Why is abortion the way of the world?

[alang1216]

Really? That phrase about sanctity appeared in one of my posts? Please tell me which one, because it sure as shit isn't the one you're putatively, and ineffectually, responding to.

Your post included post #65, written by FA_Q2

 

[BlindBoo]

I like you state, "They are non-differentiated cells", as though the two are mutually exclusive. It's so much fun to listen to leftists try to be "scientific" by changing the names things are called by as though it changes the basic facts.

Yes, an embryo is made up

Your confused. A zygote is not an embryo.

Oh, wow, an analogy to a completely different life form

Yet we share so much DNA with them and most all life.

You're confused. You think you're someone with the authority to correct me on English . . . or anything. The fact that you can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're" says otherwise.

Seriously, you should NEVER, EVER speak on anything scientific ever again, because it makes you look even more laughably ignorant than you normally do. Really, just . . . no.

"We share similar DNA, so that makes their reproductive systems TOTALLY analogous to ours. Totally, dude. Now pass the bong!"

I would never dare be a grammar nazi. However the point remains valid. An embryo is not a zygote.

The only question I have is was it confusion of deliberate conflation?

Which came first, the drumstick or the fried egg?

You decide.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Feel free to explain to me why you are somehow different and special . . . if you can.

You may disagree but as a human being I can think like no other animal on the planet.

Sorry, I fail to see what point you think you're making.

Leaving aside for a moment my dubiousness about you dealing yourself into the group, humans have greater intellectual capacity than other animal species. So what? What is the relevance of that to my question?

 

[alang1216]

Do you have anything to prove that answering your questions is worth the effort? Because the last time I did it, you ignored four entire posts to respond to one-half of one sentence cut-and-pasted out of context.

In what way have you earned that much respect again?

When you post something worthy of a response, because it is either particularly good or bad, I respond. If it is just a cut & paste I usually just move on. (I broke my own rule here since you seem so hung up on these old posts.)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Does being Implanted or not implanted affect or change what the zygote IS?

It is the first step necessary to become a human being. That is it will never become a human being with out attaching to the womb.

That is, if you're ignorant like Boo and think "human being" is defined as "fully grown adult".

If you're intelligent, then implantation is merely a necessary step in the continued survival of an ALREADY EXISTING HUMAN BEING.

 

[alang1216]

And quite frankly, I value any zygote you point to more than I do you. And after all, you ARE all about "granting" the right to live based on whether or not other people want you to, right?

I guess you don't believe in capital punishment?

You have even less business making assumptions about my beliefs and projecting them onto me than most pro-abort imbeciles do, and that's saying something.

You want to know what I believe? First, ASK me; do not tell me what you ASSume they are. THEN prove to me that THIS time, you're actually going to read the answer.

Not for the first time you completely missed the point. I seems obvious to me that capital punishment is the act of NOT granting the right to live based on whether or not other people want you to, right.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really? That phrase about sanctity appeared in one of my posts? Please tell me which one, because it sure as shit isn't the one you're putatively, and ineffectually, responding to.

Your post included post #65, written by FA_Q2

No, you silly twat, my post was IN RESPONSE TO a string of posts, of which that was one. That does not in any way convey ownership of or responsibility for that phrase to ME. If you want to dispute that phrase, you have to go to THE PERSON WHO SAID IT.

That's like saying I can be expected to answer for and defend the incoherencies YOU spout, because they're quoted in my responses, which makes them "part of my post".

I swear, I can actually HEAR your IQ going down with every word you post.

 

[BlindBoo]

It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!

Does

It

MORH

Out

Of

Something

That

Is

Not

A

Human

Being

Into

Something

That

IS

A

Human

Being?

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Dodger fan?

No, humans are not birds. Yes, we share about 60 % of DNA with Chickens. There are two types of reproduction......

Yes, we have certain similar DNA. No, that is not in any way even remotely relevant to the fact that we're different species, different genera, different all the way up to phylum level. In other words, only an ignorant ass clown thinks "Well, chicken eggs . . ." has anything to say about human reproduction. And trying to pretend that citing DNA similarities somehow makes your argument LESS of a joke actually makes you sound even more ridiculous.

Seriously, stop. Go back to "Abortion is good because I hate religion!" It was stupid, but at least it was a type of stupid you were familiar with.

That's too funny.

Who said abortion is good?

Because I find belief in the supernatural absurd, doesn't mean I hate religion. But I suppose any insult works if that's what your into. (Opsie did i forgat a contraction......).

 

[FA_Q2]

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Not really needed though. Inside that fertilized chicken egg there is, indeed, a chicken in its earliest stages of growth.

So yes, that is a chicken.

I disagree. It's not even a chick yet.

Again, your disagreement is irrelevant and only supported by what you WANT to be true rather than what actually is.

I don't think so. See a chicken is something you can deep fry but an egg you scramble. I guess you can deep fry an egg but how would you eat the drumsticks?

You want to call a zygote a human being and I don't. I'm sure you have your reasons.......

You dont think so as you keep stating. And you continue to refuse to define anytihng at all because you want to cling to the indefensible.

I did not say that I thought it was a chicken. The FACT is it is a chicken. That is not disputable. It has its own DNA. It has its own DEFINED boundaries. It consumes and uses that consumption to grow and develop. The HARD SCIENTIFIC FACT is that it is a chicken in a specific developmental stage.

You have not disputed anything at all. The only thing you have done is stamp your foot and demand that reality is not so. These things are clearly defined.

Same with the zygote. Still a human as a fetus is a human. A child is a human. A toddler is a human. A teenager is a human. All names for different stages of development.

 

[BlindBoo]

Does being Implanted or not implanted affect or change what the zygote IS?

It is the first step necessary to become a human being. That is it will never become a human being with out attaching to the womb.

That is, if you're ignorant like Boo and think "human being" is defined as "fully grown adult".

If you're intelligent, then implantation is merely a necessary step in the continued survival of an ALREADY EXISTING HUMAN BEING.

Who grieves for those lost human beings who couldn't attach to a womb?

 

[FA_Q2]

Sacred applies to both religious concepts (Jesus is sacred) or non religious ones (my memories are sacred). Further, the sanctity of life is not a dictionary word - it is a phrase with more meaning - Sanctity of life - Wikipedia - that encompass religious precepts as well as secular precepts aka ethics.

I'd still argue that it's meaning and use is mostly based on religion.

From your link:

In Christianity:

The phrase sanctity of life refers to the idea that human life is sacred, holy, and precious, argued mainly by the pro-life side in political and moral debates over such controversial issues as abortion, contraception, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, and the "right to die" in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and other English-speaking countries. (Comparable phrases are also used in other languages.) Although the phrase was used primarily in the 19th century in Protestant discourse, after World War II the phrase has been used in Catholic moral theology and, following Roe v. Wade, Evangelical Christian moral rhetoric.[1]​

In many cases it is but that is not of necessity. There is both a secular and religious side to that philosophy and that is VERY important. I say this because assuming the sanctity of life is a religious concept leads to doing exactly what you did - equating the basis of a pro life position as a religious basis. That drags the debate from its proper place into simply dismissing the pro life position as religious dogma.

 

[FA_Q2]

The plan is to establish, secure and protect the rights of children who are being denied their rights by you and your ilk.

Funny that sails over your head.

But then what? How will you stop it?

Name any one crime against humanity that has been completely "stopped."

Why are you demanding more when comes to stopping abortions than you are for any other form of child molestation?

Because it's something Taz wants to do. If he/she wanted to beat children, he/she would be insisting that the fact that the laws don't completely stop such behavior, there shouldn't be any laws at all.

That really is not the crux of that statement and there really is a problem there. Something that the pro-life position must address (and does in a few ways).

If abortion becomes illegal do you prosecute women that have an abortion? If you do, then how do you do so or even know that it was an abortion and not a miscarriage? If not, then why make it illegal in the first place?

Those are, IMHO, real questions that the pro-life position has to struggle with as there is not a good answer to them both even if there is a best answer.

That really IS the crux of the discussion I was in, but thank you so much for inserting yourself and telling me how I "have to" be having a completely different discussion.

In MY never-humble opinion, you need to ASK me if I would like to discuss what the laws should be in the event of an abortion ban, not TELL me that I HAVE to discuss it.

No, I really don't have to ask you anything. That is the beauty of freedom - I can demand that answer from you and you can continue to not give it

But in the end, 'you' was less specific and more generalized to anyone holding a pro life position. The lot of you can ignore those questions to your hearts content but that is not how you change minds and policy will not move without changing minds.

 

[Chuz Life]

So you have no plan. Got it.

The plan is to establish, secure and protect the rights of children who are being denied their rights by you and your ilk.

Funny that sails over your head.

But then what? How will you stop it?

Name any one crime against humanity that has been completely "stopped."

Why are you demanding more when comes to stopping abortions than you are for any other form of child molestation?

Because it's something Taz wants to do. If he/she wanted to beat children, he/she would be insisting that the fact that the laws don't completely stop such behavior, there shouldn't be any laws at all.

That really is not the crux of that statement and there really is a problem there. Something that the pro-life position must address (and does in a few ways).

If abortion becomes illegal do you prosecute women that have an abortion? If you do, then how do you do so or even know that it was an abortion and not a miscarriage? If not, then why make it illegal in the first place?

Those are, IMHO, real questions that the pro-life position has to struggle with as there is not a good answer to them both even if there is a best answer.

Truly a subject for discussion that is worthy of a thread all its own.

 

[BlindBoo]

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Not really needed though. Inside that fertilized chicken egg there is, indeed, a chicken in its earliest stages of growth.

So yes, that is a chicken.

I disagree. It's not even a chick yet.

Again, your disagreement is irrelevant and only supported by what you WANT to be true rather than what actually is.

I don't think so. See a chicken is something you can deep fry but an egg you scramble. I guess you can deep fry an egg but how would you eat the drumsticks?

You want to call a zygote a human being and I don't. I'm sure you have your reasons.......

You dont think so as you keep stating. And you continue to refuse to define anytihng at all because you want to cling to the indefensible.

I did not say that I thought it was a chicken. The FACT is it is a chicken. That is not disputable. It has its own DNA. It has its own DEFINED boundaries. It consumes and uses that consumption to grow and develop. The HARD SCIENTIFIC FACT is that it is a chicken in a specific developmental stage.

You have not disputed anything at all. The only thing you have done is stamp your foot and demand that reality is not so. These things are clearly defined.

Same with the zygote. Still a human as a fetus is a human. A child is a human. A toddler is a human. A teenager is a human. All names for different stages of development.

A fetus is not a child. An embryo is not a child. A zygote is not a child. A viable fetus could very well become a human being but until it has a successful birth, it is not a human being. Human? Yes of course.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I like you state, "They are non-differentiated cells", as though the two are mutually exclusive. It's so much fun to listen to leftists try to be "scientific" by changing the names things are called by as though it changes the basic facts.

Yes, an embryo is made up

Your confused. A zygote is not an embryo.

Oh, wow, an analogy to a completely different life form

Yet we share so much DNA with them and most all life.

You're confused. You think you're someone with the authority to correct me on English . . . or anything. The fact that you can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're" says otherwise.

Seriously, you should NEVER, EVER speak on anything scientific ever again, because it makes you look even more laughably ignorant than you normally do. Really, just . . . no.

"We share similar DNA, so that makes their reproductive systems TOTALLY analogous to ours. Totally, dude. Now pass the bong!"

I would never dare be a grammar nazi. However the point remains valid. An embryo is not a zygote.

The only question I have is was it confusion of deliberate conflation?

Which came first, the drumstick or the fried egg?

You decide.

The only question I have is, how long did you know you had lost the argument before this attempt at deflection?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you have anything to prove that answering your questions is worth the effort? Because the last time I did it, you ignored four entire posts to respond to one-half of one sentence cut-and-pasted out of context.

In what way have you earned that much respect again?

When you post something worthy of a response, because it is either particularly good or bad, I respond. If it is just a cut & paste I usually just move on. (I broke my own rule here since you seem so hung up on these old posts.)

When you actually READ a post, then you can make a try at that supercilious attitude. Until then, you and I both know that you were utterly out of your depth the last time we talked (your side was so pathetic, it doesn't even qualify as a debate), to the point where you demonstrated it to everyone by picking out a half of a sentence to respond to, and hoping no one would notice.

And trying now to pretend you were just "above" answering me because it was "cut and paste"? That's not only lame, it's a lie. The only things I cut and pasted were hyperlinks and direct quotes. Everything else was all me . . . which you would have known, had you read the posts instead of running away like the utterly outclassed little ignoramus that you are.

Thank you, your second abject surrender has been noted, and you may now move on to another thread and pretend that you didn't kick your own ass again.

 

[BlindBoo]

I like you state, "They are non-differentiated cells", as though the two are mutually exclusive. It's so much fun to listen to leftists try to be "scientific" by changing the names things are called by as though it changes the basic facts.

Yes, an embryo is made up

Your confused. A zygote is not an embryo.

Oh, wow, an analogy to a completely different life form

Yet we share so much DNA with them and most all life.

You're confused. You think you're someone with the authority to correct me on English . . . or anything. The fact that you can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're" says otherwise.

Seriously, you should NEVER, EVER speak on anything scientific ever again, because it makes you look even more laughably ignorant than you normally do. Really, just . . . no.

"We share similar DNA, so that makes their reproductive systems TOTALLY analogous to ours. Totally, dude. Now pass the bong!"

I would never dare be a grammar nazi. However the point remains valid. An embryo is not a zygote.

The only question I have is was it confusion of deliberate conflation?

Which came first, the drumstick or the fried egg?

You decide.

The only question I have is, how long did you know you had lost the argument before this attempt at deflection?

Trying to spike the football before you score again? Do you think a zygote and an embryo are the same? Confusion I can understand, deliberate conflation to muddy the waters, I suspect.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Does

It

MORH

Out

Of

Something

That

Is

Not

A

Human

Being

Into

Something

That

IS

A

Human

Being?

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Dodger fan?

No, humans are not birds. Yes, we share about 60 % of DNA with Chickens. There are two types of reproduction......

Yes, we have certain similar DNA. No, that is not in any way even remotely relevant to the fact that we're different species, different genera, different all the way up to phylum level. In other words, only an ignorant ass clown thinks "Well, chicken eggs . . ." has anything to say about human reproduction. And trying to pretend that citing DNA similarities somehow makes your argument LESS of a joke actually makes you sound even more ridiculous.

Seriously, stop. Go back to "Abortion is good because I hate religion!" It was stupid, but at least it was a type of stupid you were familiar with.

That's too funny.

Who said abortion is good?

Because I find belief in the supernatural absurd, doesn't mean I hate religion. But I suppose any insult works if that's what your into. (Opsie did i forgat a contraction......).

"Just because I attack and denigrate religion every chance I get doesn't mean I hate it. It just means the only way I can pretend I'm not a loser is if I pretend that I'm better than someone - anyone! - else."

 

[FA_Q2]

Not really needed though. Inside that fertilized chicken egg there is, indeed, a chicken in its earliest stages of growth.

So yes, that is a chicken.

I disagree. It's not even a chick yet.

Again, your disagreement is irrelevant and only supported by what you WANT to be true rather than what actually is.

I don't think so. See a chicken is something you can deep fry but an egg you scramble. I guess you can deep fry an egg but how would you eat the drumsticks?

You want to call a zygote a human being and I don't. I'm sure you have your reasons.......

You dont think so as you keep stating. And you continue to refuse to define anytihng at all because you want to cling to the indefensible.

I did not say that I thought it was a chicken. The FACT is it is a chicken. That is not disputable. It has its own DNA. It has its own DEFINED boundaries. It consumes and uses that consumption to grow and develop. The HARD SCIENTIFIC FACT is that it is a chicken in a specific developmental stage.

You have not disputed anything at all. The only thing you have done is stamp your foot and demand that reality is not so. These things are clearly defined.

Same with the zygote. Still a human as a fetus is a human. A child is a human. A toddler is a human. A teenager is a human. All names for different stages of development.

A fetus is not a child. An embryo is not a child. A zygote is not a child. A viable fetus could very well become a human being but until it has a successful birth, it is not a human being. Human? Yes of course.

They are all the same thing in a different stage of development. I don't know why you insist on using human being where everyone else uses person hood as that is clear but what difference is suddenly conferred on that human at the instant of birth that makes it different? The abortion until the moment of birth is likely the most nonsensical position to take out there - moments before birth and moments after are a matter of location. Nothing else changes.

 

[Chuz Life]

Does being Implanted or not implanted affect or change what the zygote IS?

It is the first step necessary to become a human being. That is it will never become a human being with out attaching to the womb.

Again, biology says otherwise.

You simply "choose" you ignore it.

You are wrong for reasons far beyond the simple semantics but even the basic definitions of the words "human" and "being" show how wrong you are.

What is not " human" about a HUMAN being in the zygote stage of their life?

What is non existent about a human being in the zygote stage of their life that actually does physically exist?

According to science, All organisms are "beings."

Why do you claim that a human being (organism) in the zygote stage of their life is something less?

You dont have to answer.

We all KNOW the reason for your ignorance and denials. Don't we.