-->
@Alec
Just toddle down to your local abortion clinic and bring back one of these aborted humans and display it's human characteristics for me. The golfer only has lies but as a redneck that's all you need.
BTW what is your claim?
Mike Pence for President.
Posts
Total:
397
Just toddle down to your local abortion clinic and bring back one of these aborted humans and display it's human characteristics for me.
Pretty hard to do that because they throw most of the dead fetuses out, but here are some images regarding how aborted fetuses look. It's barbaric, but if you don't support the images, you shouldn't support the abortions that caused them to get created.
Despite this, even Hillary Clinton said that the images were, "disturbing". That’s like saying that pictures of the Holocaust or of slavery are disturbing, while permitting these things to continue.
The golfer only has lies but as a redneck that's all you need.
What the hell are you talking about here? What is the "golfer"?
BTW what is your claim?
My claim is that abortion should be illegal because of the scientific proof that confirms that a fetus is a human being. Therefore, abortion should be treated just like murder once made illegal (meaning anyone who commits abortions illegally should be convicted of murder).
-->
@disgusted
How is your dehumanizing of muslims going? Tell me all about muslims
I went on a missions trip to Davao, the Philippines in 2004 where we served three Muslim communities in various ways, to improve their lives and show the love of Christ in what we did, including youth camps, health care, nutrition, and other projects since preaching the gospel was frowned upon and Christian workers were put to death a few years before our mission (for proselyting/preaching). So our love and compassion were shown strictly by community service. Other than this I have had very little contact with Muslims, other than watching a Turkish TV series set in the 12-13th-century titled Resurrection Etrugrul on Netflix, and another titled Kurt Seyit and Sura this year.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
They certainly restrict use though. Like when you can't buy it.
I think Liberals restrict alcohol use more then conservatives.
-->
@disgusted
What a laugh! How misogynist because I stand up for the helpless and defend the rights of the unborn over a woman's selfish choice?You continue to run away from the discussion taking place, that discussion concerns a woman's right to bodily autonomy, I don't care how misogynistic you are you have no right to deny her that right. Stick to the subject.
This is just a ploy that you do constantly to deflect from the issue and demonize me whereas I'm sure some can identify that it is you who are employing the intolerance.
-->
@PGA2.0
What is the unborn spoken of?Is it a human being?Is it alive?Do all human beings have intrinsic worth?Let's see how you answer these questions as to determine if the unborn is being dehumanized for the abortion stats since 1980 have resulted in over 1.5 billion unborn deaths. If you look at this in terms of human genocide it is the worst perpetrated in history to date.How do people justify killing other human beings? They devalue them, degrade them, dehumanize them, then destroy them.Have you not just downgraded a human being? Provide your proof if you say no as to what the unborn is.
The unborn is simply the various developmental phases of H. Sapien. Is it a human being? Depends on the developmental phase. For example, there is a vast difference between a newly fertilized embryo and a foetus that is just about to be born. The criteria of which I outlined in my previous post.
Is it alive? Depends on the developmental phase again.
Do all human beings have intrinsic worth? Yes
Or to put it succinctly, certain developmental phases of H. Sapien, while members of the H. Sapien species, are not human beings. Therefore there is nothing to downgrade.
Its nature, what it is from the moment it starts to live. If a human sperm fertilizes a human egg and new DNA, new genetic information, new everything begins to grow, what is growing? If you can't argue most definitely that it is not a human being then should you not give it the benefit of the doubt? So, what scientific arguments do you have that it is not human? I am willing to discuss them with you.
I mean.. it's not really a question of science. It's a question of philosophy and definition. What do you mean by human? Are all human beings humans? Are all homo sapiens human beings?
For example, in the dystopian scenario I gave out before, how would you describe such individuals? They are quite clearly homo sapiens. But are they humans? Human beings? What level of rights would you give to such beings?
Does human life start at conception/fertilization? If so then you are killing a human being, regardless of how DEVELOPED it is? That is the distinction you are making - its development. You are basing killing a human being on its level of development. So why stop with the unborn human being? Why not the newborn that s not as developed as the adolescent or the adult? Where do you want to draw the line since you are treating one class or group of human beings differently from others based on its development?
To be clear, we aren't killing a human being. We are extinguishing an early developmental phase of H. Sapiens. I say extinguishing, because killing implies the taking of a life. And again, the sum of experiences is where I think a reasonable line can and should be drawn.
Do you want to base whether we should kill other human beings on what they contribute? Should you be evaluated on what you contribute as someone else has decided? Will you not give the unborn the chance to show what they will contribute
That *is* what we base our lives on right? What is useful to us and what isn't useful to us? But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. I make no argument for killing human beings, and you equating it so does not make it true.
-->
@PGA2.0
What a laugh! How misogynist because I stand up for the helpless and defend the rights of the unborn over a woman's selfish choice?
You can't even mention the fetus unless you have denied the woman her bodily autonomy, that's what makes you a misogynist, your insistence that women are inferior to you. All women are inferior to you. You have no right to even know what is happening in her body so just fuck off out of it.
This is just a ploy that you do constantly to deflect from the issue and demonize me whereas I'm sure some can identify that it is you who are employing the intolerance.
It's not a ploy it's the whole discussion, your furphies regarding unborn humans is just some new nonsense to replace your earlier unsuccessful arguments about what your pretend friend wants.
BTW how do you justify the 60% of abortions performed by your invisible friend?
-->
@PGA2.0
The fact you think a women's body is not big deal but an unborn child's is why you are a hate filled prick.
-->
@Alec
No. They don't.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The fact you think a women's body is not big deal but an unborn child's is why you are a hate filled prick.
This is a little rude for a political discussion.
-->
@dustryder
What is the unborn spoken of?Is it a human being?Is it alive?Do all human beings have intrinsic worth?Let's see how you answer these questions as to determine if the unborn is being dehumanized for the abortion stats since 1980 have resulted in over 1.5 billion unborn deaths. If you look at this in terms of human genocide it is the worst perpetrated in history to date.How do people justify killing other human beings? They devalue them, degrade them, dehumanize them, then destroy them.Have you not just downgraded a human being? Provide your proof if you say no as to what the unborn is.The unborn is simply the various developmental phases of H. Sapien. Is it a human being? Depends on the developmental phase. For example, there is a vast difference between a newly fertilized embryo and a foetus that is just about to be born. The criteria of which I outlined in my previous post.
Your thoughts are seriously muddled and reveal how little you know of the subject. First, the genetic material comes from two different human beings, combining to form a new and distinct human being at FERTILIZATION. It can be nothing other than a human being. When two human beings mate and the egg is fertilized you can't get a dog or chimpanzee. What starts to form at fertilization is a distinct individual human being, period.
Show me one case that shows two human beings mating with the result of anything other than a human being - go ahead.
Is it alive? Depends on the developmental phase again.
Rubbish. Science says it is alive and a unique and individual human being at conception/fertilization.
Do all human beings have intrinsic worth? Yes
Then killing the unborn results in the killing of a human being and most scientists, embryologists, do not dispute this obvious fact.
Or to put it succinctly, certain developmental phases of H. Sapien, while members of the H. Sapien species, are not human beings. Therefore there is nothing to downgrade.Its nature, what it is from the moment it starts to live. If a human sperm fertilizes a human egg and new DNA, new genetic information, new everything begins to grow, what is growing? If you can't argue most definitely that it is not a human being then should you not give it the benefit of the doubt? So, what scientific arguments do you have that it is not human? I am willing to discuss them with you.I mean.. it's not really a question of science. It's a question of philosophy and definition. What do you mean by human? Are all human beings humans? Are all homo sapiens human beings?
You are creating an artificial distinction. When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being. Prove otherwise, don't assert it.
The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”
Steven Ertelt”Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13
******“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
For example, in the dystopian scenario I gave out before, how would you describe such individuals? They are quite clearly homo sapiens. But are they humans? Human beings? What level of rights would you give to such beings?Does human life start at conception/fertilization? If so then you are killing a human being, regardless of how DEVELOPED it is? That is the distinction you are making - its development. You are basing killing a human being on its level of development. So why stop with the unborn human being? Why not the newborn that s not as developed as the adolescent or the adult? Where do you want to draw the line since you are treating one class or group of human beings differently from others based on its development?To be clear, we aren't killing a human being. We are extinguishing an early developmental phase of H. Sapiens. I say extinguishing, because killing implies the taking of a life. And again, the sum of experiences is where I think a reasonable line can and should be drawn.
Rubbish, that is exactly what is taking place, the killing of a human being.
Do you want to base whether we should kill other human beings on what they contribute? Should you be evaluated on what you contribute as someone else has decided? Will you not give the unborn the chance to show what they will contributeThat *is* what we base our lives on right? What is useful to us and what isn't useful to us? But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. I make no argument for killing human beings, and you equating it so does not make it true.
Whether you realize it or not that is exactly the argument you are making, that it is okay to kill some human beings (the unborn).
-->
@PGA2.0
#2560-- have NOT argued the religious aspect but basic logic and reason.
Yes,
1} your religious extremmist and a Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzee,
2} you have yet to use any rational, logical common sense,
3} especially when try to use analogy of a pregnant womans bodily business only, to,
...3a} ....."So, if I give my consent for you to kill my dependent offspring that is okay with you?"...
....3b} most "dependant offspring" breath in-out on their own, a fetus/baby does not breath at all, ergo,
.....3c} you lack even the most basic rational, logical common sense argument.
4} Do you understand any of the above? No? I didnt think because you emotional and intellectual level is not on par with any mature adults on Earth.
5} religous extremism and Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanizm blocks you from truth - facts and rational logical common sense processing Sad :--(
So once again, please take a hike from me until you become a mature adult who can even the beginnings of access to rational, logical, common sense.
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA2 is likened to energy black hole as they keep sucking in energy and give nothing back of any significant relevance.#262 Big deal. Why can't I use my body to kill others because I feel they are inconvenient?
The fetus/baby is not and "other". It is an organism of the mother and untill PGA2 can accept this truth - fact he will keep sucking energy out of others using the same lack of rational, logical common sense.
1} Other = independent/individual offspring that is viable and,
2} NOT inside a woman where it is reciving all nutirents from directly from womans body.
PGA2 is basically a immature adult acting like a two year that keeps saying no to rational, logical common sense.
A two year cannot make a distinction between this and/or that because they lack the emotion and intellectual experience.
A two year old is likened to a infant and they are all ego, its all about me, and all else is excluded including rational, logical common sense.
PGA2 is all about ego based mind-games the suck energy from people not give energy to people.
-->
@Alec
A person on anesthesia has just been knocked out temporarily. It doesn't mean that they are not able to survive independentlyA person on anesthesia is not viable as well. Is it justified to kill someone who is in a vegetative state if you know they are going to recover? Your characteristics are:
A homeless person hasn't achieved anything worthy to society, experienced much when they were asleep, and contributed anything of value to society. They are a net drain on society for possibly their whole life. Does this justify killing homeless people, or does this make killing a homeless person significantly less bad then killing a typical white collar worker?
I made no mention of society. To refine my definition further, for me, the threshold is the sum of positive experiences and impacts that a person has had over the course of their life. These experiences result can certainly result in achievements and contributions. Moreover my threshold is quite simple. Have that sum be over 0.
As an aside, we do ascribe different worth to different people. For example, were a fire to break out in a hospital ward and only one person between a little girl and an old man in a coma were able to be saved, While all life is sacred, some lives are just implicitly more so, even if not explicitly said.
For example, if I were to get a girl pregnant (I don't want to), I wouldn't have to go far, my mom said she is willing to take care of the child. However, if the answer to any of the 5 questions is yes, then you don't have to set the kid up for adoption since someone else can take care of the child. The reason why foster places exist is because people often resort to foster care places instead of the 5 filter policy.
How many people immediately resort to foster care instead of going through a structured decision process though? Such decision processes are already inherently integrated. People don't just force themselves to remain pregnant with the intention of immediately dumping it on the steps of an orphanage.
That, and have you considered that when confronted by a scenario in which they might save a child of a close relation, a person might choose to take care of it despite it being out of their means? How is that not emotional blackmail? Forcing someone to make a choice which results in either abandoning an innocent child of a loved one, or heavily degrading their own lives and the childs regardless
Lets say for the sake of argument that kids get absolutely messed up without their biological parents(they don't. I met 2 foster people and they aren't messed up). Isn't it better to be messed up then dead? Many people would say that I'm messed up by having autism, but it's better to be autistic then dead. Can you define being messed up?
It's not a question of being dead. It's question of existing at all. Your existence is defined by memories and experiences which you accrue while being alive which pre-birth you have none. So really, it's would you rather have a life of misery or be non-existent.
They probably will have some job. Only 3.7% of America is unemployed. They probably are a little less likely to be employed, but if they get parents, then they'll probably be employed by the time they are adults.
But that's the problem right there isn't it? "if" they get parents. What happens if they don't? In terms of averages, they make less of economic impact than their non-disadvantaged peers
As the population increases, the urbanization increases, the technological development rate increases, and society becomes richer. The quality of life for the individual person goes up exponentially as % of population becoming urban goes up (https://paulromer.net/old-blog/urbanization-versus-gdp-per-capita/index.html). This is why the world's GDP is increasing as the population increases. More people means more money per person.
Quality of person should be factor. If you flood a country with a million degenerates, the gdp is not going up, because those million degenerates are not contributing. In this case, instead of degenerates, you are flooding the country with disadvantaged people. Are these people contributing sufficiently in proportion to how much assistance they require?
-->
@dustryder
A person on anesthesia has just been knocked out temporarily.
A fetus in the womb is there temporarily. If a person on anesthesia was there for 9 months, is it okay to kill them?
Moreover my threshold is quite simple. Have that sum be over 0.
It would be safe to assume that a criminal's threshold is below 0. Does this justify a death sentence, even if their crime was only robbing $2 worth of goods?
For example, were a fire to break out in a hospital ward and only one person between a little girl and an old man in a coma were able to be saved, While all life is sacred, some lives are just implicitly more so, even if not explicitly said.
Although I would save the little girl, the abortion battle isn't about who's life is more valuable; the mother or the fetus. The battle on which is more valuable out of the following conditions: A mother's convenience or a fetus's life.
Such decision processes are already inherently integrated.
Not sure if I agree. The teen may rely on their parents, but I don't think they cover the extra filters (for lack of better term).
How is that not emotional blackmail? Forcing someone to make a choice which results in either abandoning an innocent child of a loved one, or heavily degrading their own lives and the childs regardless
Adoption in many situations should be optional. If you have the ability to take care of the child, you can decide if you want to set the kid up for adoption or not. Also, this claim goes on the assumption that people get messed up in the system.
It's not a question of being dead. It's question of existing at all.
A fetus exists. The only way a pre born human wouldn't exist is if they weren't conceived. Conception is the marker of if they exist or not. Even pro choice people believe that a fetus exists, they just don't believe that they are human.
is defined by memories and experiences
There are 2 objections to this definition of "existence" or "life" whichever one you meant.
1: Someone with amnesia doesn't have memories. Does this mean they should be killed for not having memories?
2: An old person has more memories then a younger person. Does this mean they are more valuable?
"if" they get parents. What happens if they don't?
Foster kids get parents. http://www.adopt.org/adoption-statistics, it states that over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years.
In terms of averages, they make less of economic impact than their non-disadvantaged peers
They still contribute. I don't want to waste the GDP that people produce to the economy.
Quality of person should be factor. If you flood a country with a million degenerates, the gdp is not going up
Foster kids aren't degenerates. I know a few of them and they aren't messed up individuals. Most get adopted to well off families.
Are these people contributing sufficiently in proportion to how much assistance they require?
I imagine like most adults, they will contribute more then they cost as a group.
-->
@dustryder
Thanks for being one of the only polite liberals on this chain. I would say a significant portion of liberals that I have talked too online about abortion would be jerks about it.
-->
@disgusted
What a laugh! How misogynist because I stand up for the helpless and defend the rights of the unborn over a woman's selfish choice?You can't even mention the fetus unless you have denied the woman her bodily autonomy, that's what makes you a misogynist, your insistence that women are inferior to you. All women are inferior to you. You have no right to even know what is happening in her body so just fuck off out of it.
You dehumanize it in every post while promoting its death, thus I view your ideology as an accomplice in planning its death.
This is just a ploy that you do constantly to deflect from the issue and demonize me whereas I'm sure some can identify that it is you who are employing the intolerance.It's not a ploy it's the whole discussion, your furphies regarding unborn humans is just some new nonsense to replace your earlier unsuccessful arguments about what your pretend friend wants.
BS. This is what the left does all the time. They poison the well by suggesting it is those who oppose them who have the "unsuccessful arguments" while they always skirt around it.
BTW how do you justify the 60% of abortions performed by your invisible friend?
Whatever innocent human life God takes He restores.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The fact you think a women's body is not big deal but an unborn child's is why you are a hate filled prick.
I support a woman's right to do with her body as she pleases up to the point that it destroys or damages the life of another human being. I have stated this often. The big deal is when she selfishly and knowingly takes the life of another innocent human being and your crowd dehumanizes and gives no consideration to this matter at all because you are so brainwashed into her bodily rights to the exclusion of the most basic right of all - the right to life.
Science, reason, and logic tells you that from conception a new and uniquely different human being begins its life. You devalue that life and give excuses for murdering it because you do not see all human life as equally valuable until your own life is placed in the category of worthless by others, then you know what is done is evil. You do not apply an equal standard to all human beings but discriminate and demonize the most helpless.
-->
@PGA2.0
Your thoughts are seriously muddled and reveal how little you know of the subject. First, the genetic material comes from two different human beings, combining to form a new and distinct human being at FERTILIZATION. It can be nothing other than a human being. When two human beings mate and the egg is fertilized you can't get a dog or chimpanzee. What starts to form at fertilization is a distinct individual human being, period.Show me one case that shows two human beings mating with the result of anything other than a human being - go ahead.
Who's making assertions now? I think I've made a reasonable case as to why certain prenatal stages are not/should not be considered human beings. Meanwhile, you keep asserting that what immediately comes from fertilization is immediately a human being. Is this something you can actually justify?
To be clear, I don't have an issue calling what comes from fertilization a developmental stage of Homo Sapien. I have an issue calling it a human being. Do you understand the distinction I've made here and previously?
Rubbish. Science says it is alive and a unique and individual human being at conception/fertilization.
Citation needed.
Then killing the unborn results in the killing of a human being and most scientists, embryologists, do not dispute this obvious fact.
Likewise, citation needed
You are creating an artificial distinction. When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being. Prove otherwise, don't assert it.
It's hardly artificial. Differentiating terms is obviously a clear necessity. Because you still seem to be confusing human being and Homo Sapien. What makes a human being a human being, and how do we differentiate that from Homo Sapien? My answer is experiences and you have yet to refute this.
Now lets examine your sources. First, note that they both state that life begins at fertilization. However this is not equivalent to saying that fertilization results in a distinct human being. Secondly, note that if you examine the statements carefully, they don't really justify their statements. They certainly utilize scientific descriptions of what happens to fertilization. But there's nothing overly convincing about those definitions themselves. What is left is an appeal to authority.
Rubbish, that is exactly what is taking place, the killing of a human being.
As again, how can you kill something that has not lived?
Whether you realize it or not that is exactly the argument you are making, that it is okay to kill some human beings (the unborn).
Not at all. Because I've denied that you can kill what hasn't lived or is alive. Because what is extinguished isn't a human being. You claim that I am dehumanizing human beings. Likewise, I claim that you are humanizing that which are clearly not human beings.
-->
@mustardness
#2560-- have NOT argued the religious aspect but basic logic and reason.Yes,1} your religious extremmist and a Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzee,
Demonstrate how and where I used a religious argument.
2} you have yet to use any rational, logical common sense,
Not true. I have used many rational arguments, none of which you have adequately refuted.
3} especially when try to use analogy of a pregnant womans bodily business only, to,...3a} ....."So, if I give my consent for you to kill my dependent offspring that is okay with you?"...
I pointed out the difference between the unborn and newborn is very minimal but if you want to make a distinction on the unborns size, its level of development, its environment, or its level of dependency then when others, such as those in a coma, do not meet the standard should they be killed too? A newborn is not as big as an adult, not as developed, not as independent. Those four points are the differences between the unborn and the newborn and we can make the same case that the newborn is not meet the same level as the adult either. But it is the reasons given on why it should be killed.
And what makes it any less human one minute before birth as to one minute after birth. You have blatantly suggested that until it takes its first gulp of air it is not a human being. What nonsense.
You have not once demonstrated scientifically that the unborn is not a human being from conception/fertilizer onward. Demonstrate this point before you give the license to kill it. I have quoted a number of times the findings of science regarding the unborn.
....3b} most "dependant offspring" breath in-out on their own, a fetus/baby does not breath at all, ergo,
That does not make it any less a human being than you are. You want to deny this human being the right to experience its first breath for you don't recognize it until it is born. This is pure nonsense on your part.
.....3c} you lack even the most basic rational, logical common sense argument.
Just claiming something does not make it so. Establish your point of view with science and reason. Demonstrate that it is not human until it takes its first breath because you think it is okay to kill it before it does this.
4} Do you understand any of the above? No? I didnt think because you emotional and intellectual level is not on par with any mature adults on Earth.
How does this address my arguments? It does not. If I insult you how have I addressed the argument?
The problem is that you do not realize how many logical fallacies you make with almost every statement you make.
For me to prove you wrong in your hasty generalization I would just have to show you many others who do not have the same emotional and intellectual level of maturity, and I would state with your own statements. They are filled with hate, discrimination, degradation, and devaluation of my character or position constantly.
In that last statement underlined I will demonstrate just a few of the categories of abuse and misuse of logic you used.
1. Red herring.
1. Red herring.
It is beside the point of the abortion debate my intellectual level of development. What should be addressed is the weak points of the argument itself.
2. Ad hominem/argumentum ad hominem
How does attacking me address my arguments? It doesn't. It just demonstrates disrespect while ignoring the argument. Do you really want to go down that road because I am quite capable of throwing insults and barbs at you also but it does not prove a position is more logical than another for it neglects to argue the position?
3. Hasty Generalization
You are making this a universal proposition by suggesting my level of development is not on par with any mature person on this earth.
Image --> mirror; mirror --> image!
4. Fallacy of division
You are implying that one argument I make makes me on whole the least maturity person on this earth.
I list goes on and on and I'm not going to identify every time how fallacious your statements can be.
5} religous extremism and Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanizm blocks you from truth - facts and rational logical common sense processing Sad :--(
What religious argument have I made regarding abortion except to challenge how you know something is moral without an absolute, objective, universal, unchanging reference point?
Please demonstrate the posts you are referring to.
So once again, please take a hike from me until you become a mature adult who can even the beginnings of access to rational, logical, common sense.
I'm not following a clear reasoning or train of thought in your wording - "even the beginnings"? Do you mean "who can even begin...?"
-->
@mustardness
#262 Big deal. Why can't I use my body to kill others because I feel they are inconvenient?PGA2 is likened to energy black hole as they keep sucking in energy and give nothing back of any significant relevance.
Saying something is so does nothing to prove it is so. Assertions, assertions, assertions!
The fetus/baby is not and "other". It is an organism of the mother and untill PGA2 can accept this truth - fact he will keep sucking energy out of others using the same lack of rational, logical common sense.
The unborn is an individual human being with its own growing body, internal organs, developing brain and appendages, distinctly separate from the woman's. Its very nature determines what it will grow into. You are you from the moment to start to the moment you die. You can't change into some other kind of being because it is not in your nature. Just because you require nurturing from your mother during your development does not change what you are any more than your environment outside the womb changes who you are.
1} Other = independent/individual offspring that is viable and,
The newborn is not independent either. It still needs the care of others as the unborn in the woman's womb should, after all, it is her very own offspring.
2} NOT inside a woman where it is reciving all nutirents from directly from womans body.
Rubbish. You sustain nutrient from your environment also. Should society be able to kill you because of this (it would be a genocide to apply it to every human being)?
One minute before birth (i.e., inside the womb) versus one minute outside the womb (i.e., birth) does not change in any way what the being is, so should we be able to kill human beings because of what they are - human (Okay, now someone decides you are first. to die. How do you like that?)?
PGA2 is basically a immature adult acting like a two year that keeps saying no to rational, logical common sense.
Others can see right through your mascarade of words with no backing, just assertion after assertion.
A two year cannot make a distinction between this and/or that because they lack the emotion and intellectual experience.
Thus, should we be able to kill it like the woman decides to kill the unborn?
A two year old is likened to a infant and they are all ego, its all about me, and all else is excluded including rational, logical common sense.PGA2 is all about ego based mind-games the suck energy from people not give energy to people.
It is about showing how thin your basis for argumentation on the subject is for you can't reasonably and logically back what you state.
-->
@dustryder
Your thoughts are seriously muddled and reveal how little you know of the subject. First, the genetic material comes from two different human beings, combining to form a new and distinct human being at FERTILIZATION. It can be nothing other than a human being. When two human beings mate and the egg is fertilized you can't get a dog or chimpanzee. What starts to form at fertilization is a distinct individual human being, period.Show me one case that shows two human beings mating with the result of anything other than a human being - go ahead.Who's making assertions now?
How am I asserting by asking you to prove your assertion?
Medical science explains that with fertilization a new and distinct human being starts to exist. It can't be any other kind of being because its parents are human beings.
I think I've made a reasonable case as to why certain prenatal stages are not/should not be considered human beings. Meanwhile, you keep asserting that what immediately comes from fertilization is immediately a human being. Is this something you can actually justify?
You've asserted so much but you have given no scientific or factual evidence that this is the case. You seem to think that just because you can state something without facts to support your claim that this then makes it so.
I have given medical quotes from embryological and medical texts that this is indeed the case, the fact, that something new, living and human separate from the woman begins to grow. Until you can give factual or logical evidence to the contrary your case is non-existence as anything other than wishful thinking.
Not only have I given you factual evidence that can be seen under a microscope, but I have also given you logical arguments that when something new begins to grow then that something is human and can be nothing but human if its donors are human.
To be clear, I don't have an issue calling what comes from fertilization a developmental stage of Homo Sapien. I have an issue calling it a human being. Do you understand the distinction I've made here and previously?
You are trying to blur or cloak and obscure what the thing that comes from fertilization is as not quite human by your labeling.
"Developing stage?"
What is developing? It is a human being that is developing.
All human beings in existence today are classed by this term - Homo Sapien. How does that make it any less a human being?
Homo Sapien -
-->
@dustryder
Rubbish. Science says it is alive and a unique and individual human being at conception/fertilization.Citation needed.
“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”
Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.
“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.
Zygote is a term for a newly conceived life after the sperm and the egg cell meet but before the embryo begins to divide.
From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
The list of medical texts goes on and on describing the process of fertilization as the BEGINNING of a NEW and DISTINCT HUMAN BEING. I have used many other sites that state the same thing.
Now produce your citations.
-->
@dustryder
Then killing the unborn results in the killing of a human being and most scientists, embryologists, do not dispute this obvious fact.Likewise, citation needed
- The First International Conference on Abortion held in Washington, D.C., October 1967 brought together authorities from around the world in the fields of medicine, legal ethics and the social sciences. Here is an extract from the official report: “The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of the sperm and the egg and the birth of an infant at which point we could say that this is not human life.”
- A proclamation opposing abortion, signed by 1,300 physicians in France and written by Nobel Prize winner, Professor Jerome Lejeune, was circulated among doctors in Britain. The text reads: “From the moment of fertilization the conceptus is alive and it is essentially distinct from the mother who provides nourishment and protection. From fertilization to old age, it is the same living being that grows develops, matures and dies – for these reasons the termination of pregnancy to solve economic or eugenic problems is directly in contradiction to the role of the doctor.”
- Dr. Bernard Nathanson formerly known as “The Abortion King of America” headed a clinic in the early 1970s which performed 60,000 abortions. He is now probably the greatest defender of the unborn baby in the scientific world. At the Joe Borowski trial in May,1983, he told the court that he became pro-life when increased study of fetology convinced him that the fetus is a human being. Dr. Nathanson also testified that he was raised in the Jewish faith but is now an atheist (He recently converted to Catholicism). Becoming pro-life, he said, was “a secular decision.”
To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.
“Every human embryologist in the world knows that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. It is not belief. It is scientific fact.”
Dr. Ward Kischer, Human Embryologist, University of Arizona
Patrick A Trueman, who helped prepare a 1975 brief before the Illinois Supreme Court on the unborn child:
“We introduced an affidavit from a professor of medicine detailing 19 textbooks on the subject of embryology used in medical schools today which universally agreed that human life begins at conception… Those textbooks agree that is when human life begins. The court didn’t strike that down – the court couldn’t strike that down because there was a logical/biological basis for that law.”Television program transcript “Abortion” Chattanooga, Tennessee, the John Ankerberg Evangelistic Association, 1982, 2 in John Ankerberg The Facts on Abortion (Smashwords Edition 2011)
Bernard J Ficarra, M.D, who wrote the book Abortion Analyzed, writes about how life begins at conception: “A composite, unified, sacrosanct, unanimity of thought as to when life begins can be determined by studying embryologic physiology.
Now you cite your sources.
-->
@dustryder
You are creating an artificial distinction. When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being. Prove otherwise, don't assert it.It's hardly artificial. Differentiating terms is obviously a clear necessity. Because you still seem to be confusing human being and Homo Sapien. What makes a human being a human being, and how do we differentiate that from Homo Sapien? My answer is experiences and you have yet to refute this.
Different stages of growth do not change what it naturally is - a human being no further than describing the changes or stages of a woman's reproductive development makes the female any less human.
There is no distinction between a human being and a Homo Sapien. A homo sapian is a human being.
Now lets examine your sources. First, note that they both state that life begins at fertilization. However this is not equivalent to saying that fertilization results in a distinct human being. Secondly, note that if you examine the statements carefully, they don't really justify their statements. They certainly utilize scientific descriptions of what happens to fertilization. But there's nothing overly convincing about those definitions themselves. What is left is an appeal to authority.
If you scroll down the webpage you will see that they all mean the same thing in what is developing, many quotes even giving those exact words.
“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
What are "each of us?" We are human beings, and thus the author is calling the unborn, from conception onward, a human being.
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
In this case, the author is stating the beginning of us as humans start at fertilization.
Do you want me to cite more?
Rubbish, that is exactly what is taking place, the killing of a human being.As again, how can you kill something that has not lived?
It is LIVING. Most of the quotes state as much. Your argument is mute.
Whether you realize it or not that is exactly the argument you are making, that it is okay to kill some human beings (the unborn).Not at all. Because I've denied that you can kill what hasn't lived or is alive. Because what is extinguished isn't a human being. You claim that I am dehumanizing human beings. Likewise, I claim that you are humanizing that which are clearly not human beings.
IT IS LIVING. YOU ARE KILLING A LIVING DEVELOPING HUMAN BEING.
“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)
***
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
***
“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. 1974 Pages 17 and 23.You don't want to admit you are wrong so you continually produce these counterfeit or spurious arguments and ignore the facts before you.
-->
@PGA2.0
How am I asserting by asking you to prove your assertion?
Haven't you been constantly asserting that the resultant organism at fertilization is a human being?
Medical science explains that with fertilization a new and distinct human being starts to exist. It can't be any other kind of being because its parents are human beings.
Lets take this bit by bit. Using the phrase medical science is obviously an appeal to authority and more is obviously needed to defend this view. Are you claiming that there's a consensus among medical scientists that your statement is correct? What are the specific characteristics of a "human being" that allows for this consensus that a newly fertilized embryo is indeed a "human being"? Do you understand where I'm coming from? You keep asserting that science says this and science says that, but ultimately it has very little substance to it. If you wish to argue from this point, you need to bring more to the table.
For example, in your previous post you gave this as evidence
Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).
What does this tell me? It says that a zygote is a highly specialized, totipotent cell which is formed from the male and female gametes. The writer then asserts that this zygote is the beginning of a new human being.
What is this assertion based off? Where is the reasoning? What is so specific about a specialized totipotent cell that allows it to be called a human life?
It doesn't tell me anything! It's just opinionated drivel.
You've asserted so much but you have given no scientific or factual evidence that this is the case. You seem to think that just because you can state something without facts to support your claim that this then makes it so.
That's because my argument is philosophical reasoning. You're trying to derail it by abusing scientific definitions. But as we found out as toddlers, square blocks do not fit into star-shaped holes.
I have given medical quotes from embryological and medical texts that this is indeed the case, the fact, that something new, living and human separate from the woman begins to grow. Until you can give factual or logical evidence to the contrary your case is non-existence as anything other than wishful thinking.
Did you even read what your quotes said?
Steven Ertelt says that because the NIH's definition of "fertilization" states that the development of a new individual is initiated (which is perfectly true), this means that life begins at fertilization. This is his own interpretation. Clearly, the initiation of the development of a new individual does not mean that the initiation is life itself. Moreover neither Ertelt or LifeNews are reputable scientific sources and both are heavily biased towards pro-life views.
Now, I've already written about the usefulness of your second quote so if you put it all together, what have you actually proven? Basically nothing right? There's little scientific basis beyond the fundamental facts upon the creation of a zygote. It's just assertions upon assertions.
Not only have I given you factual evidence that can be seen under a microscope, but I have also given you logical arguments that when something new begins to grow then that something is human and can be nothing but human if its donors are human.
And seeds are trees? Is your house made of seeds? When I eat seeds am I also eating trees?
What do you mean by human?
You are trying to blur or cloak and obscure what the thing that comes from fertilization is as not quite human by your labeling."Developing stage?"What is developing? It is a human being that is developing.
No, it's a prenatal form of homo sapiens. If you mix the terms, you are going to further confuse yourself.
All human beings in existence today are classed by this term - Homo Sapien. How does that make it any less a human being?
All human beings are homo sapiens. However not all homo sapiens are human beings.
-->
@PGA2.0
Different stages of growth do not change what it naturally is - a human being no further than describing the changes or stages of a woman's reproductive development makes the female any less human.There is no distinction between a human being and a Homo Sapien. A homo sapian is a human being.
But of course there's a difference.
Homo sapiens just indicates membership of the homo sapiens species. A human being indicates a member of homo sapiens that has attained personhood
If you scroll down the webpage you will see that they all mean the same thing in what is developing, many quotes even giving those exact words.What are "each of us?" We are human beings, and thus the author is calling the unborn, from conception onward, a human being.
But we are not the beginnings of human beings, which the author writes.
In this case, the author is stating the beginning of us as humans start at fertilization.
The start of the development of a human being at fertilization is not equivalent to being a human being at fertilization. Much like how I cannot stick a wooden post in the ground and exclaim I've made a house
It is LIVING. Most of the quotes state as much. Your argument is mute.
To be living is not equivalent to have lived. A senile man is not equivalent to an embryo. Both are living, only one has lived. Clear difference right?
IT IS LIVING. YOU ARE KILLING A LIVING DEVELOPING HUMAN BEING.
But it hasn't lived. It hasn't attained personhood and it isn't a human being.
You don't want to admit you are wrong so you continually produce these counterfeit or spurious arguments and ignore the facts before you.
The facts are these. I've argued that prenatal-forms of homo sapiens are not human beings. They have not had any experiences, nor have they provided any experiences, which I've argued are required to be described as a human being and not a husk in the shape and form of one. They are not people and they have not attained personhood. You haven't made any arguments against this. Instead, you have brought up cherry-picked testimonies from scientists that have also not made any arguments against this.
Are you actually going to say anything relevant against my argument?
-->
@PGA2.0
Whatever innocent human life God takes He restores.
Prove it or admit you are lying.
What happens to the souls of the aborted.
-->
@PGA2.0
You do not apply an equal standard to all human beings but discriminate and demonize the most helpless.
You do not apply an equal standard to all human beings but discriminate and demonize all women.
-->
@PGA2.0
Proven false billions of times a day.When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being.