Why Can't The So-Called Pro-Life Crowd Be Honest?

[Cecilie1200]

Thanks, but that link proves nothing.

Um, it provides the definition of the term you were confused about, and proves that, in fact, humans ARE created by germ cells, which is what you were questioning. (This assumes that you accept Wikipedia as proof, but in this case, they're correct.)

What did you WANT it to prove?

Uhm, germ cells turn into sperm cells or eggs. germ cells divide within themselves throught meiosis or mitosis. They do not merge with each other.

::sigh:: No, dear. Germ cells ARE sperm cells and eggs, and vice versa. "Germ cell" is another name for "sperm and eggs".

The sperm and the egg merge with each other and make a baby. That would be the SECOND part of the process, after meiosis/mitosis to create the germ cells, referred to as "fertilization".

Dear lord, you really don't know where babies come from?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The dog-human hybrids thread

Oh, dear GOD, I had actually managed to forget about that! That's right, we had that one rocket scientist who confidently maintained for PAGES that dogs and humans could interbreed.

How'd I miss THAT?

I think you were there, and have just managed to block it out, like I did.

 

[AllieBaba]

Thank goodness my appalling lack of memory has a beneficial side.

 

[Ravi]

Um, it provides the definition of the term you were confused about, and proves that, in fact, humans ARE created by germ cells, which is what you were questioning. (This assumes that you accept Wikipedia as proof, but in this case, they're correct.)

What did you WANT it to prove?

Uhm, germ cells turn into sperm cells or eggs. germ cells divide within themselves throught meiosis or mitosis. They do not merge with each other.

::sigh:: No, dear. Germ cells ARE sperm cells and eggs, and vice versa. "Germ cell" is another name for "sperm and eggs".

The sperm and the egg merge with each other and make a baby. That would be the SECOND part of the process, after meiosis/mitosis to create the germ cells, referred to as "fertilization".

Dear lord, you really don't know where babies come from?

Apparently you didn't read the wiki link closely.

A germ cell is any biological cell that gives rise to the gametes of an organism that reproduces sexually. In many animals, the germ cells originate near the gut of an embryo and migrate to the developing gonads. There, they undergo cell division of two types, mitosis and meiosis, followed by cellular differentiation into mature gametes, either eggs or sperm.

But we have progress! You no longer believe in creationism and that is a good start.

 

[Spoonman]

Um, it provides the definition of the term you were confused about, and proves that, in fact, humans ARE created by germ cells, which is what you were questioning. (This assumes that you accept Wikipedia as proof, but in this case, they're correct.)

What did you WANT it to prove?

Uhm, germ cells turn into sperm cells or eggs. germ cells divide within themselves throught meiosis or mitosis. They do not merge with each other.

::sigh:: No, dear. Germ cells ARE sperm cells and eggs, and vice versa. "Germ cell" is another name for "sperm and eggs".

The sperm and the egg merge with each other and make a baby. That would be the SECOND part of the process, after meiosis/mitosis to create the germ cells, referred to as "fertilization".

Dear lord, you really don't know where babies come from?

mmmmmm no babe. It first has to divide to become a gamete. please go back to reproduction 101 ok?

 

[AllieBaba]

Ravi, just because you think that creationism and science are non-compatible doesn't mean there aren't those of us who love science and see it as God's map of life. I'm certainly not scared of science, though I think most of the head-in-the-sand anti-creationists are definitely afraid of faith...and of a lot of science, too, when it doesn't fit their concept of the way things ought to be.

 

[R.D.]

Oh, dear GOD, I had actually managed to forget about that! That's right, we had that one rocket scientist who confidently maintained for PAGES that dogs and humans could interbreed.

How'd I miss THAT?

I think you were there, and have just managed to block it out, like I did.

Lemme guess - that genius was pro-abortion

 

[Spoonman]

Uhm, germ cells turn into sperm cells or eggs. germ cells divide within themselves throught meiosis or mitosis. They do not merge with each other.

::sigh:: No, dear. Germ cells ARE sperm cells and eggs, and vice versa. "Germ cell" is another name for "sperm and eggs".

The sperm and the egg merge with each other and make a baby. That would be the SECOND part of the process, after meiosis/mitosis to create the germ cells, referred to as "fertilization".

Dear lord, you really don't know where babies come from?

Apparently you didn't read the wiki link closely.

A germ cell is any biological cell that gives rise to the gametes of an organism that reproduces sexually. In many animals, the germ cells originate near the gut of an embryo and migrate to the developing gonads. There, they undergo cell division of two types, mitosis and meiosis, followed by cellular differentiation into mature gametes, either eggs or sperm.

But we have progress! You no longer believe in creationism and that is a good start.

They seem to have left out just one little very important step there

 

[RDD_1210]

Consider me shocked that Cecille has no clue what she's talking about and was just running her mouth. I don't believe it!!! LOL.

 

[Immanuel]

I think I'm going to stop humoring people who can ONLY "debate" by using childish name-calling and grade-school insults. So I'll respond to immie and not to whoever the other ranting person is.

I thought the point of when life began was what the whole stance was about? One believes it happen starts like a few days or a week after conception, the other believes life begins when the fetus can sustain itself. Isn't that why the one side is called "pro-life"? Because they believe life begins earlier than the other side?

My view isn't about "snuffing out life", it's about giving women the choice to have an abortion or not.

I've never had anyone answer why society only views early pregnancies ending as a dying baby in terms of abortion, and no other time. I wish someone would humor me at some point and try answering them.

The way you started that, I thought you were saying I was being childish and name-calling.

No, I disagree with you about what "pro-life" means. To me, and I may be wrong, pro-life means defending the life of the unborn. In the same way as pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, pro-life does not necessarily mean defending life in all cases such as the death penalty. The terms pro-life and pro-choice have been adopted by both sides to represent views on abortion.

I know those are not your views, but you have picked up that line from the pro-choice movement and that is exactly what they use the "when life begins" discussion for. They use it to justify their stance.

I am not going to humor you in that regards, because it does not matter to my point, but I will say that when my wife miscarried we grieved over it. We did not have a funeral for it, but neither was there a funeral for my father.

Immie

Immie thanks for your respectful replies, and no I wasn't referring to you in the 1st post. I think you're different than others on this thread and that you don't judge me and view me as your moral inferior because of my view on the subject.

I think we've discussed this before, personally I don't want my view of pro-choice shoved on others. I want it to be a state issue, and if the state chooses a pro-life law i'll be fine with it as it'll show the republic at work, it likely will never become an issue in my life or my future children's lives but if it did I would then react accordingly.

What I would like is to see is fewer abortions. I really don't care how that is achieved. I don't believe it can be achieved by overturning Roe. If only it were that simple. I think our attitude on life must change and the only way that can happen is a slow methodical changing of the hearts of human beings.

As long as we view the other side as being the enemy, things are not going to get any better. When we start talking together and brainstorming about our issues is when we can hope to see change: not before then.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

I'm glad Buttemia brought up germ cells because he just shot himself in the head and lost any credibility (not that he had any).

A germ cell has the potential to become an egg or a sperm. An egg or a sperm have the potential to become an embryo. An embryo has the potential to become a fetus. And a fetus has the potential to become a living human being.

If Buttemia and Cesspool were consistent they would have to conclude that germ cells are living human beings.

And that is just ridiculous.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's nice, Immie. But wrong. Abortion numbers would go down if abortion was illegal. Most people are law abiding citizens. However, they will take advantage of laws that make life more convenient for them, even if they don't approve of the general premise.

Many, many women who will get abortions when they're legal will NOT get them when they're illegal. It's that simple.

 

[JBeukema]

The dog-human hybrids thread

Oh, dear GOD, I had actually managed to forget about that! That's right, we had that one rocket scientist who confidently maintained for PAGES that dogs and humans could interbreed.

How'd I miss THAT?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be.html

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm glad Buttemia brought up germ cells because he just shot himself in the head and lost any credibility (not that he had any).

A germ cell has the potential to become an egg or a sperm. An egg or a sperm have the potential to become an embryo. An embryo has the potential to become a fetus. And a fetus has the potential to become a living human being.

If Buttemia and Cesspool were consistent they would have to conclude that germ cells are living human beings.

And that is just ridiculous.

No, what is ridiculous is the way you're willing to contort yourself to make an absolutely ridiculous premise workable.

They don't have to conclude anything of the sort, and your post is a logical fallacy of the biggest order.

"4. AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT. An invalid form of the conditional argument. In this case, the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise and the conclusion affirms the antecedent. Example: If he wants to get that job, then he must know Spanish. He knows Spanish, so the job is his."

From the University of Phoenix Master List of Logical Fallacies.

 

[DaGoose]

Well the FACTS remain that there is no definitive scientific proof when life begins and "abortion" isn't even mentioned in the Bible. So all we have left are the self absorbed who believe in government control and forcing others to conform to THEIR morals.

.

 

[JBeukema]

And a fetus has the potential to become a living human being.

The foetus isn't alive?

So women carry a dead baby around for nine months and then it magically comes to life when her water breaks?

That raises serious questions about all those sonograms I see them moving around in...

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, the right to life is a basic human right and has nothing to do with morality or the bible.

 

[JBeukema]

Germ Cell, Germ-Line

A minor technicality regarding specific terminology. My point remains valid. A new living human organism is created when the gametes come together.

It is when a human life is created. Human life begins at this point. That much is established scientific fact. That you feel the need to argue over the particulars of embryological lexicon demonstrates your inability to address the actual issue.

Like arguing over whether VietNam was a war or a 'police action' instead of whether we should have gotten involved.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The way you started that, I thought you were saying I was being childish and name-calling.

No, I disagree with you about what "pro-life" means. To me, and I may be wrong, pro-life means defending the life of the unborn. In the same way as pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, pro-life does not necessarily mean defending life in all cases such as the death penalty. The terms pro-life and pro-choice have been adopted by both sides to represent views on abortion.

I know those are not your views, but you have picked up that line from the pro-choice movement and that is exactly what they use the "when life begins" discussion for. They use it to justify their stance.

I am not going to humor you in that regards, because it does not matter to my point, but I will say that when my wife miscarried we grieved over it. We did not have a funeral for it, but neither was there a funeral for my father.

Immie

Immie thanks for your respectful replies, and no I wasn't referring to you in the 1st post. I think you're different than others on this thread and that you don't judge me and view me as your moral inferior because of my view on the subject.

I think we've discussed this before, personally I don't want my view of pro-choice shoved on others. I want it to be a state issue, and if the state chooses a pro-life law i'll be fine with it as it'll show the republic at work, it likely will never become an issue in my life or my future children's lives but if it did I would then react accordingly.

What I would like is to see is fewer abortions. I really don't care how that is achieved. I don't believe it can be achieved by overturning Roe. If only it were that simple. I think our attitude on life must change and the only way that can happen is a slow methodical changing of the hearts of human beings.

As long as we view the other side as being the enemy, things are not going to get any better. When we start talking together and brainstorming about our issues is when we can hope to see change: not before then.

Immie

I agree I'd like to see far less abortions. Personally I think sex education and availability of birth control are 2 big ways to decrease it, but often times (maybe not with you) those 2 things are looked down upon by the same pro-life crowd.

I think abstinence education is a joke, when I was 16 and probably like most other guys I wanted to hump everything, you can't teach people out of their natural hormones.

 

[JBeukema]

Actually, the right to life is a basic human right and has nothing to do with morality or the bible.

The very idea of 'rights' is a moral and philosophical argument, especially if you intend to claim it';s somehow 'wrong' to violate them