Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

real life wrote:

Diest,

Is that your whole case for the legal extermination of a human being -- 'Shut up, I'm an engineer and it's none of your business because it's legal' ?

(Or to summarize -- 'It should be legal because it's currently legal' ? You must have borrowed that one from CI. He uses it frequently.)

It's about what I expected, unfortunately.

no.

Shut up, because of instances like this: I present a case, information, I take my time trying to expalin to a zealot like you, only to have to have you reply that I've written nothing. If you don't have anything to contribute to discussion, just shut up and sit in your carseat.

Legal cause it's currently legal has never been my arguement. My contention is that it is currently legal for real reasons, real rationale.

If you'd bother reading my entire post I take you through not my entire reason for supporting choice rights and stem cell cutivation the way I do, but only ONE reason. I have many reasons, you have only ONE that you've shared. It's been thoroughly discussed, and I don't think it's a convincing arguement at all.

you're out of your league.
Wanna play ball: Credentials?

0 Replies

I don't have to prove anything: it's the law of our land. Get over it.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

aperson wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
aperson wrote:
Fine.

MRSGREN Examples?

Is an atom alive?

DNA?

Sea Monkeys?

I don't get it; what's your point?

According to mrsgren - are the "items" listed above - alive?

What do you think?

Can you provide examples of the seven abilities occuring in each?

I don't think so. Unless, of course, you twist the meanings to the point of breaking.

0 Replies

Deist TKO,
It's as if you read my mind. Try calm it down though with the shut ups. Emotion clouds our logic.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

Deist TKO,
It's as if you read my mind. Try calm it down though with the shut ups. Emotion clouds our logic.

Fair enough. I'm just tired of wasting time trying to explain things, and then it's not even read.

0 Replies

Yeah I get that sometimes also.

0 Replies

I feel for you. Maybe there's no point trying to explain something to someone who does not have the knowledge to understand, and does not want to learn because you have different opinions. Perhaps you should stop posting untill someone comes along who disagrees with you but listens as well? However, there are not many believers who fit that catagory...

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest,

Is that your whole case for the legal extermination of a human being -- 'Shut up, I'm an engineer and it's none of your business because it's legal' ?

(Or to summarize -- 'It should be legal because it's currently legal' ? You must have borrowed that one from CI. He uses it frequently.)

It's about what I expected, unfortunately.

no.

Shut up, because of instances like this: I present a case, information, I take my time trying to expalin to a zealot like you, only to have to have you reply that I've written nothing. If you don't have anything to contribute to discussion, just shut up and sit in your carseat.

Legal cause it's currently legal has never been my arguement. My contention is that it is currently legal for real reasons, real rationale.

If you'd bother reading my entire post I take you through not my entire reason for supporting choice rights and stem cell cutivation the way I do, but only ONE reason. I have many reasons, you have only ONE that you've shared. It's been thoroughly discussed, and I don't think it's a convincing arguement at all.

you're out of your league.
Wanna play ball: Credentials?

Yes I read your entire post. Several times.

You've made NO case for legalizing the killing a living human being, nor proof that the unborn IS NOT a living human being.

You don't seem to understand that this IS what the abortion debate and what the ESCR debate is all about.

It's about whether the unborn is a living human being or not, and whether it should be legal to kill a living human being.

Your tantrums simply show your lack of a grasp on this issue, as well as a loose grip on your own emotions.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

I feel for you. Maybe there's no point trying to explain something to someone who does not have the knowledge to understand, and does not want to learn because you have different opinions. Perhaps you should stop posting untill someone comes along who disagrees with you but listens as well? However, there are not many believers who fit that catagory...

baddog1 is not bad. He has contributed to discussion quite well. RL makes the worst representitive of the Pro-life crowd because he lacks any ability to be rational.

RL - Keep reading it. BTW, credentials? Since it's the holidays and all, I thought I'd apologize for all the "shut ups" I sent your way. I feel bad, like as if I was shouting at a child that simply doesn't know better.

"It's easier for you to accept a simple lie than an complex truth." Somewhere in the arguement I forgot I pity you.

0 Replies

Ah, the apoligy dished in the spiteful comment! 'Tis like sweet and sour pork (which was not invented anywhere in Asia, BTW).

Deist TKO,
I was not refering to baddog1 - I have not had a great deal of interaction with him in this thread. I was refering to someone else.

0 Replies

Well, Diest, you are not the only one who feels as if they are not talking to a listening audience. But I try not to throw a fit when it happens.

I will attempt this one more time.

I am giving you, Diest, the chance of a lifetime.

Would you like to see the opposition to ESCR go away?

Would you like to see the debate on abortion cease?

It's simple.

*pushes play*

The opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the opposition to abortion are based on the position that the unborn is a living human being.

If you can prove that the unborn IS NOT a living human being, or if you can make a case that it should be legal to kill a living human being, then not only Real Life , but all of the opposition to ESCR and abortion would be silenced.

Your mission, if you decide to accept it, is to provide the proof. Make the case, and the day is won for the ESCR and abortion crowd.

If you allow yourself to be distracted by side issues, failure is certain. If you fail, you know only too well the tenacity of the pro-lifers.

If you or any member of the pro-abortion/pro-ESCR team is persuaded to change your position, then your former comrades will disavow any knowledge of your sanity.

Good luck, Diest.

0 Replies

real, It's not up to you to decide what to do with the embryo. It's not part of you or your responsibility. If you're really concerned about human life, help all the babies now born and living that needs food and shelter. The unborn is no concern of yours. It's up to the woman what to do, and the laws of our land now protects that right.
Your definitions for "living human baby" means squat until its born.

Live with it.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
aperson wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
aperson wrote:
Fine.

MRSGREN Examples?

Is an atom alive?

DNA?

Sea Monkeys?

I don't get it; what's your point?

According to mrsgren - are the "items" listed above - alive?

What do you think?

Can you provide examples of the seven abilities occuring in each?

I don't think so. Unless, of course, you twist the meanings to the point of breaking.

Please answer my question(s), then ask what you desire. I will directly answer, unless I need a clarification. Please do the same.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, It's not up to you to decide what to do with the embryo. It's not part of you or your responsibility. If you're really concerned about human life, help all the babies now born and living that needs food and shelter. The unborn is no concern of yours. It's up to the woman what to do, and the laws of our land now protects that right.
Your definitions for "living human baby" means squat until its born.

Live with it.

As I mentioned earlier, 'it's none of your business' isn't much of an argument.

I'm not black, so should I say 'it's none of my business' if blacks are discriminated against, lynched or whatever?

I'm not a child, so should I say 'it's none of my business' if children are molested?

However, it's always interesting that you, CI, always claim that your personal standard of morality is something you apply to 'nobody but yourself', yet you seem very comfortable telling others what they should do and think. I thought it was 'none of your business' what others did?

0 Replies

It has nothing to do with "race relations" or "molested children." It's about something inside a woman's womb that is no concern of yours. If you are truly concerned about "children," help those already of this world. Why are you so concerned about something that isn't your responsibility? Like I said many times before, if you truly are concerned about "live children," help with their food and shelter. There are many out there with many needs, and they are now "alive." You just happen to be a hypocrite; you really don't care about "children."

0 Replies

Quote:

The opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the opposition to abortion are based on the position that the unborn is a living human being.

If you can prove that the unborn IS NOT a living human being, or if you can make a case that it should be legal to kill a living human being, then not only Real Life , but all of the opposition to ESCR and abortion would be silenced.

This is a mission impossible, pun intended. The above is what you want the issue to be. The issue for legality is much different. The issue for legality is about when do we inherit our life rights, and who is the custodian of those rights: The mother/couple or the state?

Your mission, save you choose to ignore it, is to prove that the state has a greater claim to those rights of the unborn than the mother/couple.

Credentials?
Happy Holidays.

0 Replies

Diest, I don't think it matters how many ways we explain the rights of the woman over the rights of the state; it only gets twisted in so many ways, it's a wonder that their attempts to "save the embryo" completely ignores the living children of today. Their fanaticism is just that; no logic, no rational, no give a shet about the living children.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:

The opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the opposition to abortion are based on the position that the unborn is a living human being.

If you can prove that the unborn IS NOT a living human being, or if you can make a case that it should be legal to kill a living human being, then not only Real Life , but all of the opposition to ESCR and abortion would be silenced.

This is a mission impossible, pun intended. The above is what you want the issue to be. The issue for legality is much different. The issue for legality is about when do we inherit our life rights, and who is the custodian of those rights: The mother/couple or the state?

Your mission, save you choose to ignore it, is to prove that the state has a greater claim to those rights of the unborn than the mother/couple.

Credentials?
Happy Holidays.

Read the Roe v Wade decision. The majority justices stated that if the personhood of the unborn could be established, the case for Roe would collapse. It is THE issue.

I will be fairly scarce around here for the near future due to the holidays and a few very large projects.

Merry Christmas, Diest. Hope you have a Happy New Year too. Cool

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

aperson wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
aperson wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
aperson wrote:
Fine.

MRSGREN Examples?

Is an atom alive?

DNA?

Sea Monkeys?

I don't get it; what's your point?

According to mrsgren - are the "items" listed above - alive?

What do you think?

Can you provide examples of the seven abilities occuring in each?

I don't think so. Unless, of course, you twist the meanings to the point of breaking.

Please answer my question(s), then ask what you desire. I will directly answer, unless I need a clarification. Please do the same.

Atoms can't sense what surrounds them. While they react, that is because of the laws of physics and chemistry, not because they have made decisions based on their surroundings. The same goes for the other two.

My final statement:
It is the mother's decision to decide whether she aborts or not. No one has the write to tell her where to send her child to school, what food to buy, what clothes etc, and no one has the right to tell her whether her unborn child's life is worth saving. The child has not experienced this world, and so cannot miss it (it does not even have the brain capacity to feel pain.) It is not our decision.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Read the Roe v Wade decision. The majority justices stated that if the personhood of the unborn could be established, the case for Roe would collapse. It is THE issue.

I still insist you haven't read my post. I have already adressed this. The personhood has NOT been established. Issue resloved.

Diest TKO wrote:

RL - If what you want to try and establish is personhood, then we'll take it there.

Personhood @ Dictionary.com

As you will see it becomes more important to define person.

Person @ Distionary.com

As you read, you will see a legal definition

11. Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.

As you will read you will see two major components in the definition.

1) Physical characteristics - being human, etc.
2) Non-physical characterristics - individuality, cuture, personality, etc.

Quote:

The Supreme Court that wrote the Roe v Wade decision stated that if the personhood of the unborn could be established that Roe's case would have fallen apart.

ASSUMPTION - at the time of Roe v. Wade, there was enough genetic evidence and prior biological data to conclude that an embryo/zygote/fetus is in fact human in nature (as opposed to any other animal).

ASSUMPTION - the personhood of the unborn is the ability to qualify the unborn as a person.

OBSERVATION - The definition of person is defined in physical and non-physical characteristics.

METHOD - Interpret the ruling.

Quote:

The Supreme Court that wrote the Roe v Wade decision stated that if the personhood of the unborn could be established that Roe's case would have fallen apart.

CONCLUSION - Unless the supreme court had no knowledge of human biology and reproductive mechanics, I conclude that the determination of personood is not solely based on the physical characteristics of the unborn. To satisfy personhood would be to additionally have some/all of the non-physical characteristics.

So move on.

Who has more claim to the rights of the unborn: the mother/couple or the state?

Credentials? I'm going to start assuming you dropped out of highschool soon if you don't answer me.

0 Replies

Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know