Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[Anguille]

Second flaw: you also don't understand the difference between organs and organisms. A pinky is not an organism. It is an organ, and a PART of an organism.

A pinky is an appendage, not an organ.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And why do they revel in stupidity?

You've got to wonder about any ideology or position so fervently clung to that one would rather appear more ignorant than a middle-school student rather than give it up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So are fingernail clippings. That is a "biological fact".

No, it's not. A human being is a human organism. Fingernail clippings are not organisms of any kind.

Why can't you people ever be honest?

Why do insist on lying?

A small collection of cells is not a human being.

Requirements of being a human being include a body formed in a certain way, most importantly a brain, that can perform Thought Processes.

Otherwise, any body part cloned in a jar from stem cells is a "human being", and that's utter BS.

You're arguing a very real argument using semantics, just so that you can try and prove your hyperbolic, ultra-partisan point.

Really? Tell us where in ANY dictionary or science book on Earth you find the definition of "human being" that includes those requirements. I would be fascinated to read it.

Once again, any body part, regardless of its origin, is NOT a human being because it is not an organism. Look up the ******* word "organism", you twit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, it's not. A human being is a human organism. Fingernail clippings are not organisms of any kind.

Why can't you people ever be honest?

Why do insist on lying?

A small collection of cells is not a human being.

We start out as a single cell, genius. Then we become two, then four, then eight...

Go ask a librarian where babies come from

Requirements of being a human being include a body formed in a certain way, and, most importantly, Thought Processes.

No, it doesn't. You'll find no such requirements in any biology textbook or lecture on genetics.

Otherwise, any body part cloned in a jar from stem cells is a "human being", and that's utter BS.

You don't seem to grasp how cloning works any better than you grasp biology.

If I'm so hyper-partisan, maybe you can tell me what party I belong to? The county registrar doesn't seem to have me belonging to any of them

The flaw in your obstinate effort to get people to call a fetus human is that you think there is some great absolute truth that condemns all taking of human life.

That's called begging the question. Yes, in humans, the zygote, fetus, embryo are all human.

So what?

 

[JBeukema]

effort to get people to call a fetus human

A human foetus is a human being.

This is a biological fact.

is that you think there is some great absolute truth that condemns all taking of human life.

Yes, in humans, the zygote, fetus, embryo are all human.

So it only took 44 pages for one of you people to admit we're killing a human being

Yet you say there's nothing inherently wrong with killing a human being

Which raises the question of why it took 44 pages for any of you people to admit what is is you advocate if you really believe it's okay

 

[JBeukema]

Second flaw: you also don't understand the difference between organs and organisms. A pinky is not an organism. It is an organ, and a PART of an organism.

A pinky is an appendage, not an organ.

Further strengthening her point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where did I ever say abortion will be outlawed? You're putting words in my mouth that I never spoke then expect me to answer a question based upon that? Please.

Why can't any of you pro-choice types admit that abortion ends/destroys/kills another human being? Why must you hide behind blobs of tissue, viability and the like?

Why haven't you answered JB's questions?

Here, try answering this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161946-one-question.html

or this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161947-simple-question.html

You believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent person, and yet you wouldn't make it illegal?

What the **** is that? What's your position on infanticide? Should that also not be a crime?

(I swear you can certainly measure the irrationality of the anti-abortion crowd simply by the irrational shit they throw around, jeezus.)

Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions? If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions. Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and saving those innocent lives. Figures you couldn't see that on your own.

I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you. Typical.

If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder. By anyone rational anyway.

 

[NYcarbineer]

effort to get people to call a fetus human

A human foetus is a human being.

This is a biological fact.

is that you think there is some great absolute truth that condemns all taking of human life.

Yes, in humans, the zygote, fetus, embryo are all human.

So it only took 44 pages for one of you people to admit we're killing a human being

Yet you say there's nothing inherently wrong with killing a human being

Which raises the question of why it took 44 pages for any of you people to admit what is is you advocate if you really believe it's okay

That a fertilized egg can be called a human being in no way changes the fact that the difference between a fertilized egg and a born human being is so profound that the fact they share that general appellation is

immaterial to the issue of abortion. Period.

I challenge you to prove that it is material.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But wait, I'm not quite done.

From Biology Online :

Human

Definition

noun, plural: humans

A bipedal primate belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo sapiens.


adjective

Of, pertaining to, having the attributes of, a being belonging to the species of the Homo sapiens.


Supplement

In taxonomy, humans belong to the family Hominidae, of the Primates, under class Mammalia of phylum Chordata. They are identified by the highly developed brain that confers advanced skills in abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem solving, and sapience. They are bipedal primates in having an erect carriage. They are skillful in handling objects with their hands.

Humans may also be described as social animals capable of showing sympathy with other beings, and living life with (inherent) values and ethics.

Oh, you were done when you started talking, jackass. You're just too ignorant to recognize how stupid you're making yourself sound.

The definition of the human species as an aggregate is NOT the definition of "human being", moron. That's what JB is trying, none-too-gently, to tell you. If you could define "human being" by the recognizable characteristics of the human race as a whole - which by design refer only to fully-mature adults - that would leave anyone who was slightly anomalous and didn't hit the average in every respect defined as "not a human being", which is ludicrous.

Look at "bipedal", as JB pointed out. Certainly humans AS A RACE are bipedal, but what about people who lose their legs to accidents, disease, or war? Do they stop being defined as human beings because they, individually, no longer meet the racial standard? What about a person whose mother took Thalidomide, causing him to be born with only one leg? Is HE not a human being because he NEVER met the racial description of "bipedal"?

Let's look at "advanced skills of abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem-solving, and sapience". Does that mean a two-month-old infant, who has none of those things, is not a human being? How about a severely retarded person?

My CHRIST, you people are scary.

 

[JBeukema]

That a fertilized egg can be called a human being in no way changes the fact that the difference between a fertilized egg and a born human being is so profound that the fact they share that general appellation is

immaterial to the issue of abortion. Period.

I challenge you to prove that it is material.

It's your argument. What is the difference? What changes? When does it change? How can we measure or detect that change?

 

[JBeukema]

Let's look at "advanced skills of abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem-solving, and sapience". Does that mean a two-month-old infant, who has none of those things, is not a human being? How about a severely retarded person?

Sara Palin and other mothers of special-needs children would like you to stop using that word.

You meant to ask 'How about a Democrat'

 

[NYcarbineer]

That a fertilized egg can be called a human being in no way changes the fact that the difference between a fertilized egg and a born human being is so profound that the fact they share that general appellation is

immaterial to the issue of abortion. Period.

I challenge you to prove that it is material.

It's your argument. What is the difference? What changes? When does it change? How can we measure or detect that change?

No, it was your claim that there is no difference whatsoever between a fertilized egg and ME,

and therefore there is no difference in killing either one.

So far all you've been able to do is give them the same general name. I say that name is immaterial to the issue.

Prove that it isn't, or show us some other evidence of your claim.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Those are cells which merge to create us. Neither is itself an organism. Prior to the union of the two, we do not exist.

That's a completely arbitrary and subjective interpretation, and does not jibe with scientific definitions.

When you say "scientific definitions", do you mean when you query Wikipedia for the wrong thing? THAT "scientific definitions"?

Because otherwise, what JB said is EXACTLY in line with basic biology. Sperm and ova are cells, not organisms, which are parts of the bodies of other organisms. When they join and form a NEW organism, that organism is where we begin to exist.

Biology 101


So newborns aren't human? After all, human females have breasts, but not when they're first born

I guess that means Democrats and any child under the age, say, 17 isn't human

: a bipedal primate mammal

So war vets who lose a leg cease to be human?

Why can't you people ever be honest?


Or are you just that stupid?

And all of those are completely irrational arguments, as those are all examples of fully formed humans that are simply missing one attribute due to circumstance.

But your definition didn't include "barring circumstance". Face it, troll. You looked up the wrong thing and tried to apply the definition of the human SPECIES to individual human BEINGS. You screwed the pooch.

There is a large difference between that and a collection of cells that never formed into a human.

Unfortunately for you, a fetus is not a "collection of cells that never formed into a human", because a fetus IS a human organism. It is what EVERY human organism is at that stage of its existence.

Being a "collection of cells" doesn't translate to "not a human being". YOU are a collection of cells yourself. And once again, there is NOWHERE in science - or basic English - that defines "human being" by "possessing adult configuration".

You might as well say water and carbon molecules are human beings, because they one day may form one.

No, they won't. They might someday be PART of a human being, but they will never form one.

A POTENTIAL to be something does not confer the attributes of that thing onto the substance in question.

The only thing a fetus has a "potential to become" is an adult, if you leave him alone. In that sense, you are correct. The potential to be an adult someday is not being an adult right now.

But being a mature, fully-grown adult is also not a requirement for being a human being.

 

[Anguille]

You believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent person, and yet you wouldn't make it illegal?

What the **** is that? What's your position on infanticide? Should that also not be a crime?

(I swear you can certainly measure the irrationality of the anti-abortion crowd simply by the irrational shit they throw around, jeezus.)

Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions? If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions. Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and saving those innocent lives. Figures you couldn't see that on your own.

I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you. Typical.

If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder. By anyone rational anyway.

Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.

 

[JBeukema]

That a fertilized egg can be called a human being in no way changes the fact that the difference between a fertilized egg and a born human being is so profound that the fact they share that general appellation is

immaterial to the issue of abortion. Period.

I challenge you to prove that it is material.

It's your argument. What is the difference? What changes? When does it change? How can we measure or detect that change?

No, it was your claim that there is no difference whatsoever between a fertilized egg and ME,

and therefore there is no difference in killing either one.

So you can't tell me what the difference is?

So far all you've been able to do is give them the same general name.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Second flaw: you also don't understand the difference between organs and organisms. A pinky is not an organism. It is an organ, and a PART of an organism.

A pinky is an appendage, not an organ.

Further strengthening her point.

Who says an appendage isn't also an organ?

Appendage - : a subordinate or derivative body part; especially : a limb or analogous part (as a seta)

Organ - : a differentiated structure (as a heart or kidney) consisting of cells and tissues and performing some specific function in an organism

I don't see anything about the two that's mutually exclusive. It's not what one normally thinks of as an organ, but frankly, neither is the skin until it's pointed out. A pinky is a structure, differentiated from any other structure in the body (aside from the other pinky), made up of cells and tissues, and performing a specific function in an organism.

Either way, it ain't a separate organism, and arguing the semantics of EXACTLY what sort of body part it's classified as isn't going to make the argument that it's no different from a fetus any more correct.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's look at "advanced skills of abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem-solving, and sapience". Does that mean a two-month-old infant, who has none of those things, is not a human being? How about a severely retarded person?

Sara Palin and other mothers of special-needs children would like you to stop using that word.

You meant to ask 'How about a Democrat'

No, I didn't, because retardation is involuntary. Being a Democrat is a choice. Sort of like getting yourself lobotomized.

 

[Anguille]

School? I don't need school to teach me this! After all, God & I create life when I will it!

Assuming you and C are for real, that you and Cecilie are mothers is a chilling thought.

After the way you and she dug your fangs and talons into Imeuru a few pages back after she showed the courage to reveal she had had an abortion after being raped, it's even more apparent to me and no doubt to others that the two of you vicious harpies are devoid of human feelings and compassion. Hatred can destroy the person who bears it. I wonder what caused the two of you to become such miserable *****

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's your argument. What is the difference? What changes? When does it change? How can we measure or detect that change?

No, it was your claim that there is no difference whatsoever between a fertilized egg and ME,

and therefore there is no difference in killing either one.

So you can't tell me what the difference is?

So far all you've been able to do is give them the same general name.

A fertilized human egg is 2 cells with its genetic material virtually the only thing it has in common with a born human being.

Do you deny that's the only similarity? Other than your name for them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions? If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions. Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and saving those innocent lives. Figures you couldn't see that on your own.

I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you. Typical.

If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder. By anyone rational anyway.

Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.

Sadly, I find it fun.