Why Can't the Pro-Abortionists be Honest?

[PostmodernProphet]

BTW, since you just accused me of lying...quote which part was a lie and post the proof of it.

the post where you said you had answered the question......I can't post the proof because there's no post to point to.....

[Missileman]

This is absolutely hilarious. You did the same thing minutemaid did, first claim that enforcing a law prohibiting abortion cannot be done, then go on to inform us of which abortions you think should be illegal (even though we can't enforce the law you propose).

At least you two are both consistently inconsistent.

If you can't discern the difference between forcing a woman to carry to term and restricting doctors to first trimester abortions, you're more of an imbecile than I ever gave you credit for.

[PostmodernProphet]

lol.....17 pages and Miss still doesn't have the balls to answer a single one of my posts....

[LuvRPgrl]

If you can't discern the difference between forcing a woman to carry to term and restricting doctors to first trimester abortions, you're more of an imbecile than I ever gave you credit for.



U R a joke, & I'm not the only one here who thinks so. I have rec'd quite a few PM about you, guess some people don't like making personal insults in public forums. But lets see, the following terms have been used, "inconsistent, idiot, liar, dodger, won't answer questions, did I mention liar?, bullheaded idiot, stupid and stubborn";, and thats just a partial list.

Like the original question is asked, "why cant you pro abortionists be honest?"

[LuvRPgrl]

the post where you said you had answered the question......I can't post the proof because there's no post to point to.....

LET ME PLAY DEVILS ADVOCATE AND TAKE MM'S PLACE.

MM: The question has been answered and you won't answer mine. It is YOU who wont respond to my posts. I really need you to respond to the arguement about who posted what and where instead of actually having to deal with the real issue at hand cuz I dont have an answer, and any answer I give will contradict anything I have already stated.

It will be much easier for me to continue arguing and denying what I have already posted than to have to make more contradictory statements and have more posts of mine to argue about.
Now, answer the question,
signed MM

PMP, I tried to rep you on post 251 but can't. Anyways,,,,LOL to that one !!!

[Missileman]

U R a joke, & I'm not the only one here who thinks so. I have rec'd quite a few PM about you, guess some people don't like making personal insults in public forums. But lets see, the following terms have been used, "inconsistent, idiot, liar, dodger, won't answer questions, did I mention liar?, bullheaded idiot, stupid and stubborn";, and thats just a partial list.

Like the original question is asked, "why cant you pro abortionists be honest?"

Your the one who can't seem to use the quote function when you accuse me of saying something. You have to resort to (paraphrasing). NEWSFLASH...you suck at it.

To clarify further the difference between the supposed contradiction you accuse me of, one statement clearly applies to a woman who might seek an abortion, the other applies to doctors who perform them. As I said, if you can't see the difference and that they aren't contradictory, then you're a moron.

[Missileman]

LET ME PLAY DEVILS ADVOCATE AND TAKE MM'S PLACE.

MM: The question has been answered and you won't answer mine. It is YOU who wont respond to my posts. I really need you to respond to the arguement about who posted what and where instead of actually having to deal with the real issue at hand cuz I dont have an answer, and any answer I give will contradict anything I have already stated.

It will be much easier for me to continue arguing and denying what I have already posted than to have to make more contradictory statements and have more posts of mine to argue about.
Now, answer the question,
signed MM

PMP, I tried to rep you on post 251 but can't. Anyways,,,,LOL to that one !!!

I noticed you didn't point to any lie you accused me of in post #244...couldn't find one could you. Why not man up and admit it?

[LuvRPgrl]

I noticed you didn't point to any lie you accused me of in post #244...couldn't find one could you. Why not man up and admit it?

and we go round in circles, like a bird up in the sky..... (with accompanying music)

No matter how much proof you provide, some will never admit it, some beieve Elvis is still alive, some that 9/11 was a conspiracy by our gov't, and others that the earth is flat, some that we staged the moon landing in hollywood.

[Missileman]

and we go round in circles, like a bird up in the sky..... (with accompanying music)

No matter how much proof you provide, some will never admit it, some beieve Elvis is still alive, some that 9/11 was a conspiracy by our gov't, and others that the earth is flat, some that we staged the moon landing in hollywood.

I figured you for a eunuch...I figured correctly.

[J.T]

When does that child become imbued.

Huh?
imbued

- 2 dictionary results im·bue

  <noscript>http://www.debatepolicy.com/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7 (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/I00/I0053300)</noscript> [im-byoo] http://www.debatepolicy.com/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7 (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html)
–verb (used with object), -bued, -bu·ing. 1.to impregnate or inspire, as with feelings, opinions, etc.: The new political leader was imbued with the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.

2.to saturate or impregnate with moisture, color, etc.

3.to imbrue.










I never intended to

So you now have abandoned your entire premise? That was fast.

[J.T]

Actually, I was asked on several occasions why I draw the line at the first trimester and I did answer it quite clearly why I draw the line there.



And yet nobody else ever saw this...?

So... what changes?

[Missileman]

And yet nobody else ever saw this...?

So... what changes?

I'll answer it exactly the same way I did before...I draw the line at the first trimester based on the extent of development. I've never claimed, nor would I, that there's some kind of neon sign that goes off at the beginning of the 2nd trimester.

[LuvRPgrl]

I figured you for a eunuch...I figured correctly.

and we go round in circles, like a bird up in the sky..... (with accompanying music)

Do you have any idea what percentage of your posts in this thread were actually about the topic, vs. your claiming you "already answered" over and over?

Hahahahhahahahha, I laugh, cuz you are a joke. OH MY!
You called me a eunuch,,,ouchhhhhh, hurts so ooooo much, waaaaaaa :)

[logroller]

Similar to fetuses dying in utero, there's a natural process that, IMO, we shouldn't extra-heroically try to overcome.

A common example of abortion that is often mentioned, where the mother's life is in jeopardy.
What is it about a mother's health that somehow makes abortion more justified? Isn't the natural process interfered with?

[revelarts]

A common example of abortion that is often mentioned, where the mother's life is in jeopardy.
What is it about a mother's health that somehow makes abortion more justified? Isn't the natural process interfered with?

If there is a real chance that the mother may die then there's a legitimate choice she must make. It's a life for life decision. You don't ask life guards to kill themselves while trying to save a drowning victim, but some may decide too.

[fj1200]

So you now have abandoned your entire premise? That was fast.

Nope, you suck at comprehension apparently. I never intended to prove the existence of the soul as that is virtually impossible. If you can't understand the premise then you are unable to become imbued ;) with understanding.

[revelarts]

Interesting take on the outcomes when choice trumps nature.

The War Against Girls (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576361691165631366.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read)


The War Against Girls
In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad. Between 104 and 106 is the normal range, and that's as far as the natural window goes. Any other number is the result of unnatural events.

Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China's and India's populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107. But the imbalance is not only in Asia. Azerbaijan stands at 115, Georgia at 118 and Armenia at 120.

What is causing the skewed ratio: abortion. If the male number in the sex ratio is above 106, it means that couples are having abortions when they find out the mother is carrying a girl. By Ms. Hvistendahl's counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence.
...
Ms. Hvistendahl argues that such imbalances are portents of Very Bad Things to come. "Historically, societies in which men substantially outnumber women are not nice places to live," she writes. "Often they are unstable. Sometimes they are violent." As examples she notes that high sex ratios were at play as far back as the fourth century B.C. in Athens—a particularly bloody time in Greek history—and during China's Taiping Rebellion in the mid-19th century. (Both eras featured widespread female infanticide.)
...
This is where choice leads. This is where choice has already led. Ms. Hvistendahl may wish the matter otherwise, but there are only two alternatives: Restrict abortion or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it.




Just want to reiterate a point FJ made that got skimmed over a bit..


160 Million and Counting (women sex selected for abortion)
.

...Twenty years later, the number of “missing” women has risen to more than 160 million, and a journalist named Mara Hvistendahl has given us a much more complete picture of what’s happened. Her book is called “Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men.” As the title suggests, Hvistendahl argues that most of the missing females weren’t victims of neglect. They were selected out of existence, by ultrasound technology and second-trimester abortion.

The spread of sex-selective abortion is often framed as a simple case of modern science being abused by patriarchal, misogynistic cultures. Patriarchy is certainly part of the story, but as Hvistendahl points out, the reality is more complicated — and more depressing.

Thus far, female empowerment often seems to have led to more sex selection, not less. In many communities, she writes, “women use their increased autonomy to select for sons,” because male offspring bring higher social status. In countries like India, sex selection began in “the urban, well-educated stratum of society,” before spreading down the income ladder.

Moreover, Western governments and philanthropic institutions have their fingerprints all over the story of the world’s missing women.

From the 1950s onward, Asian countries that legalized and then promoted abortion did so with vocal, deep-pocketed American support. Digging into the archives of groups like the Rockefeller Foundation and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Hvistendahl depicts an unlikely alliance between Republican cold warriors worried that population growth would fuel the spread of Communism and left-wing scientists and activists who believed that abortion was necessary for both “the needs of women” and “the future prosperity — or maybe survival — of mankind,” as the Planned Parenthood federation’s medical director put it in 1976.

For many of these antipopulation campaigners, sex selection was a feature rather than a bug, since a society with fewer girls was guaranteed to reproduce itself at lower rates....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/opinion/27douthat.html?_r=1

get them to commit Voluntary Euthanasia ,
http://www.jesseshappyhour.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/dr-evil.jpg

[J.T]

I'll answer it exactly the same way I did before...I draw the line at the first trimester


based on the extent of development.
Why? What changes that makes killing you in cold blood for my own convenience go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?


I've never claimed, nor would I, that there's some kind of neon sign that goes off at the beginning of the 2nd trimester.


So you can't name anything that changes at the end of the first trimester? You're admitting your entire position is bullshit and that you are wholly incapable of defending it?

[J.T]

What is it about a mother's health that somehow makes abortion more justified?
Doctors are morally and ethically obliged to protect and preserve life ands to limit suffering. If two patients are dying and you have the power to save one of them, then you have a moral duty to preserve life in accordance with the Hippocratic oath. To do nothing and allow two patients to die when one can be saved and his/her welfare preserved is a violation of one's oath and is indefensible.

[J.T]

I never intended to prove the existence of the soul
Then you've abandoned your entire premise.

That was fast.

[LuvRPgrl]

I support mandatory blood testing IF, there is probable cause, i.e. erratic driving, smell of alcohol, failed sobriety test, and the suspect then refuses to comply with a breath test to establish proof of DUI. Your contention that a sober person is going to meet all those requirements is PURE BULLSHIT FANTASY! A sober person will comply with the breath test.



.
A SOBER PERSON WILL COMPLY WITH THE BREATH TEST? jThat is not 100% accurate.
If it were, then by simple deduction, we can conclude that all those tested are drunk the cops will have a 100% failed on the test, rate.
Only problem is that in the entire history of EVERYTHING, never has a test been conducted to find guilty people that had a 100% sucess/fail rate.

\Plus, your pov says "DO what we are demanding", even though you have a constitutional right to NOT do it, "or you are guilty.

[Missileman]

Why? What changes that makes killing you in cold blood for my own convenience go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?




So you can't name anything that changes at the end of the first trimester? You're admitting your entire position is bullshit and that you are wholly incapable of defending it?

Not at all...my position is just as valid as yours, you just happen to disagree with it. Your insistence that there must be some marker to signify the beginning of the 2nd trimester in order to draw a line at the first trimester is YOUR position...I'm not bound by it. I find your position that a zygote is a human being to be bullshit, it takes more than a few cells to comprise a human being.

[Missileman]

A SOBER PERSON WILL COMPLY WITH THE BREATH TEST? jThat is not 100% accurate.
If it were, then by simple deduction, we can conclude that all those tested are drunk the cops will have a 100% failed on the test, rate.
Only problem is that in the entire history of EVERYTHING, never has a test been conducted to find guilty people that had a 100% sucess/fail rate.

\Plus, your pov says "DO what we are demanding", even though you have a constitutional right to NOT do it, "or you are guilty.

The cops don't start with the breath test. They don't administer a breath test to everyone they pull over. FYI, a judge can order the same exact blood test, even if the person doesn't want one. Letting the cops get one in a timely manner, based on probable cause, will result in a more accurate assessment of the BAC of the drunk driver at the time of arrest. Your premise that a person has the constitutional right to refuse a blood test is WRONG!

[LuvRPgrl]

The cops don't start with the breath test. They don't administer a breath test to everyone they pull over. FYI, a judge can order the same exact blood test, even if the person doesn't want one. Letting the cops get one in a timely manner, based on probable cause, will result in a more accurate assessment of the BAC of the drunk driver at the time of arrest. Your premise that a person has the constitutional right to refuse a blood test is WRONG!

Unless there are clear indications that would cause the cops to suspect the driver of drunk driving, then yes, you have a constitutional right to refuse a blood test.

[Missileman]

Unless there are clear indications that would cause the cops to suspect the driver of drunk driving, then yes, you have a constitutional right to refuse a blood test.

What exactly other than that have you hallucinated we've been talking about.

[LuvRPgrl]

This statement makes you appear to be even less of a human being than you already allege to be.
What you are saying is that any condition that makes a woman pregnant needs to be accepted without challenge. You are pregnant, your tough luck. Live with it.

The religious extremists that I know of care ZERO about what happens to a baby after it is born. Their only demand is that it is carried to term and delivered.
If the newborn is then thrown in a dumpster or left to rot in a landfill, they could care less. If the child is abused and beaten to death, they don't care.
Death after birth is always preferable to death in the womb. Right?
Such sick people you are.

REALLY?? U know people like that? I dont, not one. I feel sorry for you.

[LuvRPgrl]

.0

To clarify further the difference between the supposed contradiction you accuse me of, one statement clearly applies to a woman who might seek an abortion, the other applies to doctors who perform them. As I said, if you can't see the difference and that they aren't contradictory, then you're a moron.

Funny, I cant find a single post where you state anything about how your posistion of making an abortion illegal would be enforced.
HOwever, you did make a post stating circumstances under which you would be willing to force a mother to birth, when Revelerts asked you if you agree with him.

Now show me where any of us said we support strapping women down and ......

If you prevent doctors from performing abortions, then you are FORCING women into one of two choices, backalley abortion or go full term. So, you are the only one here who said they support forcing a woman to full term.

Bringing up "strapping women down" is completely irrelevant, not only did no one say any such thing, but nobody here even would consider it.

[LuvRPgrl]

Before any argument can take place, we'll have to define human being.
AND THEN YOU LAUNCH INTO A FULL SCALE ARGUEMENT WITHOUT EVER DEFINING HUMAN BEING, OR EVEN ATTEMPTING TO. To name something that isnt human is not attempting to define what it is.

[fj1200]

Then you've abandoned your entire premise.

That was fast.

Nope, your comprehension still sucks.

[Missileman]

.0


Funny, I cant find a single post where you state anything about how your posistion of making an abortion illegal would be enforced.

You fucking idiot...it would be enforced in the same manner as the total ban on abortion that you advocate.



HOwever, you did make a post stating circumstances under which you would be willing to force a mother to birth, when Revelerts asked you if you agree with him.

Use the quote function. You still suck at (paraphrasing).



Now show me where any of us said we support strapping women down and ......


If you prevent doctors from performing abortions, then you are FORCING women into one of two choices, backalley abortion or go full term. So, you are the only one here who said they support forcing a woman to full term.

Bringing up "strapping women down" is completely irrelevant, not only did no one say any such thing, but nobody here even would consider it.

Let me get this straight...YOU haven't been arguing against legal abortion for the entire thread? Really?

[Missileman]

AND THEN YOU LAUNCH INTO A FULL SCALE ARGUEMENT WITHOUT EVER DEFINING HUMAN BEING, OR EVEN ATTEMPTING TO. To name something that isnt human is not attempting to define what it is.

JT threw up dictionary definitions of human being. When I attempted to elicit the things that are required to actually have a human being, you and JT turned into a couple of quahogs. I'm willing to reopen that debate whenever you are.

[LuvRPgrl]

You fucking idiot...it would be enforced in the same manner as the total ban on abortion that you advocate.




Use the quote function. You still suck at (paraphrasing).

.

.




Let me get this straight...YOU haven't been arguing against legal abortion for the entire thread? Really?

and yet still you havent answered any of the questions

MM states: JT threw up dictionary definitions of human being. When I attempted to elicit the things that are required to actually have a human being, you and JT turned into a couple of quahogs. I'm willing to reopen that debate whenever you are

Explaining why you did what you earlier said COULDN'T be done, doesn't change the fact that you launched into a debate without defining "human being", which U claimed would HAVE to be done before arguing the topic.

[LuvRPgrl]

JT threw up dictionary definitions of human being. When I attempted to elicit the things that are required to actually have a human being, you and JT turned into a couple of quahogs. I'm willing to reopen that debate whenever you are.

Well now, this is interesting. You are willing to re open the conversation which you said HAS to be answered before the debate can go on.

So, R U defining what a human being is, and when that act occurs , is very important or not?

[Missileman]

Well now, this is interesting. You are willing to re open the conversation which you said HAS to be answered before the debate can go on.

So, R U defining what a human being is, and when that act occurs , is very important or not?

Just for grins, let's give this a try. I say it takes more than a clump of cells to comprise a human being. For instance, IMO, you can't have a human being without a functional brain. Agree or disagree, and why?

[revelarts]

Just for grins, let's give this a try. I say it takes more than a clump of cells to comprise a human being. For instance, IMO, you can't have a human being without a functional brain. Agree or disagree, and why?

And I mention this before "functional" is in the eye of the beholder. who draws the line forthat one?

But to directly answer your question. That particular clump of cells in that moment is in the process of growing a brain, heart, arms, legs all of the parts that make a human. It is at that moment a living growing human being.
The only thing that will stop it's growth is some process of nature or a another human being killing it.

[Missileman]

And I mention this before "functional" is in the eye of the beholder. who draws the line forthat one?

I don't think it would be too dificult to make a list of normal brain functions...one that we could agree on even.



But to directly answer your question. That particular clump of cells in that moment is in the process of growing a brain, heart, arms, legs all of the parts that make a human. It is at that moment a living growing human being.

I disagree, and I think with a couple of questions, you will see where I'm coming from. Assuming with the removal of whatever part we're talking about, what's left functions normally: If you start with a complete human being, and remove his or her head, is everything left from the neck down still a human being? What if you remove everything from the neck down, is the head still a human being? What if you remove everything except a pair of skin cells? What if you take away everything but an eye?

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't think it would be too dificult to make a list of normal brain functions...one that we could agree on even.




I disagree, and I think with a couple of questions, you will see where I'm coming from. Assuming with the removal of whatever part we're talking about, what's left functions normally: If you start with a complete human being, and remove his or her head, is everything left from the neck down still a human being? What if you remove everything from the neck down, is the head still a human being? What if you remove everything except a pair of skin cells? What if you take away everything but an eye?

That is irrelevant, especially if you are talking about a "brain". A brain, and other things necessary to carry out all the functions needed by a fully grown human is different than those for a one month old baby, or the two week old fetus.
A one month old baby can live fine on only mothers milk, not a full grown man. (altough I mind not mind trying)

[LuvRPgrl]

And I mention this before "functional" is in the eye of the beholder. who draws the line forthat one?

But to directly answer your question. That particular clump of cells in that moment is in the process of growing a brain, heart, arms, legs all of the parts that make a human. It is at that moment a living growing human being.
The only thing that will stop it's growth is some process of nature or a another human being killing it.

Hey Rev, you might like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization

Human fertilization is the union of a human egg and sperm, usually occurring in the ampulla of the uterine tube. The result of this union is the production of a new individual of the human species (homo sapiens), complete with a unique set of the 23 pairs of chromosomes that genetically specify a human organism, the sperm and the egg each providing 23, for a total of 46 chromosomes. It is also the initiation of prenatal development. Scientists discovered the dynamics of human fertilization in the nineteenth century.[1]

As the title of the thread states, why cant they be honest. If anti life, pro abortionists were really after truth, it would be so obvious that at the moment of conception a virtual miracle has occured. Everything, EVERYTHING necessary for a human being to exist is there.
The only denial will come from those who DONT WANT to believe it, for varioius reasons, and they will squirm around coming up with all kinds of things to deny it.

The number of things MM brought up was considerable. First he mentioned brain, then first trimester, then he jumped to fetal heartbeat, Frankly, Im not sure what he believes, but I do know that JT has it right, these guys cant be honest with themselves.

[LuvRPgrl]

Just for grins, let's give this a try. I say it takes more than a clump of cells to comprise a human being. For instance, IMO, you can't have a human being without a functional brain. Agree or disagree, and why?

How about this for grins.

It is a clump of cells?? Ok, it is living, so what species does it belong to?
It has to be some species if its alive.

IM GOING TO ANSWER THIS FOR YOU, CUZ WHENEVER CONFRONTED WITH A QUESTION THAT , IF ANSWERED HONESTLY, WILL EXPOSE THE PRO ABORTIONISTS ARGUEMENT AS FALSE, THEN THE PRO ABORTIONISTS WONT ANSWER IT DIRECTLY.

ANSWER,: human, it is a human organism, there is no such thing as a "partial" human organism. It either is, or it isnt', as they say, there is no such thing as "kiinda" being pregnant,
so therefore, there is no such thing as being "kinda" human.

It either is or it isnt. There is nothing in nature that is "kiinda" any species.

Is it alilve? OF course, its growing.

Is it an individual, ? (not just part of the mom_) that one is soooo three weeks ago. Of course its an individual. It has a different DNA than the mother, so it cant be a part of her, plus it has part of the male in it, so what part of a man, other than sperm on an egg, can I put in a womans body, anywhere, and it will be a part of its growth? NONE.

Its an individual organism, human, growing and living.

It does have some sort of a
"brain" in that something inside of it is dictating what it is to do. After all, at some point, some of the cells have to start changing and becoming individual parts of the body. How do they "know" to do this? There is some form of intelligence telling it. Its not the mom.

It may not be the brain you want to define, cuz then you can claim it isnt fully human.
The extent of complexity of a "brain" needed to keep a one day old fetus alive and growing is not anything near the complexity required of one to keep a fully grown human alive. Hence, its "brain" doesnt need to meet the standard of a definition of a full grown brain.

Lastly, its an organism, if its not fully human, then the part that isnt human, what is it? Is it part dog, cat? No, its fully human.

[LuvRPgrl]

As to the when life begins questions, most secularist don't want to touch (or disregard) the "soul" issue.
But when it comes to the scientific and cultural issue most folks want to haggle.
In the haggling most honest people will say, based on their viewpoint there's room for debate.
my question is at that point is,

Why not give the fetus the benefit of the doubt?

If there is ANY question as to when life begins why not ASSUME that it could start at conception?
And Give them the full protection of the law.

It would seem to me the scientifically and "modern western culturally", the best and right thing to do.

The following is very interesting. It comes from a site that promotes abortion and morning after pill, so they cant be accused of being "pro life biased".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm



13 or 14 days after conception: A "primitive streak" appears. It will later develop into the fetus' central nervous system. This is the point at which spontaneous division of the blastocyst -- an event that sometimes generates identical twins -- is not longer possible. The pre-embryo is now referred to as an embryo. It is a very small cluster of undifferentiated cells at this stage of development.


3 weeks: The embryo is now about 1/12" long, the size of a pencil point. It most closely resembles a worm - long and thin and with a segmented end. Its heart begins to beat about 18 to 21 days after conception.

THIS information provides us with a MINIMUM starting point regardless of your defintion orf life. It provides the four criteria, and at minimum establishes a time,occurance that establishes a brain and heart beat. This minimum standard has continually been moving closer and closer to conecption,

This threshold, when more research is accomplished, most certainly will continue to move the MINIMUM threshold closer to the point of conception.

[Missileman]

ANSWER,: human, it is a human organism, there is no such thing as a "partial" human organism. It either is, or it isnt', as they say, there is no such thing as "kiinda" being pregnant,
so therefore, there is no such thing as being "kinda" human.


A totally brain dead body on life support is a human organism, it is no longer a human being. A human skin cell is human life, it is not a human being.

I noticed you didn't actually provide answers to the questions I posed. We both know why.

[Missileman]

The following is very interesting. It comes from a site that promotes abortion and morning after pill, so they cant be accused of being "pro life biased".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm



13 or 14 days after conception: A "primitive streak" appears. It will later develop into the fetus' central nervous system. This is the point at which spontaneous division of the blastocyst -- an event that sometimes generates identical twins -- is not longer possible. The pre-embryo is now referred to as an embryo. It is a very small cluster of undifferentiated cells at this stage of development.


3 weeks: The embryo is now about 1/12" long, the size of a pencil point. It most closely resembles a worm - long and thin and with a segmented end. Its heart begins to beat about 18 to 21 days after conception.

THIS information provides us with a MINIMUM starting point regardless of your defintion orf life. It provides the four criteria, and at minimum establishes a time,occurance that establishes a brain and heart beat. This minimum standard has continually been moving closer and closer to conecption,

This threshold, when more research is accomplished, most certainly will continue to move the MINIMUM threshold closer to the point of conception.

A minimum starting point of what?

[Missileman]

It does have some sort of a
"brain" in that something inside of it is dictating what it is to do. After all, at some point, some of the cells have to start changing and becoming individual parts of the body. How do they "know" to do this? There is some form of intelligence telling it. Its not the mom.

ROFL...you were right...you'll never get a Nobel prize in science.

[LuvRPgrl]

A totally brain dead body on life support is a human organism, it is no longer a human being. A human skin cell is human life, it is not a human being.

I noticed you didn't actually provide answers to the questions I posed. We both know why.

YOU know NOTHING about my motives.

Human = human being = human life. Check the science online dictionary.
I dont think you can have a totally, TOTALLY brain dead person survive on life support.

A human skin cell is NOT human life. It is not a seperate organism. It is PART of a human life, that, and only that. You can call it human life if you want, but you are only deluding yourself, hence the title of the thread.

[Missileman]

YOU know NOTHING about my motives.

Human = human being = human life. Check the science online dictionary.
I dont think you can have a totally, TOTALLY brain dead person survive on life support.

A human skin cell is NOT human life. It is not a seperate organism. It is PART of a human life, that, and only that. You can call it human life if you want, but you are only deluding yourself, hence the title of the thread.

Hmmm...a human skin cell is alive and it's human. If it's not human life, what is it...canine?

[LuvRPgrl]

Hmmm...a human skin cell is alive and it's human. If it's not human life, what is it...canine?

I already told you, its part of a human life. Not human life in and of itself.

The fetus is human life, it is NOT a part of someone elses life/body. Hence, it is its own life, it is the complete organism, a skin cell isnt

[Missileman]

I already told you, its part of a human life. Not human life in and of itself.

The fetus is human life, it is NOT a part of someone elses life/body. Hence, it is its own life, it is the complete organism, a skin cell isnt

There is a difference between human life and A human life. The same is true between human life and a human being.

A fetus is NOT a complete organism, it is a developing one.

[Missileman]

I dont think you can have a totally, TOTALLY brain dead person survive on life support.


It happens every day in hospitals around the world. The termination of the effort is called "pulling the plug".

[PostmodernProphet]

Just for grins, let's give this a try. I say it takes more than a clump of cells to comprise a human being. For instance, IMO, you can't have a human being without a functional brain. Agree or disagree, and why?

which functions........a rather wide scope, which could result in a determination that no Democrat is a human being......

[LuvRPgrl]

There is a difference between human life and A human life. The same is true between human life and a human being.

A fetus is NOT a complete organism, it is a developing one.

wrong, wrong and wrong again. Dont you get tired of it""

Human life refers to the community of humans, or a human life, which is the same as a human beings life, since dogs cant have human life, it requires a human being to have human life in it.

a fetus is a human being, proved over and over.

[LuvRPgrl]

It happens every day in hospitals around the world. The termination of the effort is called "pulling the plug".

cuz you say so?

So, every single organ in the persons body is regulated by a machine>
Cuz if it isn't;, then the brain must still be carrying on some function, in which case, they are not TOtALLY brain dead.

[J.T]

Not at all...my position is just as valid as yours
You have no position. You've failed to put forth any argument at all because you're a damn coward.

Your insistence that there must be some marker to signify the beginning of the 2nd trimesterWhat? You're the idiot who brought up the second trimester. Also, the second trimester is marked by the end of the first , just as the start of Monday is marked by the end of Sunday. This is how calendars work, you fucking idiot.

in order to draw a line at the first trimester is YOUR position.Are you talking to yourself now?


..I'm not bound by it. It's your position. You've been repeating it ad nauseum for half this thread.

Perhaps, if you weren't such a dishonest sack of shit, you wouldn't have so much difficulty remembering what position you claimed on the last page..



I find your position that a zygote is a human being to be bullshitSorry, but blacks are human. Women, too. And also Jews and everyone else you don't like and might wish to kill. Biological reality isn't effected by whether or not you find the facts convenient.

Or maybe you can show when at what age you changed species and became human? I;m sure there's a nobel prize in it for you if you can prove such a thing.

[J.T]

What exactly other than that have you hallucinated we've been talking about.
The Fourth Amendment comes to mind.

[J.T]

If you prevent doctors from performing abortions, then you are FORCING women into one of two choices, backalley abortion or go full term.
Why can Democrats find a serial killer willing to kill their baby ans scrape out their uteri... but not a fucking condom?

Is the black market for latex condoms really that much harder to find than the underground baby-killing industry?
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs23/f/2007/311/e/9/_confused_by_sml_e.gif

[J.T]

Just for grins, let's give this a try. I say it takes more than a clump of cells to comprise a human being. For instance, IMO, you can't have a human being without a functional brain.

Well, that rules you out...

[J.T]

I don't think it would be too dificult to make a list of normal brain functions...one that we could agree on even.




I disagree, and I think with a couple of questions, you will see where I'm coming from. Assuming with the removal of whatever part we're talking about, what's left functions normally: If you start with a complete human being, and remove his or her head, is everything left from the neck down still a human being? What if you remove everything from the neck down, is the head still a human being? What if you remove everything except a pair of skin cells? What if you take away everything but an eye?


It's not that complicated

google: organism

[J.T]

A totally brain dead body on life support is a human organism, it is no longer a human being.
Yes, it is.

Maybe you should try reading a real biology book instead of whatever pro-abortionist propaganda you've been swallowing.

Serious question: why can't you people ever be honest?


A human skin cell is human life,

No, it's not.

Today's vocabulary lesson:
Orgenelle:
Organism:
Species:
human:
homo sapiens sapiens:
cell:
tissue:
organ system:
organ:
zygote:
abortus:
conceptus:
abortion:
miscarriage:
alive:



it is not a human being.


Yes, it is.

http://www.dummies.com/store/product/Biology-For-Dummies-2nd-Edition.productCd-0470598751.html

[J.T]

Hmmm...a human skin cell is alive and it's human. If it's not human life, what is it...canine?
Why can't the pro-abortion crowd ever be honest? (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31458-Why-Can-t-the-Pro-Abortionists-be-Honest)

[J.T]

A fetus is NOT a complete organism, it is a developing one.
Wait, wait, wait...

I get it... your daughter's not a human being until she's completed development...

so... until your little girl has tits, I can rape her and cut her head off and dump her in the swamp, right? I mean, she's still a developing organism- she won't be anywhere near full developed until her mid-twenties. Hence she's not a human being and has no rights at all.

Interesting argument... Casey Anthony should've tried that one in court.

[Missileman]

Well, that rules you out...

And you're too chickenshit to answer the question!

[Missileman]

It's not that complicated

google: organism

Indeed, why don't you?

[Missileman]

Why can't the pro-abortion crowd ever be honest? (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31458-Why-Can-t-the-Pro-Abortionists-be-Honest)

You're the liar claiming human cells aren't human life, you should practice what you preach.

[Missileman]

Wait, wait, wait...

I get it... your daughter's not a human being until she's completed development...

so... until your little girl has tits, I can rape her and cut her head off and dump her in the swamp, right? I mean, she's still a developing organism- she won't be anywhere near full developed until her mid-twenties. Hence she's not a human being and has no rights at all.

Interesting argument... Casey Anthony should've tried that one in court.

So you're a pedophile as well as a fucking idiot...thanks for the clarification.

[LuvRPgrl]

You're the liar claiming human cells aren't human life, you should practice what you preach.

When are you going to get it you idiot. Human cells are not human life, they are a PART of human life.

Human life = A human being, or group of human beings. NOT a small group of several skin cells.

when using the term "human life" it refers to the complete organism, not parts of it. If you talk about a part of it, then you would refer to it as a "part of a human life" not "it is a human life"

Sounds bizarre,,,,,Look at that finger, somebody must have had it cut off by the band saw, yea, that finger is a human life......WHAT ???????

NO, YOU WOULD SAY "THAT FINGER IS A PART OF THE GUY, THE HUMAN LIFE"...

Do you need any other basic english lessons?

Or do you wish to continue to trash the language and use it to keep yourself myoptic and using tiny little semantics to try and prove a small fetus of not very many cells is not a human organism. But guaranteed, you wont answer the question.

IF THE ORGANISM IS A CLUMP OF 500 CELLS, WHAT IS IT?
It has to be something, it has to be classified. All organisms need to be classified.
Is it a part of her body? No,
Is it an independent functioning growing individual organism, Yes, it meets all the scientific requirements to be an individual organism.

So, what do you classify it as? What classification of a living organism does it belong to? IT has to belong to something, what is it?

YOU WONT ANSWER THE QUESTION THOUGH, GUARANTEED.

[Missileman]

When are you going to get it you idiot. Human cells are not human life, they are a PART of human life.

Human life = A human being, or group of human beings. NOT a small group of several skin cells.

when using the term "human life" it refers to the complete organism, not parts of it. If you talk about a part of it, then you would refer to it as a "part of a human life" not "it is a human life"

Sounds bizarre,,,,,Look at that finger, somebody must have had it cut off by the band saw, yea, that finger is a human life......WHAT ???????

NO, YOU WOULD SAY "THAT FINGER IS A PART OF THE GUY, THE HUMAN LIFE"...

Do you need any other basic english lessons?

Or do you wish to continue to trash the language and use it to keep yourself myoptic and using tiny little semantics to try and prove a small fetus of not very many cells is not a human organism. But guaranteed, you wont answer the question.

IF THE ORGANISM IS A CLUMP OF 500 CELLS, WHAT IS IT?
It has to be something, it has to be classified. All organisms need to be classified.
Is it a part of her body? No,
Is it an independent functioning growing individual organism, Yes, it meets all the scientific requirements to be an individual organism.

So, what do you classify it as? What classification of a living organism does it belong to? IT has to belong to something, what is it?

YOU WONT ANSWER THE QUESTION THOUGH, GUARANTEED.

There is a difference between "human life" and "A human life". It's plain English, I shouldn't have to explain it to you. Though considering you can't even spell myopic, perhaps I do.

[LuvRPgrl]

And yet, "a human life" and "human life", neither refer to "a small group of skin cells".

[J.T]

You're the liar claiming human cells aren't human life, you should practice what you preach.
You seem confused again. I'm the one who doesn't think it matters whether you're a living human being or not. Go back to my earliest posts in the thread. Being a living human organism is neither necessary nor sufficient for personhood. Would a living Neanderthal or a Negro not be a person because they are not the same species? What about an intelligent race of an entirely different genus? What about a conscious and intelligent machine? Or a hypothetical race of intelligent being from another planet, sharing none of our evolutionary history?

How similar do the genetics have to be? Nuclear family? Same race? Same species? Same genus? Same family? Same order? Same class? Same phylum? Just the same kingdom?

Or is is a matter of geographical proximity? Of legal status (the bulk of your argument, which is that the law should rest on age because the law rests on age)? Just what is a 'person' with 'personal rights' that make it unacceptable to torture and murder it? Is it a material thing? Is it marked by genetics, location, or something else?

Again, coward: what changes between the last night of the first trimester and the morning of the first day of the second trimester that suddenly makes it no longer okay to kill you in cold blood for my own convenience?

[Missileman]

You seem confused again.

Really? So you've changed your position that a human cell isn't human life? If not, the confusion is still yours.

[J.T]

Really? So you've changed your position that a human cell isn't human life? If not, the confusion is still yours.

You can deny what a human life is all you want. It makes no difference to me. Human life means nothing to me, so your little skit is pointless.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31458-Why-Can-t-the-Pro-Abortionists-be-Honest&p=476282#post476282


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31458-Why-Can-t-the-Pro-Abortionists-be-Honest&p=476311#post476311

[Missileman]

You can deny what a human life is all you want. It makes no difference to me. Human life means nothing to me, so your little skit is pointless.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31458-Why-Can-t-the-Pro-Abortionists-be-Honest&p=476282#post476282


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31458-Why-Can-t-the-Pro-Abortionists-be-Honest&p=476311#post476311

And you maintain that the single cell resulting from conception is a human organism?

[LuvRPgrl]

There is a difference between "human life" and "A human life". It's plain English, I shouldn't have to explain it to you. Though considering you can't even spell myopic, perhaps I do.



If Im misspelling myopic, its cuz I havent had to use it in years....then there was U

[Kathianne]

LPRG, just got to say, that while I like you, you do remind me alot of Glockmail. Just won't concede any point, regardless of significance. Just deluge the opposition in number of posts and claim 'victory.' Kind of like an islamicist.

[LuvRPgrl]

LPRG, just got to say, that while I like you, you do remind me alot of Glockmail. Just won't concede any point, regardless of significance. Just deluge the opposition in number of posts and claim 'victory.' Kind of like an islamicist.

You do realize that MM has almost twice as many posts in this thread than I do? Maybe you just remember mine more because they are more substative and stay on point more often :)

[Kathianne]

You do realize that MM has almost twice as many posts in this thread than I do? Maybe you just remember mine more because they are more substative and stay on point more often :)

Of course, that must be it. :rolleyes:

[logroller]

You do realize that MM has almost twice as many posts in this thread than I do? Maybe you just remember mine more because they are more substative and stay on point more often :)


Of course, that must be it. :rolleyes:

Agree or disagree, that's funny! :laugh:

[gabosaurus]

It's a shame that extreme right wing folks value the life of an unborn child over that of the female bearing it.
But only until the child is delivered. Then it is refuse.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's a shame that extreme right wing folks value the life of an unborn child over that of the female bearing it.
But only until the child is delivered. Then it is refuse.

I know the left loves lies, and hypcrasy, but I thought you guys didn't believe in stereotyping?

[SassyLady]

Again, coward: what changes between the last night of the first trimester and the morning of the first day of the second trimester that suddenly makes it no longer okay to kill you in cold blood for my own convenience?

Interesting point.

[SassyLady]

It's a shame that extreme right wing folks value the life of an unborn child over that of the female bearing it.
But only until the child is delivered. Then it is refuse.

Really, Gabby? Really? Do you not feel shame knowing that most of the abortions performed are simply for birth control and have nothing to do with saving the life of the mother?

And what makes you think the child is less valuable once it has been delivered? Isn't it the mother of the child that makes the choice to treat it as refuse? How do you come to the conclusion that the "extreme right wing folks" consider a child as "refuse"?

Sometimes you just don't make sense with your assertions.

[J.T]

And you maintain that the single cell resulting from conception is a human organism?

http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/1416037063#reader_1416037063


Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm 9spermatazoon) from a male.

Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote or embryo is the beginning of as new human being.
(p. 7)

Why can't you people ever be honest?