Abortion results in ptsd, and is worse for those with a history of trauma.

[9thIDdoc]

Please tell me where, in the definition of "organism", you find the requirements of "has organs" and "can live without a host".



or·gan·ism (ôr g-n z m) n. 1. An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other ...

organism - definition of organism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
------------

"And by the way, shitforbrains, back to the subject of not projecting your halfwitted arguments onto me so that you can have debate you WISH you had, rather than the one I'm giving you: you can argue with me that fetuses and tumors don't have organs "from the get-go" just as soon as you can show me any place where I was as brain-damaged as you are and said that either of them did,..."

Here:

"An early stage fetus - or any stage fetus - is different from a tumor by virtue of BEING AN ORGANISM. A tumor, on the other hand, is just tissue."

 

[koshergrl]

If your argument is that it's okay to kill babies because they're no better than chimps, just say it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Best check your own book. The earlist fetus is a single cell without organs or the ability to live except as part of it's host. It is not an individual organism. And I am still waiting to find out a diferene between it and a tumor. Neither tumors or fetuses have organs from the "get go".

No, dipshit, you're STILL the one who'd "best check your books", because you STILL haven't learned the organizational heirarchy. Please tell me where, in the definition of "organism", you find the requirements of "has organs" and "can live without a host". There are a number of organisms in the world which do not meet one, or even both, of those standards.

Once again, you are ignorantly associating the term "human being" with "adult human being".

And by the way, shitforbrains, back to the subject of not projecting your halfwitted arguments onto me so that you can have debate you WISH you had, rather than the one I'm giving you: you can argue with me that fetuses and tumors don't have organs "from the get-go" just as soon as you can show me any place where I was as brain-damaged as you are and said that either of them did, or for that matter, was brain-damaged enough to say that having organs was a requirement for ANYTHING. Until I actually have a lobotomy and descend to your IQ level, though, I'll thank you not to bother me with such wastes of space and time.

Alright Cecilie, answer me this; what is it, exactly that distinguishes a "human being" from the higher primates, or any of the rest of the order Mammalia ? I don't want the biological descriptor, in terms or chromosomes; or the anthropological criteria; what I want, is what gives a human life a greater value than that of, say, a monkey. As a matter of fact, since a lot of this dispute is one of "values" if not outright theology, a theological or quasi-theological definition will suffice quite nicely for the purpose here. I eagerly await your response.

Seriously? You're SERIOUSLY asking me how biologists differentiate between species? AND you're seriously telling me, "Tell me the difference, but without listing any of the characteristics that actually make up the difference"? Does the phrase "fuck you, moron" ring any bells?

1) If you don't already know the scientific difference between humans and other primates, I am not only not going to sit here and give you a Biology 101 primer on it, but I'm not going to waste another nanosecond of time talking to someone that lacking in basic, I-graduated-high-school education.

2) I am under no obligation to use any other criteria BESIDES basic biological science to make my decisions on the abortion issue, or to argue it, simply because YOU demand that I do so. If you want to make emotional, uneducated policy decisions, that's your problem. You don't get to force me to.

3) Pick your question, because you're talking about two different things here, and conflating them into one. Do you want to know the difference between humans and other primates, or do you want to ask about my personal system of assigning value to the lives of various animals (a topic that has nothing to do with anything that's been said so far, and which has very little relevance that I can see)? They're not even remotely the same question, so pick a topic and stick to it.

4) If YOU want to discuss this topic based on YOUR religious beliefs or lack thereof, that is ALSO your problem. I, however, have not said a single word about anything even vaguely religious, and I'm right at the end of my patience with your bullshit attempts to force words into my mouth to project the opponent you WISH you had onto me. This is the absolute last time I wil tell you this, because even someone as amoeba-brained as you should be able to understand it by now: I will not accept or defend the arguments YOU have decided that I should make, and that you wish to argue against. You do not get to attribute them to me.

Any further attempts to argue against things I have not actually said will be taken as an immediate, unconditional surrender and admission that you are not intelligent enough to walk and breathe at the same time, and will result in your being dismissed as no longer worthy of my notice of your existence. Sack the fuck up, you dickless poltroon, and argue MY ACTUAL POINTS.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Please tell me where, in the definition of "organism", you find the requirements of "has organs" and "can live without a host".



or·gan·ism (ôr g-n z m) n. 1. An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other ...

organism - definition of organism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
------------

"And by the way, shitforbrains, back to the subject of not projecting your halfwitted arguments onto me so that you can have debate you WISH you had, rather than the one I'm giving you: you can argue with me that fetuses and tumors don't have organs "from the get-go" just as soon as you can show me any place where I was as brain-damaged as you are and said that either of them did,..."

Here:

"An early stage fetus - or any stage fetus - is different from a tumor by virtue of BEING AN ORGANISM. A tumor, on the other hand, is just tissue."

Oh, my fucking God. Really? REALLY?! The Free Dictionary Online?! We're talking about biology's organizational heirarchy and scientific classification into it, and you're giving me DEFINITIONS FROM THE GENERAL DICTIONARY?! No wonder you sound like such a frigging moron.

Let me help you out, cluebird. The scientific classification of something as an organism, as opposed to cells, tissues, etc. is NOT based on the "most common usages of the word" listed in the general dictionary. OF COURSE the word "organism" is most often used to denote complex creatures . . . BECAUSE MOST SPECIES ARE. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my question, which involved the SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF THE WORD.

So how's about we look at a site that's discussing SCIENCE, rather than common English usage, hmmm?

Organism - definition from Biology-Online.org

An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.

See all those words after "that"? Those would be the criteria that define an organism. See "has organs" or "lives without a host" in there? Of course you don't.

Consider, if you can manage it with your head in your rectum, that viruses and bacteria are listed as organisms. Neither one of them has organs, nor can either live for any length of time without a host, and yet they are listed here as "individual living things" and "organisms".

So, to recap, a fetus meets the criteria for an organism as listed above. A tumor does not. Therefore, a fetus is an organism. A tumor is not.

If this is too goddamned difficult for you, why don't you just pick up the phone and call the biology teacher at your local high school - or any doctor you'd care to name, for that matter - and ask him if what I just said is true. I don't want you to strain something trying to follow this logic chain by yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If your argument is that it's okay to kill babies because they're no better than chimps, just say it.

If you ever suss out what his argument actually IS, let me know. Right now, I feel like I'm trying to explain where babies come from to a "mentally challenged" five-year-old.

 

[koshergrl]

Lol...there's no point really to trying to explain to the willfully stupid. Because they are dishonest from the beginning. They aren't arguing from the point they pretend to be arguing from, which is that women are best served by on-demand abortions. They are just pretending that's why we need abortions, when really they believe, as the yahoo who posted about the woman with 15 kids believes, that the children of poor and minorities have zero value, as do their mothers. They want that whole population to just disappear. They aren't interested in "helping" them. They want them dead. Mothers, babies, the whole group.

 

[The Gadfly]

No, dipshit, you're STILL the one who'd "best check your books", because you STILL haven't learned the organizational heirarchy. Please tell me where, in the definition of "organism", you find the requirements of "has organs" and "can live without a host". There are a number of organisms in the world which do not meet one, or even both, of those standards.

Once again, you are ignorantly associating the term "human being" with "adult human being".

And by the way, shitforbrains, back to the subject of not projecting your halfwitted arguments onto me so that you can have debate you WISH you had, rather than the one I'm giving you: you can argue with me that fetuses and tumors don't have organs "from the get-go" just as soon as you can show me any place where I was as brain-damaged as you are and said that either of them did, or for that matter, was brain-damaged enough to say that having organs was a requirement for ANYTHING. Until I actually have a lobotomy and descend to your IQ level, though, I'll thank you not to bother me with such wastes of space and time.

Alright Cecilie, answer me this; what is it, exactly that distinguishes a "human being" from the higher primates, or any of the rest of the order Mammalia ? I don't want the biological descriptor, in terms or chromosomes; or the anthropological criteria; what I want, is what gives a human life a greater value than that of, say, a monkey. As a matter of fact, since a lot of this dispute is one of "values" if not outright theology, a theological or quasi-theological definition will suffice quite nicely for the purpose here. I eagerly await your response.

Seriously? You're SERIOUSLY asking me how biologists differentiate between species? AND you're seriously telling me, "Tell me the difference, but without listing any of the characteristics that actually make up the difference"? Does the phrase "fuck you, moron" ring any bells?

1) If you don't already know the scientific difference between humans and other primates, I am not only not going to sit here and give you a Biology 101 primer on it, but I'm not going to waste another nanosecond of time talking to someone that lacking in basic, I-graduated-high-school education.

2) I am under no obligation to use any other criteria BESIDES basic biological science to make my decisions on the abortion issue, or to argue it, simply because YOU demand that I do so. If you want to make emotional, uneducated policy decisions, that's your problem. You don't get to force me to.

3) Pick your question, because you're talking about two different things here, and conflating them into one. Do you want to know the difference between humans and other primates, or do you want to ask about my personal system of assigning value to the lives of various animals (a topic that has nothing to do with anything that's been said so far, and which has very little relevance that I can see)? They're not even remotely the same question, so pick a topic and stick to it.

4) If YOU want to discuss this topic based on YOUR religious beliefs or lack thereof, that is ALSO your problem. I, however, have not said a single word about anything even vaguely religious, and I'm right at the end of my patience with your bullshit attempts to force words into my mouth to project the opponent you WISH you had onto me. This is the absolute last time I wil tell you this, because even someone as amoeba-brained as you should be able to understand it by now: I will not accept or defend the arguments YOU have decided that I should make, and that you wish to argue against. You do not get to attribute them to me.

Any further attempts to argue against things I have not actually said will be taken as an immediate, unconditional surrender and admission that you are not intelligent enough to walk and breathe at the same time, and will result in your being dismissed as no longer worthy of my notice of your existence. Sack the fuck up, you dickless poltroon, and argue MY ACTUAL POINTS.

My, my, what a temper tantrum; touched a nerve, did I? You know where I was going,the difference is that a human is a sentient being, possessed of a conscious sense of a self, and a monkey is not. THAT is the ultimate difference, and it is what gives human life a different intrinsic value It then necessarily follows that what does not possess that quality is NOT fully human (whatever else it is). Q.E.D.

The rest of the ad hominem nonsense you just spouted (I do hope it made you feel better), is of no consequence to me. You see, I do not require YOUR acknowledgement, to be aware that I exist as a sentient, self-aware entity, quite independently of whether you, or indeed anyone, wishes it.I know that because within my functioning cerebral cortex, lies the capacity for cognitive awareness, and reasoning beyond the instinctual level,; in other words, the sense that I am a distinct "me"; that which some would call a "soul". That, in turn, is something that a twelve-week fetus does not have. Is that "scientific" enough for you-because it IS a biological fact; no developed, functional cerebral cortex, no self awareness. Incidentally, it is precisely that same awareness, that enables me to refute the validity of one of the names you called me, to wit, "dickless". I can easily observe, by looking at that portion of my anatomy, that yes, it is (a) still right where nature put it, (b) still fully functional(or was a couple minutes ago, when I looked at a picture of a scantily-clad woman), and (c) last, but most importantly, is still attached to that entity I know as "me". You, however, are still full of shit (or at least, your mind is)

 

[koshergrl]

We really don't need a run down of your masturbation schedule.

 

[9thIDdoc]

An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.

And an early stage fetus can do none of those things except grow. It is not yet an organism.

 

[koshergrl]

That's ridiculous.

 

[koshergrl]

Besides which, has nothing to do with anything. To pretend that the argument that it's wrong to kill babies hinges on your own criteria of what makes something human is dishonest at best.

I don't care what you call a human before, after, during conception. It makes no difference to me if you're hung up on whether it's aware of itself, or if it meets the definition of "organism" or anything else. Those are the justifications of the baby killers...and they mean nothing to those of us who value all human life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lol...there's no point really to trying to explain to the willfully stupid. Because they are dishonest from the beginning. They aren't arguing from the point they pretend to be arguing from, which is that women are best served by on-demand abortions. They are just pretending that's why we need abortions, when really they believe, as the yahoo who posted about the woman with 15 kids believes, that the children of poor and minorities have zero value, as do their mothers. They want that whole population to just disappear. They aren't interested in "helping" them. They want them dead. Mothers, babies, the whole group.

Well, they also want to further a world where they themselves feel free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without any consideration for consequences or pesky moral standards. The only way they can do that is if virtually everyone else does the same thing. So long as any significant, seriously-regarded segment of the population still believes in objective morality and personal responsibility, they don't have the ability to be libertine as they wish.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Alright Cecilie, answer me this; what is it, exactly that distinguishes a "human being" from the higher primates, or any of the rest of the order Mammalia ? I don't want the biological descriptor, in terms or chromosomes; or the anthropological criteria; what I want, is what gives a human life a greater value than that of, say, a monkey. As a matter of fact, since a lot of this dispute is one of "values" if not outright theology, a theological or quasi-theological definition will suffice quite nicely for the purpose here. I eagerly await your response.

Seriously? You're SERIOUSLY asking me how biologists differentiate between species? AND you're seriously telling me, "Tell me the difference, but without listing any of the characteristics that actually make up the difference"? Does the phrase "fuck you, moron" ring any bells?

1) If you don't already know the scientific difference between humans and other primates, I am not only not going to sit here and give you a Biology 101 primer on it, but I'm not going to waste another nanosecond of time talking to someone that lacking in basic, I-graduated-high-school education.

2) I am under no obligation to use any other criteria BESIDES basic biological science to make my decisions on the abortion issue, or to argue it, simply because YOU demand that I do so. If you want to make emotional, uneducated policy decisions, that's your problem. You don't get to force me to.

3) Pick your question, because you're talking about two different things here, and conflating them into one. Do you want to know the difference between humans and other primates, or do you want to ask about my personal system of assigning value to the lives of various animals (a topic that has nothing to do with anything that's been said so far, and which has very little relevance that I can see)? They're not even remotely the same question, so pick a topic and stick to it.

4) If YOU want to discuss this topic based on YOUR religious beliefs or lack thereof, that is ALSO your problem. I, however, have not said a single word about anything even vaguely religious, and I'm right at the end of my patience with your bullshit attempts to force words into my mouth to project the opponent you WISH you had onto me. This is the absolute last time I wil tell you this, because even someone as amoeba-brained as you should be able to understand it by now: I will not accept or defend the arguments YOU have decided that I should make, and that you wish to argue against. You do not get to attribute them to me.

Any further attempts to argue against things I have not actually said will be taken as an immediate, unconditional surrender and admission that you are not intelligent enough to walk and breathe at the same time, and will result in your being dismissed as no longer worthy of my notice of your existence. Sack the fuck up, you dickless poltroon, and argue MY ACTUAL POINTS.

My, my, what a temper tantrum; touched a nerve, did I? You know where I was going,the difference is that a human is a sentient being, possessed of a conscious sense of a self, and a monkey is not. THAT is the ultimate difference, and it is what gives human life a different intrinsic value It then necessarily follows that what does not possess that quality is NOT fully human (whatever else it is). Q.E.D.

The rest of the ad hominem nonsense you just spouted (I do hope it made you feel better), is of no consequence to me. You see, I do not require YOUR acknowledgement, to be aware that I exist as a sentient, self-aware entity, quite independently of whether you, or indeed anyone, wishes it.I know that because within my functioning cerebral cortex, lies the capacity for cognitive awareness, and reasoning beyond the instinctual level,; in other words, the sense that I am a distinct "me"; that which some would call a "soul". That, in turn, is something that a twelve-week fetus does not have. Is that "scientific" enough for you-because it IS a biological fact; no developed, functional cerebral cortex, no self awareness. Incidentally, it is precisely that same awareness, that enables me to refute the validity of one of the names you called me, to wit, "dickless". I can easily observe, by looking at that portion of my anatomy, that yes, it is (a) still right where nature put it, (b) still fully functional(or was a couple minutes ago, when I looked at a picture of a scantily-clad woman), and (c) last, but most importantly, is still attached to that entity I know as "me". You, however, are still full of shit (or at least, your mind is)

Oh, for crying out loud unprintably. If I had a dollar for every dumbass who came in here, said something monumentally stupid, and then proudly claimed to have "touched a nerve" because they managed to make someone incredulous and exasperated by their utter lack of education, I'd be making Mitt Romney look like a pauper.

No, I DON'T "know where you were going". You erroneously suppose that you were making any sort of sense that could be followed in a logical chain some sort of coherent conclusion. All I actually know is that you were talking like someone who should be thwapped upside the head with the high school biology textbook you manifestly never read.

Clearly, though, you have yet to perform the aforementioned sacking up that would allow you to respond to the points people actually make, rather than continuing to attempt to manipulate both sides of the debate so that you can delude yourself that you're winning.

As promised, I will now take your cowardice and utter lack of anything even vaguely resembling a response to my actual words as the surrender that it is. When you grow a pair and feel ready to respond to someone other than the voice in your head, be sure to tell someone so that I can take your sorry, chickenshit ass off ignore and give you another chance to make a fool of yourself.

FLUSH!

 

[Cecilie1200]

An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.

And an early stage fetus can do none of those things except grow. It is not yet an organism.

My God, it really IS like trying to teach retarded five-year-olds.

First of all, an embryo does react to stimuli, just as any simple organism - such as a virus or bacterium - does. I suspect that you are thinking more in terms of things like movement in response to sound or touching, but this category also includes things like metabolic changes to maintain homeostasis, the state in which everything in the organism is balanced and functioning properly (which, of course, allows us to answer two of the points at once). Basically, within certain parameters (in other words, all organisms have limits on this ability), an embryo will react to changes in his environment to maintain internal stability.

Second of all, there is more to the word "reproduction" in the scientific sense than just having sex and making babies. If that was the case, then newborn infants wouldn't meet the criteria of living organisms, since they are not able AT THAT CURRENT MOMENT IN THEIR LIFESPAN able to produce offspring. Or, to take it back to the comparison with other single-celled or multi-celled simple organisms, this would be like saying a bacterium is only an organism when it is actually performing binary fission (the method by which bacteria reproduce) because those are the only times it's CAPABLE of reproduction.

"Reproduction" in this sense also refers to cell reproduction, which you should know an embryo does very rapidly, and which leads us to the thing you claimed was the "only one" that a fetus does: growth.

In addition to all of this, an embryo or fetus also has another characteristic of individual, living organisms: chemical uniqueness. As has been pointed out many times ad nauseam on this board, an embryo or fetus has a genetic structure that is uniquely its own.

So once again, we see that your argument against the status of a fetus as a separate, individual living organism is based on your own ignorance and misconceptions, rather than science.

 

[koshergrl]

"
Definition
noun, plural: organisms
(Science: Biology)
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. "

Organism - definition from Biology-Online.org


Embryo

Definition
noun, plural: embryos
(zoology) A multicellular organism that primarily undergoes extensive and rapid growth and differentiation between the time of fertilization and fetal stage in higher forms while larval stage in lower forms
(human biology) Baby in the early developmental stage, after the zygote phase (at fertilization) to week eight from the time of fertilization (note: week eight from the time of fertilization is equivalent to 10 weeks gestational age)


According to biology online, an embryo is an organism.

It's also a baby, lol.

AWKWARD....

 

[Cecilie1200]

"
Definition
noun, plural: organisms
(Science: Biology)
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. "

Organism - definition from Biology-Online.org


Embryo

Definition
noun, plural: embryos
(zoology) A multicellular organism that primarily undergoes extensive and rapid growth and differentiation between the time of fertilization and fetal stage in higher forms while larval stage in lower forms
(human biology) Baby in the early developmental stage, after the zygote phase (at fertilization) to week eight from the time of fertilization (note: week eight from the time of fertilization is equivalent to 10 weeks gestational age)


According to biology online, an embryo is an organism.

It's also a baby, lol.

AWKWARD....

Apparently, our schools simply don't have time to explain this stuff any more, what with all the condoms on cucumbers, self-esteem building, and protests for higher teacher salaries.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Besides which, has nothing to do with anything. To pretend that the argument that it's wrong to kill babies hinges on your own criteria of what makes something human is dishonest at best.

I don't care what you call a human before, after, during conception. It makes no difference to me if you're hung up on whether it's aware of itself, or if it meets the definition of "organism" or anything else. Those are the justifications of the baby killers...and they mean nothing to those of us who value all human life.

So you value cancers, warts, moles and assorted tumors. No surprise. You are no more "pro-life" than anyone else; you are just anti-choice and can't stand the idea of minding your own business.

Some of us happen to believe that babies should be born into families that want them and that can and will care for them.

 

[koshergrl]

Logical fallacy.

Plus just plain stupid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Logical fallacy.

Plus just plain stupid.

Well, I think pointing out his lack of scientific education three times is my limit. Willful stupidity doesn't deserve a response.

I do so love how liberals claim to worship science, but can't be bothered to learn anything about it, don't you?