It's Official: Life begins at conception

[Cecilie1200]

The point was that these so-called "human lives" you deem so at conception biologically have a large chance of never making it to forming anything otuside a few cells. People who tend to take the "but it's nature" approach don't quite seem to understand that "nature" is very skewed here.

But let's simplify this example a bit. Is this a tree:

I'm not asking if it can become a tree, or if it belongs to the same species as a tree. I'm asking if it's a tree right now in its current state.

Has anyone bothered to tell you that not only are humans and trees not the same species, they aren't even in the same KINGDOM? How a plant does and doesn't develop has fuck-all to do with humans, dumbass. They're not comparable.

Epic fucking fail, drooler.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

It is the most primitive stage of a fully formed oak tree.

I can't help but notice you completely dodged the question. Is an acorn a living tree? This is a yes or no question. I'm not asking about your ideas on staging. I am asking if you believe you would call an acorn a living tree right now if someone placed it in your hand.

No, it shouldn't, because "viable" is a word used for a lot more than just talking about organisms in general and fetuses in specific, however much the left has tried to hijack the word. If you want to do an organ transplant, you can't just use any old organ. You need to use a viable one, one that has the capacity for life inside the patient (just as an example).

Yes, viable can be used in other contexts, but we're talking about this one context, which the definition you yourself presented applies to. Furthermore, you clarification also repeats the underlying message of viability meaning capacity for life. Even in your "other" context, it's the same thing: can the organ survive in this new environment? Once again this is answered with a yes or no response, not a staging or the idea that it might become something else in time.

I don't give a good goddamn when viability outside the womb occurs, because no matter how many times you run off at the mouth about it in order to pretend that that's the issue, or even important to the debate, that doesn't make it so. In short, they DON'T count.

And what's the issue? Based on the very topic of this thread, I was under the impression the issue was the beginning of human life. As YOU pointed out, the capacity for life is the very definition of viability. Adding these last two sentences together: Viability is the capacity to achieve this thread's topic. And yet you are still silly enough to believe it "doesn't count", against your own definition.

Has anyone bothered to tell you that not only are humans and trees not the same species, they aren't even in the same KINGDOM? How a plant does and doesn't develop as fuck-all to do with humans, dumbass. They're not comparable.

Epic fucking fail, drooler.

It's interesting, because I never equated trees to humans. You just did. The reason WHY you just did is because you are well aware that an acorn is not a tree. You drew a parallel between the two topics in your head, realized your defeat in the analogy, and instead of answering the question, resorted to a huffy little temper tantrum.

The underlying point I am making regarding the analogy is that the capacity to become something else does not make the starting product the end product.

The fact that an acorn is not a living tree parallels the fact that a 4 celled embryo is not a living human being. Yes, each former can become the latter, but that doesn't make them equal. And despite the differences in species, you cannot actually point out what is fundamentally different regarding the ability to CHANGE from one state to another between the examples. All you can do is complain.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Gentlemen... Let me solve this whole issue for you both. Life begins at 40.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is the most primitive stage of a fully formed oak tree.

I can't help but notice you completely dodged the question. Is an acorn a living tree? This is a yes or no question. I'm not asking about your ideas on staging. I am asking if you believe you would call an acorn a living tree right now if someone placed it in your hand.

I can't help but notice that you've now changed the question. You did not ask if the Acorn was a living tree. If you had I would have said no because an acorn alone cannot progress further than it is any more than can a human egg or human sperm progress further than what they are without additional factors being included.

But is the acorn a tree which is what you asked? And my answer that it is the most primitive stage of a fully formed oak tree remains accurate. In the right environment and conditions, the acorn cells will divide and become a living tree--not create a tree but BECOME a tree just as the fertilized human egg in the right environment and conditions will divide and become a living human being.

You can no more separate the acorn and the oak tree that it becomes any more than you can separate that fertilized egg from the fully formed human being that it becomes. Each is the necessary beginning.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is the most primitive stage of a fully formed oak tree.

I can't help but notice you completely dodged the question. Is an acorn a living tree? This is a yes or no question. I'm not asking about your ideas on staging. I am asking if you believe you would call an acorn a living tree right now if someone placed it in your hand.

No, it shouldn't, because "viable" is a word used for a lot more than just talking about organisms in general and fetuses in specific, however much the left has tried to hijack the word. If you want to do an organ transplant, you can't just use any old organ. You need to use a viable one, one that has the capacity for life inside the patient (just as an example).

Yes, viable can be used in other contexts, but we're talking about this one context, which the definition you yourself presented applies to. Furthermore, you clarification also repeats the underlying message of viability meaning capacity for life. Even in your "other" context, it's the same thing: can the organ survive in this new environment? Once again this is answered with a yes or no response, not a staging or the idea that it might become something else in time.

I don't give a good goddamn when viability outside the womb occurs, because no matter how many times you run off at the mouth about it in order to pretend that that's the issue, or even important to the debate, that doesn't make it so. In short, they DON'T count.

And what's the issue? Based on the very topic of this thread, I was under the impression the issue was the beginning of human life. As YOU pointed out, the capacity for life is the very definition of viability. Adding these last two sentences together: Viability is the capacity to achieve this thread's topic. And yet you are still silly enough to believe it "doesn't count", against your own definition.

Has anyone bothered to tell you that not only are humans and trees not the same species, they aren't even in the same KINGDOM? How a plant does and doesn't develop as fuck-all to do with humans, dumbass. They're not comparable.

Epic fucking fail, drooler.

It's interesting, because I never equated trees to humans. You just did. The reason WHY you just did is because you are well aware that an acorn is not a tree. You drew a parallel between the two topics in your head, realized your defeat in the analogy, and instead of answering the question, resorted to a huffy little temper tantrum.

The underlying point I am making regarding the analogy is that the capacity to become something else does not make the starting product the end product.

The fact that an acorn is not a living tree parallels the fact that a 4 celled embryo is not a living human being. Yes, each former can become the latter, but that doesn't make them equal. And despite the differences in species, you cannot actually point out what is fundamentally different regarding the ability to CHANGE from one state to another between the examples. All you can do is complain.

I do not respond to posts that squash responses to two different people together into one by way of slashing both conversations until they're impossible to follow. It's rude.

If you want me to answer any of this crap, go back and produce a post responding only to MY post which allows me to see not only the one or two sentences you picked out of my post, but also what it was I was addressing. Otherwise, sit there and whistle for it, I don't care which.