foetus" is not a whole organism, just a part of one? Yes or no, ff?

That is a reply, not a rebuttal. You did not know the scientific reason why hair was not a human organism even though it had human DNA.

You ARE trying to argue that a skin cell is analogoues with a zygote simply because we rfer to both as cells, where they are 2 different things.

3. My argument was that it wasn't a "human being", a cell cannot be a human being, because human beings have inter-working systems, whereas the cell is just a cell.

A cell is not a human being, ff. But a zygote is not like any other "cell", because it has all 46 choromosomes,

and all the DNA active.

Again, you are trying to equate "cells" such as skin cells as being analogous to the zygote. They share a label, that is all. That is just a language term, not a scientific fact.

Cells are not genetically human, ff. None of them are.

By your reasoning, if we can find something that "does not fit", then it is false.

That is what you claim, and yet your analogy does not fit between a zygote and a cell at any practicle level.

You ARE trying to argue that a zygote is not human, dont try and claim you dont.

4. This is just silly, if by the arguers point we are human because we have 46 chromosomes then those with downs-syndrome aren't human by this man's logic.
No, ff. Every human being has 46 chromosomes,

where as sperm etc has only 23. That shows us that sperm is not genetically human. It cannot be argued that sperm is a whole organism because some people have down's syndrome.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but there is a REASON to account for these exceptions. Whereas, your agument cannot do same. In downs syndrome, the person has a known genetic defect that causes him or her to have three copies of a chromosome #21, given them an extra chromosome.
That is accounted for, ff.

They dont REALLY have an extra NEW choromome, just 2 extra copies of the same human chromosome. That is a specific and technical exception, that has a specific reason as to why, unlike your attempt to pretend a zygote is not genetically human.

Problem : By your suggested reasoning that chromosomes cannot be used to determine species, you would have to contend that sperm is a whole human organism, because you cannot exclude sperm as a whole organism by account of the number of choromosomes it has. Yet sperm is clearly not the whole organism. Well?

That is not a succint reply, ff. That is a cop-out and we both know it. You are trying to contend that the science od determining species based on chromosomes is false, even though YOU used it against carico about the fossils.

6. Interact? Does you suppose DNA communicates with other strands of DNA? How do you determine if the DNA is "interacting"? How does DNA interact? Does it send out little radio signals, or is it just psychic?
1) It constantly replicates itself. Mother never replicates a WombTrappedLifeForms DNA.
2) Every scientist and biology journal is the world PROVES that DNA in a single organism interacts with the organism. The fact that all the cells in the WTLF and mother "ignore" each other should tell you something.

Since your pretend to know biology

(even though you did not realise that a human hair was not genetically human and not anlogoes to an entire ogranism)

, here is a nice beginners site for you to learn about DNA interaction with the organism (HINT : The interaction is never BETWEEN organisms) :

NOVA Online | Cracking the Code of Life | Journey into DNA (non-Flash)

Nor does so mething have to be a body part to be part of the body. EX: mucus.
A part of the body and a body part are the same thing

to the point in question in that mucus is ALSO not a whole human organism, ff.

What you do is make and endless stream of false claims, ff. The abortion claim is never justified.

PS - After I answer the 2nd half, how bout answering why the mother's own immune sytem identfies and attacks the WTLD as foreign?

IS anyone in favour of abortion? The choice is between reasonably effective abortion, mother-life-threatening back-street abortion such as was previously normal and absolute female slavery in a total police-state. It's never any good trying to bully people into doing what they KNOW is wrong, like giving birth to an unwanted child.

True, but this is not a good argument because the pro-life side has argued that abortion is akin to murder, so let us entertain this analogy here for a moment.

You could make this same argument for legalized murder, would it be alright if there was a gov-sponsored program to humanely murder people you don't like, simply because illegal "back-alley" murders are less safe and less humane than gov-sponsored murders?

Because people are gonna murder eachother anyway, right?

Should we allow immoral actions to continue for the purpose of making them safer and more humane? To me it seems that the questions of morality should always take precedence over questions of practicality, wouldn't you agree?

This is why I think your particular line of argumentation is flawed.


--
By the way, I'm just playing DEVIL'S ADVOCATE here! I've straddled both sides in the abortion debate so I can see arguments on both sides.

No - it's not equivalent, because the potential 'back-street' murderer hasn't otherwise got to carry the victim around for nine months and be (almost certainly) responsible for him/her for years and years thereafter, nor is the victim likely to without language or any other social skills unless taught by the murderer. What's more (unless you insist on arming nutters to the teeth) murders are not very common in civilised countries, whereas unwanted pregnancies are.

I don't understand what your argument is. Are you saying because the mother has a greater responsibility to the unborn child that she is more entitled to murder it (assuming abortion is murder- for the sake of argument)?

You do realize that mothers often do murder their children (post birth), whom they are responsible for years and years, and this is still considered illegal, right?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but rather I dispute your reasoning.

I'd call the execution of grown-ups cold-hearted vengeance-killing, which is worse than murder, and the US seems to find that acceptable. The nearer an unborn child gets to being human the more people object to terminating its development, obviously, but an unborn child can hardly be murdered any more than a fish can.The mother has responsibility for a wanted child after it's born. For a country that kills and kills and kills real people I think the US is almost unbelievably hypocritical about this issue.

Well, I'm not really gonna argue over whether abortion is murder. Pro-lifers often argue that abortion is murder, and in the face of such statements your particular line of argumentation did not seem to effectively support your position.

I was really just asking for a clarification of your argument with my previous question.

Fine. I'm no fan of abortion, but I think people are entitled to control of their own bodies. More to the point, I think that it is silly of people to rant about what they can't prevent - just makes for unpleasantness. And I don't for a moment suggest you do that, by the way.