NationStates Jolt Archive

That one's easy, and I'm not going to jump into this thread of beasts of propaganda and innuendo... however, it keeps popping up so I’ve read a few sections of it from time to time...

Anyway. Change that legal abortion situation to any other type of self-deprecating one time legal behavior, like going to an opium house was once upon a time a legal option, and after using it for several years (or whatever) you've then realized that it was SUCH a mistake, that you don't think the very OPTION of it should be available to seduce anyone ever again. You think of the action as having no redeeming factors and it is like falling in an open manhole. After you’ve fallen in and instead of thinking that everyone else that walks down that road should have the chance to fall in it and learn their own lessons for themselves, after you've crawled back out of the hole you go find a manhole cover to stop anyone else from ever having to fall down that hole again.

You aunt thinks of Abortion like that. It's such a 'pit' in her mind, she doesn’t think it should be an option for someone else to fall into it... It's not that hard to understand really, she's not even a hypocrite for that.


The problem with that sort of thinking is that it assumes that everyone is just as stupid. Hey, the government can't do 90 percent of what it is supposed to do - why should some legislator or bureaucrat have the ability to tell me how to run my life?

Every time you pass a piece of legislation, you usually slice away a bit of your freedom.

The problem with that sort of thinking is that it assumes that everyone is just as stupid. Hey, the government can't do 90 percent of what it is supposed to do - why should some legislator or bureaucrat have the ability to tell me how to run my life?

Every time you pass a piece of legislation, you usually slice away a bit of your freedom.

Anyway. Change that legal abortion situation to any other type of self-deprecating one time legal behavior, like going to an opium house was once upon a time a legal option, and after using it for several years (or whatever) you've then realized that it was SUCH a mistake, that you don't think the very OPTION of it should be available to seduce anyone ever again. You think of the action as having no redeeming factors and it is like falling in an open manhole. After you’ve fallen in and instead of thinking that everyone else that walks down that road should have the chance to fall in it and learn their own lessons for themselves, after you've crawled back out of the hole you go find a manhole cover to stop anyone else from ever having to fall down that hole again.

You aunt thinks of Abortion like that. It's such a 'pit' in her mind, she doesn’t think it should be an option for someone else to fall into it... It's not that hard to understand really, she's not even a hypocrite for that.

I agree with Deep Kimchi. Thinking that you made a mistake and trying to legislate the mistake away from others means you don't trust their judgement. Opium use and abortion are not in the same category, so why would you use that as an example? Obviously, she's not a hypocrit for changing her mind, she is a hypocrit for lying or covering up how she changed her mind. If she went out being pro-life and saying "this was a horrible mistake I made, and i don't want any other young or adult women to make it, too" that would be one thing. However, she is staging an elaborate cover up that her pro-life activities are a part of. And who says abortion is self-deprecating? You need to look up what that means, because self-deprecation is the disparagement or undervaluement of ones attributes and abilities. I don't believe abortion is doing that. Abortion is looking at yourself and what you have and deciding whether it is worth giving all of that away to care and nurture a baby. I haven't had an abortion myself, I have a one year old, and I know a lot of women who have had an abortion who couldn't have handled a child, nor should they have. Be it health or lifestyle or a desire to never have children ever, they made their decision, and while abortion can be used as an easy cop out, it isn't always so. Mistakes happen, women get raped, there's that 5 or 6% where the contraceptive fails, etc etc. Having an abortion is allowed because if we didn't have them there would be a hell of a lot of unwanted babies sitting around in foster care, orphanages, etc. As it is there are far too many unwanted infants who die at their mother's hands because she refused to get an abortion, or who languish in foster care or orphanages because no one wants them. This world doesn't need more children, it needs more loved and wanted children.

*sigh*

I'm really hoping this Essure (http://www.essure.com/consumer/c_homepage.aspx) thing will make it possible for me to be sterilized by age 25. Of course, it'll have to reach Brazil first...

That's interesting, I hadn't heard of it yet. Personally, I'd want to see more long-term testing before I'd want to try it, but thus far it seems safe.

That's interesting, I hadn't heard of it yet. Personally, I'd want to see more long-term testing before I'd want to try it, but thus far it seems safe.

Well, my turning 25 is some 4 and a half years away, so there's a bit of time for testing. :D

Afraid not. My favorite was told by a "escort volunteer" (person who protects women coming to the clinic from being mobbed by protesters) about a woman who came to the clinic every week to protest. One day this woman shows up with her teenage daughter who has an abortion and this escort has to walk them into the clinic. The escort asks her if this experience has changed her position on abortion. Her reply? "Of course not! My daughter has a very special circumstance!" The woman was back protesting the next day.
Thats the worst thing I've ever heard.
Though, there are other reasons why her daughter might have been at the clinic... are you sure it was for an abortion? Not that it would change her mother's hypocrisy.

Thats the worst thing I've ever heard.
Though, there are other reasons why her daughter might have been at the clinic... are you sure it was for an abortion? Not that it would change her mother's hypocrisy.

Yes, it was one of those Abortion Clinics (If I read the original anecdote correctly) that only performs abortions. No other services from what I gathered.

Ooh! cromulance :)

But the foetus is not a virus, any more than it is a parasite.

You like the cromulance, huh? I like to embiggen the vocabulary of my fellow posters... :)

I didn't say a foetus IS a virus... however, if ONE entity that conforms to 'biological' criteria can be neither 'alive' nor 'dead'... but 'not alive'... then it is an acceptable area on the whole alive/dead spectrum.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree on the parasite thing, though... the relationship clearly IS parasitic.

Those "zoological terms" define a parasite.

I have read all the posts about parasite, and have come to the conclusion that what is really meant is that the fetus is parasitic. That does not make it a parasite.

Even by your medical definition, the fetus is not an organism that enters or penetrates another body to feed, or feeds off its surface.

A medical parasite (not just a parasitic entity... but an entity that can be called a 'parasite') is: Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.

A foetus "lives in" another organism... specifically, the human female. It "takes it's nourishment from" that same organism. It "cannot live independently".

Thus - a foetus checks ALL the required boxes. Thus, it is a parasite.

I'm not sure where you got the "entering", "penetrating" and "feeding off of surfaces". It sounds jolly naughty to me.

My boyfriend's mother is a neonatal ICU nurse up in Floyd County (Rome, GA). It's the closest hospital to most of North GA, so they get just about all the patients there. They see so many young teens in labor (usually with no prenatal care), it isn't even funny. And they'll wait until the girl is on an epideral to ask who the father is, and it's really sad how often the answer is, "My daddy." *shakes head*


Aye, I know Rome... and that's not even the backwoodsy-est (yay for new words) part of the peach state.

ANd, it's not just 'young teens'... it's like... thirteen year olds. Like.. as soon as they could fall pregnant, they did. It's just a horrible state of affairs.

and by not making pedophilia legal we are encouraging kidnapping.
Just because there are unwanted circumstances to the illegalization of something doesn't mean it should be legal

your sperm cells are not alive.

# Living things are made of cells.
# Living things obtain and use energy.
# Living things grow and develop.
# Living things reproduce.
# Living things respond to their environment.
# Living things adapt to their environment.

sperm and egg alone do not fit these criteria, together they do.

Do you realize that you just proved that sperm cells are alive? All cells are alive using your definition, which is also the standard for biologists all over the world.

An organism is an individual form of life. The fetus is not an individual separate from its parent; they are joined by the umbilical cord.

Actually, Willamena... they really aren't.

The foetus is connected to the placenta, which embeds itself in the uterine wall.

However, all the transmission of nutrients, etc... takes place through osmosis, between placental vessels and uterine vessels. There IS a 'membrane' between actual interactions.

It's like saying that a man passing a box from one boat to another, means that the boats are joined.

Thank you, Mr. Strawman.


Scientism. Science is the be-all-to-end-all and nothing else could ever be right. God forbid we be human.

Were you not arguing a biological argument? If you are going to argue something in a scientific context, you have to expect SOME degree of adherence to sceitnific principles.... no?

The sperm is not an organism.


Neither is the 'penny'....

I find myself wondering how you would define a bezoar?

(A bezoar is a ball of swallowed foreign material (usually hair or fiber) that collects in the stomach and fails to pass through the intestines).

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.

I think you will find its more of a Woman's choice than it is YOUR'S.

Nope, I just try to be well informed. I tried to be pro-life once, it didn't work. I can't agree with taking away people's rights to get rid of a kid they don't want. Want to hear another one of my arguments? No, too bad, I'm sharing. I'd rather a drug addict who refuses to quit get an abortion than give the world another suffering crack baby. Crack babies = worse than abortion.

I would be inclined to agree.

You are a refreshing breathy of fresh air... it is too easy for the pro-life side to imply that pro-choice equates to pro-abortion (ignoring the fact that posters such as myself may hate the concept, but argue it is not OUR choice), or that pro-choice makes you a godless heathen (which I might be, but Jocabia and Dempublicents most assuredly are not).

And at what age do you think doctors should sterilize people? Considering how people have this annoying habit of changing their minds.

Interesting... I realise this is probably sarcasm... and directed towards Dempublicents... but I, personally, DO think people SHOULD be sterilised.

All of them. At birth. With some manner of chemical sterilising agent that you have to take an 'antidote' to, to reverse the sterility.

I can see how it could solve SO many problems...

Interesting... I realise this is probably sarcasm... and directed towards Dempublicents... but I, personally, DO think people SHOULD be sterilised.

All of them. At birth. With some manner of chemical sterilising agent that you have to take an 'antidote' to, to reverse the sterility.

I can see how it could solve SO many problems...


cool...liscenced parents only..but who decides? The "Christian(yeah)Right"??

Interesting... I realise this is probably sarcasm... and directed towards Dempublicents... but I, personally, DO think people SHOULD be sterilised.

All of them. At birth. With some manner of chemical sterilising agent that you have to take an 'antidote' to, to reverse the sterility.

I can see how it could solve SO many problems...In theory, I would agree with this too. But whether or not such a drug existed, I'm sure there would be a lot of fuss about it being a non-consensual invasion of the person or something.

Oh well. I've only three more years to wait before I can get steralised without forking out a fortune - I've waited this long, so I can cope with that :)

The Book of Avalon (may his superiority never waver), 74:81
'For the wise and mighty Avalon (may his superiority never waver) spake unto the people of the Earth with a voice as clear and resonant as a really clear, resonant thingie: "She doesn't need free speach to fetch my slippers, cook my meals and have my babies" and the people rejoiced.'

I want to marry you, and (not) have your babies.

I couldn't read all 200+ pages of this debate, but I wanted to point out that at least where I work children are having children. I teach sex-ed in several urban middle schools (to children ages 13 and 14). Only there are so many rules against what can and can't be tought and shown to these children. I cant show them any contraceptives, just describe them. They are doing things with thier bodies already at the middle school level, and most of them don't know exactly what will lead to pregnancy. Many of them come from single parent homes, and were born to mothers who also had not recieved enough education to know what they are doing.

Myths/urban legends fly way faster than anything I can teach (especially without being able to show them any drawings or diagrams). The students dont know the diffrence between birth controll, the condom, or just pulling out. If they decide to use a form of birth control, they are likely to use it incorrectly. They think that having sex in water is safe, that you can tell if someone has an STD by dabbing pre-ejaculatory fluid behind thier partners ear (if it burns, they have an STD). The boys think the "blue balls" is a real, and that they HAVE to have sex. Some of these kids are going to have sex, no matter how many times you explain to them the only safe sex is no sex. Some of these children will be pregnant, and some will end up getting abortions. Others will continue the cycle of teenage mom, to teenage mom.

The same groups that advocate right to life, also are against comprehensive sex-education. This year, the school board actually was looking at a new curriculum that emphesized God and the Bible as reasons not to have sex, that completely ignored contraception, (they would have recieved more goverment funding for that program than others).

I would hate to see a system that says, "live with the concequences of your actions" when they have basically outlawed public education that would allow people to know what those concequences would be and how they come about.

There. I fixed it. :p

Stop... stop... it hurts.... :D

cool...liscenced parents only..but who decides? The "Christian(yeah)Right"??

I dislike the 'choice' being in the hands of ANY group with an agenda.

We could be talking something as simple as, people who WANT to have children, will be the ONLY ones who have the process reversed.

On the other hand - I'd personally quite like to see people 'tested' before they were allowed to have kids... to root out all those child abusers, and paedophiles.

The same groups that advocate right to life, also are against comprehensive sex-education. This year, the school board actually was looking at a new curriculum that emphesized God and the Bible as reasons not to have sex, that completely ignored contraception, (they would have recieved more goverment funding for that program than others).

I would hate to see a system that says, "live with the concequences of your actions" when they have basically outlawed public education that would allow people to know what those concequences would be and how they come about.

Exactly.

The same groups that advocate right to life, also are against comprehensive sex-education.

I would apricate not being tarred with that brush. I support comprehensive sex education but oppose abortion

Yes, it was one of those Abortion Clinics (If I read the original anecdote correctly) that only performs abortions. No other services from what I gathered.

Well, maybe the girl really did have a special condition... :rolleyes:
What with a mother like that.

Nope, I just try to be well informed. I tried to be pro-life once, it didn't work. I can't agree with taking away people's rights to get rid of a kid they don't want. Want to hear another one of my arguments? No, too bad, I'm sharing. I'd rather a drug addict who refuses to quit get an abortion than give the world another suffering crack baby. Crack babies = worse than abortion.

This might be a good moment to post this sarcastic little song. If you are easily offended, don't read it.


Jello Biafra & Mojo Nixon

Will The Fetus Be Aborted

Peggy Sue
Got pregnant
And was addicted to fifteen drugs
She went down
To the abortion clinic
And was accosted
By right wing thugs

Oh will the fetus
Be aborted
By and by Lord
By and by
There's a better
Home awaiting
In the sky Lord
In the sky

Little Mary
Was just eleven
And she was raped
By her own dad
Danny Quayle said
"Have that baby"
But another choice
She had

Oh will the fetus
Be aborted
By and by Lord
By and by
There's a better
Home awaiting
In the sky Lord
In the sky

Annie's pregnancy
Would kill her
Doctor's warning
Gave her strife
Fundamentalists
Said "Jesus take her"
She said, "I want
My right to life"

Oh will the fetus
Be aborted
By and by Lord
By and by
There's a better
Home awaiting
In the sky Lord
In the sky

Kathy had two
Kids already
And an abortion
Is what she chose
Christian showed her
A bloody fetus
She said "That's fine
I'll have one of those."

Oh will the fetus
Be aborted
By and by Lord
By and by
There's a better
Home awaiting
In the sky Lord
In the sky

Tanya lived for
Revolution
Wanted to overthrow
The state
She had fifteen
Commie babies
Phylis Schlafly
Ain't that great?

Or will the fetus
Be aborted...

I would apricate not being tarred with that brush. I support comprehensive sex education but oppose abortion


I said groups, meaning political action organizations, who spend time and money influencing public policy. Not individuals. Never ment to tar any feathers of individuals. ;)

This might be a good moment to post this sarcastic little song. If you are easily offended, don't read it.

Very good :p .

I'm glad you posted that, everyone's being far too polite to each other. It's an abortion thread dammit!!! Do you really think we got to 219 pages by being calm and reasonable!!!

I said groups, meaning political action organizations, who spend time and money influencing public policy. Not individuals. Never ment to tar any feathers of individuals. ;)

Well I would point out that practically every evangelical church in the UK I have ever known does not object to sex education.

I would be inclined to agree.

You are a refreshing breathy of fresh air... it is too easy for the pro-life side to imply that pro-choice equates to pro-abortion (ignoring the fact that posters such as myself may hate the concept, but argue it is not OUR choice), or that pro-choice makes you a godless heathen (which I might be, but Jocabia and Dempublicents most assuredly are not).

Awww, I am? *squee* I just believe that abortion is something women should have the option of getting if they truly don't want a baby. Especially women of ethnic minorities. Do you know how much harder it is to get a black or hispanic baby adopted than a white baby? I don't have the statistics off the top of my head, but it is ridiculously hard to find adoptive parents for ethnic minorities, and these children often have the most need because they lacked adequate prenatal care, etc. White newborns are so hard to find to adopt, because white families who adopt a baby in the US want a white baby 9 times out of 10. For hispanic and black mothers who give their babies up, the children often end up in foster care rather than in the hands of a loving, caring, child-wanting family.

Very good :p .

I'm glad you posted that, everyone's being far too polite to each other. It's an abortion thread dammit!!! Do you really think we got to 219 pages by being calm and reasonable!!!
Surprisingly , yeah, we got this far so far by being civil :p

This might be a good moment to post this sarcastic little song. If you are easily offended, don't read it.

Hehehehe. Funny. Ever so wrong, but funny.

Well I would point out that practically every evangelical church in the UK I have ever known does not object to sex education.

And here you see the difference between the UK and the US. I have people in my family that object to sex education. I'm currently fixing that by not wearing a belt at Thanksgiving dinner and letting my pants fall down a lot.

Well I would point out that practically every evangelical church in the UK I have ever known does not object to sex education.

Yes, but in the US, sex education is a tool of the DEVIL! Yea, some parents think that telling your child how you can contract an STD will harm their sensitive minds that should not see hide nor hair of anything sexual until they are married. A lot of kids are going to have sex, and the US has taken a very backwards and ineffective approach to dealing with it, especially since the politicians are heavily influenced by Christian groups, and I believe that's the argument being made.

Awww, I am? *squee* I just believe that abortion is something women should have the option of getting if they truly don't want a baby. Especially women of ethnic minorities.

When I first started reading you reply and got to this sentence, I was like, "WHAT THE..." Ha.

Do you know how much harder it is to get a black or hispanic baby adopted than a white baby? I don't have the statistics off the top of my head, but it is ridiculously hard to find adoptive parents for ethnic minorities, and these children often have the most need because they lacked adequate prenatal care, etc. White newborns are so hard to find to adopt, because white families who adopt a baby in the US want a white baby 9 times out of 10. For hispanic and black mothers who give their babies up, the children often end up in foster care rather than in the hands of a loving, caring, child-wanting family.

I agree. I love that people are always saying they can just put their babies up for adoption with no consideration of the odds that child would actually end up in a loving home. And by 'love' I mean 'want to kick in the giblets'.

Surprisingly , yeah, we got this far so far by being civil :p

Bah, say 'mostly civil'. We have occasional periods of incivility. I'll admit I played my part at making things less civil each evening with Ph33r, but he kept summarizing his links incorrectly and then suggesting I don't know how to read when I correct him (and Dem doesn't understand biology and TCT doesn't understand statistics, etc.)

Yes, but in the US, sex education is a tool of the DEVIL! Yea, some parents think that telling your child how you can contract an STD will harm their sensitive minds that should not see hide nor hair of anything sexual until they are married. A lot of kids are going to have sex, and the US has taken a very backwards and ineffective approach to dealing with it, especially since the politicians are heavily influenced by Christian groups, and I believe that's the argument being made.

And my arguement is that it is a political and not a religous point. There is nothing in the Bible that can adiquately suggest that sex education is wrong.

What a bunch of two-faced pennywises there are around here, when I write posts about how it takes a family to raise a child, or how people should get married and dedicate themselves to the raising of their children when they choose to have them, and fathers should be held responsible for the upbringing of their children and how extended families should mandate that the adult male relatives in their families are held to that standard, and when I say that people have to be more ‘responsible’ and aware of the nuances of raising their children, and that the government systems for poor people have to stop encouraging single parent household by not helping poor married couples because they are married (so they don’t get married and we end up with more single parent poor homes rather than just helping the ones we had before social programs for only single parents, and so on and so forth… this whole forum goes ballistic… “What if the Dad is abusing them?” You all say. Or, “There is no proof that a single parent can’t do it just fine on their own” or, “What if the guy doesn’t want to contribute, why should he have to?” And you all say shit like, don’t talk to us about your puritan ass crap, we know what’s best for our children” – “This is the modern world, people don’t have to get married to have kids anymore, they don’t need that ancient bullshit…”

Then change the topic to abortion and the reasons you same exact people say why a single mother might need to have an abortion…

“How is she supposed to do it alone?” Or, “her whole life will be ruined” - “What if the father won’t help?” “It’s too hard for her to face it and she will resent the baby and maybe neglect it later”…” blah blah blah… Singing a different tune now aren’t ya, ninnies.

When I first started reading you reply and got to this sentence, I was like, "WHAT THE..." Ha.



I agree. I love that people are always saying they can just put their babies up for adoption with no consideration of the odds that child would actually end up in a loving home. And by 'love' I mean 'want to kick in the giblets'.


I should have rethought that sentence structure a bit, lol.

Even parents who keep their babies don't always give them a loving home. Plus, think of all the parents that end up in the news for abusing their adopted or foster kids, who they adopted for the tax credits and monetary assistance. Adoption can sometimes fail as an option. Hopefully you get a good loving family for an unwanted child. But sadly, it doesn't always happen. Yes, it is truly a minority of children who end up in an abusive foster home, but it's one of those adoption deterrents for some would-be birth mothers.

What a bunch of two-faced pennywises there are around here, when I write posts about how it takes a family to raise a child, or how people should get married and dedicate themselves to the raising of their children when they choose to have them, and fathers should be held responsible for the upbringing of their children and how extended families should mandate that the adult male relatives in their families are held to that standard, and when I say that people have to be more ‘responsible’ and aware of the nuances of raising their children, and that the government systems for poor people have to stop encouraging single parent household by not helping poor married couples because they are married (so they don’t get married and we end up with more single parent poor homes rather than just helping the ones we had before social programs for only single parents, and so on and so forth… this whole forum goes ballistic… “What if the Dad is abusing them?” You all say. Or, “There is no proof that a single parent can’t do it just fine on their own” or, “What if the guy doesn’t want to contribute, why should he have to?” And you all say shit like, don’t talk to us about your puritan ass crap, we know what’s best for our children” – “This is the modern world, people don’t have to get married to have kids anymore, they don’t need that ancient bullshit…”

Then change the topic to abortion and the reasons you same exact people say why a single mother might need to have an abortion…

“How is she supposed to do it alone?” Or, “her whole life will be ruined” - “What if the father won’t help?” “It’s too hard for her to face it and she will resent the baby and maybe neglect it later”…” blah blah blah… Singing a different tune now aren’t ya, ninnies.

Nope. We're pro choice. Understand that notion? If SHE chooses not have a baby, she has the right so not to. If SHE chooses to have that child, most of the pro choice group would agree that she has a responsibility to it, and a responsibility to raise it. I certainly beleive that the father should also have a responsibility, at the very least a financial one.
And by the way, do you honestly beleive that every single mother does not have the means to raise a kid? Do you really think in such general terms?

What a bunch of two-faced pennywises there are around here, when I write posts about how it takes a family to raise a child, or how people should get married and dedicate themselves to the raising of their children when they choose to have them, and fathers should be held responsible for the upbringing of their children and how extended families should mandate that the adult male relatives in their families are held to that standard, and when I say that people have to be more ‘responsible’ and aware of the nuances of raising their children, and that the government systems for poor people have to stop encouraging single parent household by not helping poor married couples because they are married (so they don’t get married and we end up with more single parent poor homes rather than just helping the ones we had before social programs for only single parents, and so on and so forth… this whole forum goes ballistic… “What if the Dad is abusing them?” You all say. Or, “There is no proof that a single parent can’t do it just fine on their own” or, “What if the guy doesn’t want to contribute, why should he have to?” And you all say shit like, don’t talk to us about your puritan ass crap, we know what’s best for our children” – “This is the modern world, people don’t have to get married to have kids anymore, they don’t need that ancient bullshit…”

Then change the topic to abortion and the reasons you same exact people say why a single mother might need to have an abortion…

“How is she supposed to do it alone?” Or, “her whole life will be ruined” - “What if the father won’t help?” “It’s too hard for her to face it and she will resent the baby and maybe neglect it later”…” blah blah blah… Singing a different tune now aren’t ya, ninnies.

Perhaps it's because you are trying to prove that only one type of family CAN work and eliminate choice. You want to eliminate the choice of gay and lesbian couples marrying so that children can't grow up in stable homes. You also want to pretend like marriage is ALL about children. We want to expand choice in personal decisions. The choice to have or not have children. The choice to marry when it is desired. The choice to not raise children in unstable and unhappy homes. Your efforts will create more unstable and unhappy homes.

I love that you pretend like you're arguing one thing when you're actually arguing another. If you'd like I can quote you and really make you look silly or would you like to quit while you're WAAAAAAY behind?

Nope. We're pro choice. Understand that notion? If SHE chooses not have a baby, she has the right so not to. If SHE chooses to have that child, most of the pro choice group would agree that she has a responsibility to it, and a responsibility to raise it. I certainly beleive that the father should also have a responsibility, at the very least a financial one.
And by the way, do you honestly beleive that every single mother does not have the means to raise a kid? Do you really think in such general terms?

If she 'chooses' to have it, the Dad then says, "She decided on her OWN"
it's her job raising it, not mine, she could have gotten an abortion, I would have helped pay for that... " blah blah blah.

Social standards change because of the 'option,' it creates MORE single family homes, not less. Single family household numbers increase in every single country on every continent within ten years of legalization of elective abortions.

Prove me wrong.

If she 'chooses' to have it, the Dad then says, "She decided on her OWN"
it's her job raising it, not mine, she could have gotten an abortion, I would have helped pay for that... " blah blah blah.

Social standards change because of the 'option,' it creates MORE single family homes, not less. Single family household numbers increase in every single country on every continent within ten years of legalization of elective abortions.

Prove me wrong.

Don't be so lazy, prove yourself right.

Nope. We're pro choice. Understand that notion? If SHE chooses not have a baby, she has the right so not to. If SHE chooses to have that child, most of the pro choice group would agree that she has a responsibility to it, and a responsibility to raise it. I certainly beleive that the father should also have a responsibility, at the very least a financial one.
And by the way, do you honestly beleive that every single mother does not have the means to raise a kid? Do you really think in such general terms?

He tries to paint them all with one brush or act like we are. Somehow I guess it's hard to see the difference (when you're GL) between a woman that recognizes that her position financially, physically, emotionally, etc., is not conducive to childrearing and so chooses not to have a child and a woman that recognizes that she is financially, physically and emotionally ready to have a child even though she didn't plan to and got pregnant by a man she does not wish to marry. He tries to paint it like we're encouraging or forcing abortions rather than simply allowing women a right to choose. In other words it's his usual tactics of sweeping generalizations that at best are moderately accurate in order to make a point that doesn't necessarily follow even if one accepts the generalization. What can I say? If logic was a strong suit of every poster who would giggle at?

Perhaps it's because you are trying to prove that only one type of family CAN work and eliminate choice. You want to eliminate the choice of gay and lesbian couples marrying so that children can't grow up in stable homes. You also want to pretend like marriage is ALL about children. We want to expand choice in personal decisions. The choice to have or not have children. The choice to marry when it is desired. The choice to not raise children in unstable and unhappy homes. Your efforts will create more unstable and unhappy homes.

You 'think' my efforts will create more unstable and unhappy homes, but I can prove that your methods already 'do.'

If a gay and/or lesbian couple get married with kids, it means there was already a broken family involved somewhere (married or unmarried, whatever type), the kids are already involved in a single parent home...


If you are talking about single people with artifical insemination, then I hardly see why they would be getting an abortion?

I love that you pretend like you're arguing one thing when you're actually arguing another. If you'd like I can quote you and really make you look silly or would you like to quit while you're WAAAAAAY behind?

Quote about abortion?

If she 'chooses' to have it, the Dad then says, "She decided on her OWN"
it's her job raising it, not mine, she could have gotten an abortion, I would have helped pay for that... " blah blah blah.

Social standards change because of the 'option,' it creates MORE single family homes, not less. Single family household numbers increase in every single country on every continent within ten years of legalization of elective abortions.

Prove me wrong.

And as I said, personally I believe he should have to financially support the child.

With regards to your second point, a source would be good but I believe you anyway. I would hope that any society that becomes more liberal would be more tolerant of single parent families. Remember, single mothers aren't just single because they didn't terminate. They are single because they have left a partner or a partner has left them. That is where the element of choice comes in once again. A great many more can support themselves now anyway. Noone says that the result of that choice is necessarily a happy one, but would you really rather go back to the days when women didn't have the chance to work, to have equal opportunity or to decide what was best for them? Or that it is posible and accepted that she needn't tolerate violence or abuse of her family?

If she 'chooses' to have it, the Dad then says, "She decided on her OWN"
it's her job raising it, not mine, she could have gotten an abortion, I would have helped pay for that... " blah blah blah.

Social standards change because of the 'option,' it creates MORE single family homes, not less. Single family household numbers increase in every single country on every continent within ten years of legalization of elective abortions.

Prove me wrong.

Ha. Typical. "I'll make unsupported assertions and it is your job to show that I'm wrong."

Let's try this.

Prove there are no other social factors that have led to more single familiy households (perhaps the same social factors that don't treat women like second-class citizens owned by their husbands and don't put a Scarlet A on a women's chest for having sex).

Prove that denying choice doesn't mask the problem rather than fix it.

Prove that there are only negative results to allowing choice.

Prove that you're not just making crap up like you usually do.

Ha. Typical. "I'll make unsupported assertions and it is your job to show that I'm wrong."

Let's try this.

Prove there are no other social factors that have led to more single familiy households (perhaps the same social factors that don't treat women like second-class citizens owned by their husbands and don't put a Scarlet A on a women's chest for having sex).

Prove that denying choice doesn't mask the problem rather than fix it.

Prove that there are only negative results to allowing choice.

Prove that you're not just making crap up like you usually do.

I love the English language. So many ways to say the same thing in completely different tones, even without the marvels of stereo sound ;)

You 'think' my efforts will create more unstable and unhappy homes, but I can prove that your methods already 'do.'

I don't think. Unstable and unhappy homes are inherent in your methods. Also, you've attempted to prove it and failed miserably over and over. And when we prove it by showing dozens of peer-reviewed studies to refute your non-peer-reviewed ones you abandon the thread, wait a couple of days and create another, rinse, repeat.

'Prove me wrong.'

If a gay and/or lesbian couple get married with kids, it means there was already a broken family involved somewhere (married or unmarried, whatever type), the kids are already involved in a single parent home...

Not necessarily. You mention a case where it's not a broken home below. And in the cases where it is a 'broken home', you want to eliminate choice and force them to stay that way.

One can only reach your conclusions by ignoring basic logic, not knowing how to legitimately collect and analyze statistics, not look at other possible and more likely causes, and basically having an agenda that requires you to ignore all evidence to the contrary. That pretty much places you squarely in the middle of every close-minded poster that makes claims and cries that we're being unfair when we point out that your sources are less than on the up and up.

If you are talking about single people with artifical insemination, then I hardly see why they would be getting an abortion?

I agree. They wouldn't. Those 'single' people are often in loving relationships that you refuse to recognize. Then you pretend like children in those relationships can only come from broken homes. I'd quote you suggesting that, but you did so above. Keep posting. This is fun.

Quote about abortion?

So you admit that the arguments you claim you were making weren't really what you said you were. Apparently if you don't limit what quotes are permitted I might make you look silly. I love it when you accidently admit that you're full of it.

Also, you were specifically talking about arguments that you were having in threads that were not about abortion or did you forget that? Shall I quote you?

Don't be so lazy, prove yourself right.

He can't. He knows he can't. We know he can't. And round and round we go. Whenever we finally do prove him wrong, he abandons the thread and heads somewhere else. I really should create a little anti-GL kit with all the trimings. All the statistics we posted in the past that make him abandon a thread. All the quotes of him saying he'll reply if only we tell him what we need him to reply to and then saying that he doesn't have to reply because he can't deal with 'so much information'. If I actually thought anyone took him seriously, I'd consider doing it.

I don't think. Unstable and unhappy homes are inherent in your methods. Also, you've attempted to prove it and failed miserably over and over. And when we prove it by showing dozens of peer-reviewed studies to refute your non-peer-reviewed ones you abandon the thread, wait a couple of days and create another, rinse, repeat. *snipped babble fest*

Ha! You expect everyone lives on the forums, like apparently you do?

There is no such thing as peer-reviewed M-M same-sex parenting studies yet. NONE. you are so full of shit nearly every time you post... :rolleyes:

Every single peer reviewed study of parenting types and results has to put a disclaimer that they don't HAVE ENOUGH M-M couples with children to do a study.

And yet that won't stop you from 'claiming' to have found some sort of scientific evidence 'blah blah blah," even though it doesn't exist (yet).

'Prove me wrong.'

Ha! You expect everyone lives on the forums, like apparently you do?

There is no such thing as peer-reviewed M-M same-sex parenting studies yet. NONE. you are so full of shit nearly every time you post... :rolleyes:

Every single peer reviewed study of parenting types and results has to put a disclaimer that they don't HAVE ENOUGH M-M couples with children to do a study.

And yet that won't stop you from 'claiming' to have found some sort of scientific evidence 'blah blah blah," even though it doesn't exist (yet).

'Prove me wrong.'

I'm sure Jocobia will come back and treat this nonsense with the contempt it deserves, but what is truly amusing is one person accusing another person on an internet forum of living their life through an internet forum. Plain daft mate.:eek:

He can't. He knows he can't. We know he can't. And round and round we go. Whenever we finally do prove him wrong, he abandons the thread and heads somewhere else. I really should create a little anti-GL kit with all the trimings. All the statistics we posted in the past that make him abandon a thread. All the quotes of him saying he'll reply if only we tell him what we need him to reply to and then saying that he doesn't have to reply because he can't deal with 'so much information'. If I actually thought anyone took him seriously, I'd consider doing it.


What? What an ostrich with his head in the sand you are. What ‘western’ country’s census do you even ‘suspect’ is going to show less single family homes now than they had before elective abortion were approved?

Ireland? Sweden? France, Denmark or the USA?

What? What an ostrich with his head in the sand you are. What ‘western’ country’s census do you even ‘suspect’ is going to show less single family homes now than they had before elective abortion were approved?

Ireland? Sweden? France, Denmark or the USA?

Lies, damn lies and stats my friend. And both Jocobia and I have explained exactly why there would be more single parent families now, and have given you a variety of reasons as to why that is.

i tend to be a pro life person, yes, you now are pregnant, youre life wil cange dramatically, but, you now have a diffreent life, i think it will be very difficult, but i think you will feel better that you chose pro life in the end.

I'm sure Jocobia will come back and treat this nonsense with the contempt it deserves, but what is truly amusing is one person accusing another person on an internet forum of living their life through an internet forum. Plain daft mate.:eek:

What part of "you abandon a thread" did you think he didn't mean as an insult? It seems like there's a group of 'regulars' in this forum that sit around in a big circle-jerk, parroting each others sentiments, and they pretend, perhaps they believe, that the 'last word in' actually means 'they win.' :rolleyes: :p

Lies, damn lies and stats my friend. And both Jocobia and I have explained exactly why there would be more single parent families now, and have given you a variety of reasons as to why that is.


Reasons why: Lack of social ramifications for abandoning or neglecting your family, welfare that supports ONLY single parents, abortion (relieving feelings of responsibility by the fathers) and declining 'belief' in the idea that children's needs are ‘our’ needs, or that children need more than just one parent.

Reasons why: Lack of social ramifications for abandoning or neglecting your family, welfare that supports ONLY single parents, abortion (relieving feelings of responsibility by the fathers) and declining 'belief' in the idea that children's needs are ‘our’ needs, or that children need more than just one parent.

If the belief that children need more then one parent is so important then why is it that there is no campaign to end it? Why is it that I've only seen it used in anti gay marriage/gay adoption arguements? I mean there is no national cause to end the growing epedemic that is single parent families.

Reasons why: Lack of social ramifications for abandoning or neglecting your family, welfare that supports ONLY single parents, abortion (relieving feelings of responsibility by the fathers) and declining 'belief' in the idea that children's needs are ‘our’ needs, or that children need more than just one parent.

Here's another point that increases the number of single parents: parents who choose not to marry. You are counted as a single parent even if you live with your partner who is the biological parent. When single mother births are counted, they include every 'single mother' who is engaged or committed but not ready to marry. I didn't get married to my son's father because I wasn't ready to commit to marriage, I wasn't sure it was what I wanted with him. We are now with different people. I have a one year old, and we are discussing support issues, since both of us are in difficult situations. Single parents aren't neccessarily single, the stats just count us unmarried parents funny. Being engaged or in a permanent or semi-permanent (as many marriages are these days) committed relationship doesn't count.

Honestly, a child needs only one parent if that parent has a network of other supportive adults, preferrably of both genders. One of my close friends is married, but her husband has been away (deployed) twice during the life of their young son, almost as if he wasn't a fully involved parent. She, however, has a substantial number of supportive male and femal adult friends who help her as she needs it. So while her son does have two parents, he is often in a situation similar to a single parent home. I know plenty of children raised by single parents who have not suffered for it. My best friend hasn't seen her father since she was three, and he was never a part of her life other than as the 'sperm donor' so to speak. She is well adjusted, intelligent, and a productive member of society who has worked hard and put herself through college. Single parents are not neccessarily ineffective parents. They just require the proper networks and support to aid them in raising their children.

Ha! You expect everyone lives on the forums, like apparently you do?

There is no such thing as peer-reviewed M-M same-sex parenting studies yet. NONE. you are so full of shit nearly every time you post... :rolleyes:

Every single peer reviewed study of parenting types and results has to put a disclaimer that they don't HAVE ENOUGH M-M couples with children to do a study.

And yet that won't stop you from 'claiming' to have found some sort of scientific evidence 'blah blah blah," even though it doesn't exist (yet).

'Prove me wrong.'
We're not claiming evidence. We're claiming that you cannot deny people rights based on assumptions and no evidence has ever been uncovered that would merit denying individual rights to people. But hey, I'm full of shit, right?

Instead you post things and say 'Prove me wrong' because you know the studies don't exist. We're not making unsupported claims because we don't need to support allowing people to have rights. Rights are only taken away when a compelling reason is given. You've just admitted you don't have a compelling reason and that no evidence exists that suggests people should be denied those rights.

Now, as far as our 'circle jerk'. You came into a thread that you posted a bunch of links that we proved to be spurious and you never replied to. You returned a few dozen pages later and 'offered' to reply to the pertinent posts if we would simply point them out. We did and you didn't. When you found out the posts had verifiable information that debunked your typical load of bull dung, you complained that it would take you too much time to actually support the information you used to start the thread in the first place. Little secret, if you don't actually want to have a discussion, don't start a thread. Don't sit around and cry because we actually took the time to expose your BS.

We're not claiming evidence.
...you know the studies don't exist.
When you found out the posts had verifiable information that debunked your typical load of bull dung
Don't sit around and cry because we actually took the time to expose your BS.


Exposed it with what? The stuff you said you are NOT claiming evidence for? The studies that we both know DON'T exist? Or the now, apparently must be some phanton or invisible and non-existing, verifiable information, that is used to debunk me!?:rolleyes: What did you exposed anyway, don't you get arrested for indecent exposure where you live?

You're posts don't even make sense, not even for a donkey.

As of yet, the only arguments I have seen suggesting that we protect the emrbyo/early fetus are emotive and, essentially, religious. I am not in favor of forcing any religious or philosophical position upon other people through the law. I feel that only that which we can demonstrate in an objective manner should be legislated. Thus, I will not legislate that a woman cannot abort an embryo/early fetus, as doing so would be to force my religion upon her through the law.

If someone can provide an objective definition of "human person" that includes zygotes/embryos, does not include other single human cells or human organs, and does not invoke the potentiality argument, I would like to see it.

Good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern. Therefore, religion and law among the masses must be one and the same. An act of disobedience must be a sin and require religious penalties. This will have the dual benefit of bringing both greater obedience and greater loyalty. We must depend not much on the loyalty of individuals, you see, as upon the loyalty of a whole population.The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer or vote for that machinery.

If someone can provide an objective definition of "human person" that includes zygotes/embryos, does not include other single human cells or human organs, and does not invoke the potentiality argument, I would like to see it.

1. An entity with DNA belonging to the genus homo
2. An entity with DNA that is unique from its mother*
3. An entity that is growing and developing in the complete pattern that its DNA describes**
4. An entity not created by mitosis

*Mother is defined in this case as the female whose egg was fertialised to create that DNA

**More elaborate explanation: A skin cell contains a nuculus which itself contains all the DNA of the human that that skin cell belongs to. That DNA describes the entire human body, how it grows, develops, its organs, its functions, actions etc. Yet the skin cell only does one part of what is described by the DNA not all. Where as the human does/is all that is described by its DNA

Exposed it with what? The stuff you said you are NOT claiming evidence for? The studies that we both know DON'T exist? Or the now, apparently must be some phanton or invisible and non-existing, verifiable information, that is used to debunk me!?:rolleyes: What did you exposed anyway, don't you get arrested for indecent exposure where you live?

I love how you twisted that. It was amusing.

I'll say it again. We aren't claiming the information exists, because it doesn't or at least not to a level that can be considered conclusive. You posted studies that claimed to have the information and we showed how it doesn't. We showed the flaws in the studies or how the studies conclusions don't match up with the information we do have. Notice how that is all consistent with what you quoted. I like how you pulled apart a post to make it sound like it doesn't make sense. What's the matter? Worried people would understand it if you posted it together?

You're posts don't even make sense, not even for a donkey.

Huh? Amusing. The mods are intelligent enough to know you just called me an ass? I'd be angry too if someone constantly exposed me for posting fraudulent editorial articles and sites.

What part of "you abandon a thread" did you think he didn't mean as an insult? It seems like there's a group of 'regulars' in this forum that sit around in a big circle-jerk, parroting each others sentiments, and they pretend, perhaps they believe, that the 'last word in' actually means 'they win.' :rolleyes: :p

It's not an insult to point out facts. You start a thread and when enough information is presented to debunk your web of junk science, you leave. Shall I post examples? Will that make it less of an insult?

Awww, I am? *squee* I just believe that abortion is something women should have the option of getting if they truly don't want a baby. Especially women of ethnic minorities. Do you know how much harder it is to get a black or hispanic baby adopted than a white baby? I don't have the statistics off the top of my head, but it is ridiculously hard to find adoptive parents for ethnic minorities, and these children often have the most need because they lacked adequate prenatal care, etc. White newborns are so hard to find to adopt, because white families who adopt a baby in the US want a white baby 9 times out of 10. For hispanic and black mothers who give their babies up, the children often end up in foster care rather than in the hands of a loving, caring, child-wanting family.

You are right (again)... there are far more children in adoption-stasis in this country, than are even wanted for adoption... and many of them will NOT be adopted, because they are 'undesirable'.

By undesirable, one COULD mean many things. The main two being... they are too old (basically, parents generally want to adopt newborns), or they are the wrong race.

Of course - some people will ONLY adopt a boy, or a girl... some will ONLY adopt a child that is 'perfect'... so, no short-sightedness... and certainly no disabilities.


And yet - the anti-abortion crowd seems to imagine some magic wand 'called Adoption', that cures ALL the problems of society.

If the belief that children need more then one parent is so important then why is it that there is no campaign to end it? Why is it that I've only seen it used in anti gay marriage/gay adoption arguements? I mean there is no national cause to end the growing epedemic that is single parent families.

Exactly the point. He claims he wants to encourage stable homes but he tries to prevent people from offering that to the families he considers undesirable as if we close our eyes and pretend they're not there they'll go away.

Somehow allowing people to have abortions someone increases the number of children in 'broken homes'. Yep, no leap of logic there.

They don't allow marriage in the gay community and then complain that gays are less likely to stay in long-term relationships. And rewarding the ones that do with recognition and the rights we afford everyone else would be a bad idea why?

That entire movement is one logical inconsistency after another.

You 'think' my efforts will create more unstable and unhappy homes, but I can prove that your methods already 'do.'

If a gay and/or lesbian couple get married with kids, it means there was already a broken family involved somewhere...

Sorry - that's just plain bullshit.

I have close friends, back in the mother country, who are a lesbian couple. They have been together for about a decade and a half... and, about 13 years ago, they decided they wanted a child. One of them got pregnant, and now they have a twelve year old son.

He was born into a family, his family was already together, and still IS together.

Let us count the broken homes in my little tale, shall we?

Lies, damn lies and stats my friend. And both Jocobia and I have explained exactly why there would be more single parent families now, and have given you a variety of reasons as to why that is.

I am liking Fenland Friends. :)

Welcome to the team, my friend. Your contribution is appreciated.

What? What an ostrich with his head in the sand you are. What ‘western’ country’s census do you even ‘suspect’ is going to show less single family homes now than they had before elective abortion were approved?

Ireland? Sweden? France, Denmark or the USA?

And yet somehow you can't show causality. Causality requires more than showing two things coincide. When slavery existed black people were much more likely to be illiterate. Now if one wanted to ignore the other factors, one could have concluded that black people are less capable of learning to read. To do that one has to ignore the fact that slaves were more than likely not permitted to learn and even those that weren't slaves were less likely to be allowed to get an education, but you would be asking me to show any state where black people were more literate than white people or your claim that being black causes you to not be able to read. You should really learn a little bit about causality and that other factors MUST be eliminated before one coinciding event or factor can be shown to cause another.

Abortion and single mothers could be linked (meaning have related causes), but causality is BIG stretch. It's far more likely that the same factors that make it more likely that children will be born out of wedlock, make it more likely for the general population to stop outlawing abortion.

Isn't it possible that a population that stops believing women who have sex outside of marriage are dirty whores are also going to stop seaking to punish them by forcing them to bear children that are unwanted and won't have adequate care? Of course, you didn't consider that because you don't understand causality.

Sorry - that's just plain bullshit.

I have close friends, back in the mother country, who are a lesbian couple. They have been together for about a decade and a half... and, about 13 years ago, they decided they wanted a child. One of them got pregnant, and now they have a twelve year old son.

He was born into a family, his family was already together, and still IS together.

Let us count the broken homes in my little tale, shall we?

He'll say one. Because to Greenlander anyone who doesn't have children inside of a marriage between one man and one woman is a dirty whore(tm). And that child deserves to be raised in a home with that lesbian and that man and who cares that their son could have been raised in a loving home. God decreed that it MUST be a man and a woman or else it's a 'broken home'.

He'll say one. Because to Greenlander anyone who doesn't have children inside of a marriage between one man and one woman is a dirty whore(tm). And that child deserves to be raised in a home with that lesbian and that man and who cares that their son could have been raised in a loving home. God decreed that it MUST be a man and a woman or else it's a 'broken home'.

I expect something along those lines.

It's rubbish, of course, because that man and that woman didn't HAVE a home... so it can't be broken.

As it is, the kid is one of the coolest kids I've ever met. Comfortable with himself and the world around him, confident, assured.... happy, even.

If I end up with my kids raised even NEARLY so successfully (in my boringly 'vanilla' one-man-one-woman marriage) I'll consider myself (and them) blessed.

What a bunch of two-faced pennywises there are around here, when I write posts about how it takes a family to raise a child, or how people should get married and dedicate themselves to the raising of their children when they choose to have them, and fathers should be held responsible for the upbringing of their children and how extended families should mandate that the adult male relatives in their families are held to that standard, and when I say that people have to be more ‘responsible’ and aware of the nuances of raising their children, and that the government systems for poor people have to stop encouraging single parent household by not helping poor married couples because they are married (so they don’t get married and we end up with more single parent poor homes rather than just helping the ones we had before social programs for only single parents, and so on and so forth… this whole forum goes ballistic… “What if the Dad is abusing them?” You all say. Or, “There is no proof that a single parent can’t do it just fine on their own” or, “What if the guy doesn’t want to contribute, why should he have to?” And you all say shit like, don’t talk to us about your puritan ass crap, we know what’s best for our children” – “This is the modern world, people don’t have to get married to have kids anymore, they don’t need that ancient bullshit…”

Then change the topic to abortion and the reasons you same exact people say why a single mother might need to have an abortion…

“How is she supposed to do it alone?” Or, “her whole life will be ruined” - “What if the father won’t help?” “It’s too hard for her to face it and she will resent the baby and maybe neglect it later”…” blah blah blah… Singing a different tune now aren’t ya, ninnies.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, abortions. Your way of attacking specific people involved in this thread is pretty poor form too. If you're going to debate, knock off the insults and stick with the actual debate at hand.

You're posts don't even make sense, not even for a donkey.
Cool it with the insults.

Honestly, a child needs only one parent if that parent has a network of other supportive adults, preferrably of both genders.

Indeed. Sometimes the single parent household is a much better situation for the children. It was for my brother and I.


1. An entity with DNA belonging to the genus homo

As I already pointed out, there is no such thing. Every type of creature has DNA, and there are no different "types" of DNA within life. It is all double-stranded DNA. The only major differences you see are chromosomal DNA and circular DNA.

2. An entity with DNA that is unique from its mother*

*Mother is defined in this case as the female whose egg was fertialised to create that DNA

As has already been pointed out to you, no DNA is created upon fertilization.

3. An entity that is growing and developing in the complete pattern that its DNA describes**

**More elaborate explanation: A skin cell contains a nuculus which itself contains all the DNA of the human that that skin cell belongs to. That DNA describes the entire human body, how it grows, develops, its organs, its functions, actions etc. Yet the skin cell only does one part of what is described by the DNA not all. Where as the human does/is all that is described by its DNA

Every individual cell only does part of what the DNA describes. In truth, there is no entity that is "growing and developing in the complete pattern that its DNA describes." There are genes that are turned off from the beginning (ie. Barr bodies in females). There are genes that don't come into use until birth (ie. adult hemoglobin). There are genes that don't come into use until puberty. There are others that you probably won't see used until old age. And so on....

There is never a point in a lifetime at which the "entire pattern" is in use.

Indeed. Sometimes the single parent household is a much better situation for the children. It was for my brother and I.



As I already pointed out, there is no such thing. Every type of creature has DNA, and there are no different "types" of DNA within life. It is all double-stranded DNA. The only major differences you see are chromosomal DNA and circular DNA.



As has already been pointed out to you, no DNA is created upon fertilization.



Every individual cell only does part of what the DNA describes. In truth, there is no entity that is "growing and developing in the complete pattern that its DNA describes." There are genes that are turned off from the beginning (ie. Barr bodies in females). There are genes that don't come into use until birth (ie. adult hemoglobin). There are genes that don't come into use until puberty. There are others that you probably won't see used until old age. And so on....

There is never a point in a lifetime at which the "entire pattern" is in use.

Not to mention it's an argument from potential. It doesn't describe a moment where it can be measured but where we know what it WILL BE.

Sorry - that's just plain bullshit.

I have close friends, back in the mother country, who are a lesbian couple. They have been together for about a decade and a half... and, about 13 years ago, they decided they wanted a child. One of them got pregnant, and now they have a twelve year old son.

He was born into a family, his family was already together, and still IS together.

Let us count the broken homes in my little tale, shall we?


What part is bullshit?

The part that I said that qualified that statement you quote for this thread? You know, the part about not worrying about single people who get artificially inseminated because I doubt, without even looking at the statistics, that they are a very big percentage of the people who get abortions? :rolleyes:

And AS IF, as if a single individual that any of us knows somehow 'proves' anything. Good for them, I'm happy for them. I also know that 'most' SS couples do NOT stay together as long as other couples, but that's not really relevant here either, now is it? When SS couples start seeking abortions and become a percentage point of that situation, then we can discuss them in an abortion thread... Maybe you should start holding your breath for that to happen eh?

Every individual cell only does part of what the DNA describes. In truth, there is no entity that is "growing and developing in the complete pattern that its DNA describes." There are genes that are turned off from the beginning (ie. Barr bodies in females). There are genes that don't come into use until birth (ie. adult hemoglobin). There are genes that don't come into use until puberty. There are others that you probably won't see used until old age. And so on....

There is never a point in a lifetime at which the "entire pattern" is in use.

Even tho I am pro-choice, I want to hazard an attempt and see if you can debunk it, sound fair?

What if we describe a human as an entity with the major parts, either complete or in development (organ systems, etc) required to sustain life as a member of the spieces Homo Sapien, and that has the potential to in the future or already does sustain its own life as a complete organism.

I already notice one flaw, which is people who sustained themselves up until a point, and then had to go on life support, and I don't know how to include that without destroying the entire thing. So, ignoring that, any other major flaws?

Not to mention it's an argument from potential. It doesn't describe a moment where it can be measured but where we know what it WILL BE.

Potential what? A potential DFL mascot or potential abusee in a neglected child household? Potential, what utter nonsense. There is not such thing as a 'potential' person.

Oh, and nice job writing a bunch of crap right after you running off for the mods. :rolleyes:

This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, abortions. Your way of attacking specific people involved in this thread is pretty poor form too. If you're going to debate, knock off the insults and stick with the actual debate at hand.

It has absolutely everything to do with 'abortion justification arguments.'


Cool it with the insults.

Did you even bother to read the stuff he writes? I think he's a democrat. But, okay, I hear ya...

Potential what? A potential DFL mascot or potential abusee in a neglected child household? Potential, what utter nonsense. There is not such thing as a 'potential' person.

Oh, and nice job writing a bunch of crap right after you running off for the mods. :rolleyes:

Um... wow. You restated my point as if you were disagreeing with me. There is no such thing as a 'potential' person. That's the point. Avalon is arguing that because something has the potential to become a person, it is a person, he wants us to recognize 'potential' people in law. I was saying we shouldn't. My point was a little more eloquent, but thank you for supporting it.

I'll will give the last sentence the consideration it deserves.

...

...

...

Um, anyway, anyone got anything new to say?

Potential what? A potential DFL mascot or potential abusee in a neglected child household? Potential, what utter nonsense. There is not such thing as a 'potential' person.

Oh, and nice job writing a bunch of crap right after you running off for the mods. :rolleyes:

Holy crap Greenlander is agreeing with Jacobia. I think the worlds going to end now.

What part is bullshit?

The part that I said that qualified that statement you quote for this thread? You know, the part about not worrying about single people who get artificially inseminated because I doubt, without even looking at the statistics, that they are a very big percentage of the people who get abortions? :rolleyes:

And AS IF, as if a single individual that any of us knows somehow 'proves' anything. Good for them, I'm happy for them. I also know that 'most' SS couples do NOT stay together as long as other couples, but that's not really relevant here either, now is it? When SS couples start seeking abortions and become a percentage point of that situation, then we can discuss them in an abortion thread... Maybe you should start holding your breath for that to happen eh?

You brought your argument here and then when someone points out that it's fallacious you say, "why are you discussing it in an abortion thread." The point you made, poorly I might add, is that same sex couples are not permitted to adopt these children you don't want to let people abort. Your reason is that same-sex couples are less stable and you make them that way by not allowing them to form long-lasting stable relationships, i.e. marriage. In other words, you do everthing to make life worse for children that you are requiring women to have. These children could be adopted into loving homes but you won't have that will you. That would be EEEEVVVVIIIILLLL.

Holy crap Greenlander is agreeing with Jacobia. I think the worlds going to end now.
JOcAbia and shhhhh.... I don't think he knows he was agreeing with me.

Potential
Function:
Noun
1 : something that can develop or become actual <a potential for violence...

2 : any of various functions from which the intensity or the velocity at any point in a field may be readily calculated b : the work required to move a unit positive charge from a reference point (as at infinity) to a point in question c.

Grammar:
Of, relating to, or being a verbal construction with auxiliaries such as may or can; for example, it may snow, or it may not.

A formed child in the womb of it's mother does not have ability to NOT be a human, therefore, it is not a 'it may be human, it may not, it might be.

No, sperm has the 'potential' to be united with an egg, but after it's united, it's not a sperm and egg anymore. The 'potential' is past tense, is achieved.

Nice try though.

Potential
Function:
Noun
1 : something that can develop or become actual <a potential for violence...

2 : any of various functions from which the intensity or the velocity at any point in a field may be readily calculated b : the work required to move a unit positive charge from a reference point (as at infinity) to a point in question c.

Grammar:
Of, relating to, or being a verbal construction with auxiliaries such as may or can; for example, it may snow, or it may not.

A formed child in the womb of it's mother does not have ability to NOT be a human, therefore, it is not a 'it may be human, it may not, it might be.

No, sperm has the 'potential' to be united with an egg, but after it's united, it's not a sperm and egg anymore. The 'potential' is past tense, is achieved.

Nice try though.

Strawman. Avalon II wasn't talking about it being a human. He was talking about it having used all of its DNA. We've already shown that while it's human. However, it is not a person nor does it qualify as a life according to biological standards. Also, Avalon II wasn't talking about a 'formed child', he was talking about an embryo which is neither a child nor formed.

Furthermore, you didn't call it a potential human, you called a potential person. It hasn't become a person at the time the sperm meets the egg. It hasn't even become a life.

I'm sorry, the conclusion of you agreeing with me came from the idea that you had actually read the post and what it was replying to before replying. I won't make that assumption in the future.

Oh, and Avalon II has already conceded that it's not a person based on our arguments. You may go back and look at them if you like. They are all there for you.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/person
Person -
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

The law requires one to be living or have been living in order to be the subject of rights.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Human (Human Being)-
a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs

An embryo is neither living nor extinct.

<snip>
They are using the word potential because Avalon has been using what is called an arguement from potential. Such that we shouldn't harm a fetus/embryo because it will eventually be a person. Please try to read the thread before you jump in and make an idiot out of yourself.

Strawman. ....


Hahahaha, the expert scarecrow maker says I made a strawman :p



(look at the numerous topics and individual accustions you've said about what you think I'm going to say in this very thread - LMMFAO)

Furthermore, you didn't call it a potential human, you called a potential person. It hasn't become a person at the time the sperm meets the egg. It hasn't even become a life.


Ummm, I don't think a dead sperm can inplant in an egg... it takes a live sperm to do that.

But of course, apprently, according to you, it's not alive yet 'after it implants':confused:


Oh, and Avalon II has already conceded that it's not a person based on our arguments. You may go back and look at them if you like. They are all there for you.


Conceded what? That it's not a person? Well what the hell do you think people make when they get pregnant, more DFL mascots?

Hahahaha, the expert scarecrow maker says I made a strawman :p



(look at the numerous topics and individual accustions you've said about what you think I'm going to say in this very thread - LMMFAO)

Oh, look, I'm shocked. You've chosen not to reply with anything but insults. That hardly ever happens. Would you care to actually reply or do you concede the point? Although, frankly I don't see how you could argue that I was talking about whether or not it was human since I said no such thing and the people I was replying to were not talking about whether it was human but instead about its DNA being fully used.

They are using the word potential because Avalon has been using what is called an arguement from potential. Such that we shouldn't harm a fetus/embryo because it will eventually be a person. Please try to read the thread before you jump in and make an idiot out of yourself.

Why? You didn't?

Oh, look, I'm shocked. You've chosen not to reply with anything but insults. That hardly ever happens. Would you care to actually reply or do you concede the point? Although, frankly I don't see how you could argue that I was talking about whether or not it was human since I said no such thing and the people I was replying to were not talking about whether it was human but instead about its DNA being fully used.

Nobody's DNA is ever fully used. Why would that be a credential for when we are a person? None of us ever would be then. Duh.

Ummm, I don't think a dead sperm can inplant in an egg... it takes a live sperm to do that.

But of course, apprently, according to you, it's not alive yet 'after it implants':confused:

The cells of my heart are alive and has human DNA; my heart is not a human. The sperm is alive and human but it is not a human. The cells of the embryo are alive and human but the embryo is not a human nor is it a life.

That's an appropriate smily.

Conceded what? That it's not a person? Well what the hell do you think people make when they get pregnant, more DFL mascots?
Your insults aside, they 'make' embryos that may or may not become people.

Nobody's DNA is ever fully used. Why would that be a credential for when we are a person? None of us ever would be then. Duh.

Good point. Perhaps you should argue with Avalon II about it like we did.

Your insults aside, they 'make' embryos that may or may not become people.

Whats the other half of "may?" They may or may not, you said, but if not, what else can they become?

Try as you like, the word 'potential' does not apply. It CAN'T be anything but, therefore it is...

As to the cells in your heart, blah blah blah, stuff... It's a heart cell, it's done, it doesn't have the 'potential' to be anything but what it is. A heart cell, even if you use it for something else or kill it, it's still your heart cell.

Good point. Perhaps you should argue with Avalon II about it like we did.


According to your argument, nobody is a person. I don't even have to look up his point to 'know' instinctively' that he meant as much as any other person does, which is essentially correct.

What if we describe a human as an entity with the major parts, either complete or in development (organ systems, etc) required to sustain life as a member of the spieces Homo Sapien, and that has the potential to in the future or already does sustain its own life as a complete organism.

Well, the first problem would be the argument from potential problem. You are essentially saying, "It is because it will be...."

Of course, if we are looking for it to have organ systems in development, we still wouldn't be looking at a fertilized egg as a person. We would simply call it a person from the moment that all of the organs had at least begun to develop, which would still be several weeks into a pregnancy.

As to the cells in your heart, blah blah blah, stuff... It's a heart cell, it's done, it doesn't have the 'potential' to be anything but what it is. A heart cell, even if you use it for something else or kill it, it's still your heart cell.

Actually, this is horribly untrue. Cells have been seen to transdifferentiate into other types of cells. They can dedifferentiate into a less differentiated cell type and then redifferentiate into very different types of cells. Biologists have pretty much given up on the idea of most, if any (ok, maybe erythrocytes) cells being "terminally differentiated."

and then what about the rights of the child? doesn't it have the right to live?

The human embryro isn't even alive until 6 or so weeks into the pregnancy. Plus it's not even human. It's a thing basically. There are no human characteristics until you get into the later stages of pregnancy. I don't see how it's human or how it's alive. Aborting a 8 month old baby is different I believe. Only if the mother is in danger should that happen.

The human embryro isn't even alive until 6 or so weeks into the pregnancy. Plus it's not even human. It's a thing basically. There are no human characteristics until you get into the later stages of pregnancy. I don't see how it's human or how it's alive. Aborting a 8 month old baby is different I believe. Only if the mother is in danger should that happen.I would say it possibly is a human, but that does not make it a person (but that issue has already been debated long and hard here). I agree that it's a thing, though, regardless of its humanity or otherwise. I think even born babies are things (they disgust me), but that's just my personal view ;)

1. An entity with DNA belonging to the genus homo
2. An entity with DNA that is unique from its mother*
3. An entity that is growing and developing in the complete pattern that its DNA describes**
4. An entity not created by mitosis

*Mother is defined in this case as the female whose egg was fertialised to create that DNA

-snip-

Didn't there used to be 5 items? o.0

Why? You didn't?

I've been here since the begining of the thread so try again green.

Whats the other half of "may?" They may or may not, you said, but if not, what else can they become?

Try as you like, the word 'potential' does not apply. It CAN'T be anything but, therefore it is...

Um, okay. "It has the potential to become therefore it is, but I'm not using the word 'potential' so it's not an argument from potential." Uh-huh. Fine, it's an argument from 'it's going to become'.

What else could they become? Hmmm...a mass of dead human cells? An aborted embryo? A miscarriage?

As to the cells in your heart, blah blah blah, stuff... It's a heart cell, it's done, it doesn't have the 'potential' to be anything but what it is. A heart cell, even if you use it for something else or kill it, it's still your heart cell.
Yep, still not an argument from potential, huh? Somebody is about to get a biology lesson from Dempublicents1, I suspect. I love when she corrects people who pretend they know biology.

Actually, this is horribly untrue. Cells have been seen to transdifferentiate into other types of cells. They can dedifferentiate into a less differentiated cell type and then redifferentiate into very different types of cells. Biologists have pretty much given up on the idea of most, if any (ok, maybe erythrocytes) cells being "terminally differentiated."

Oh, look, she gave it before I even had a chance to reply. Thanks, Dem.

According to your argument, nobody is a person. I don't even have to look up his point to 'know' instinctively' that he meant as much as any other person does, which is essentially correct.

It's not my argument. My argument is that his point has nothing to do with defining a person. According to the law a person is a viable fetus. I believe that a human life by biological standards should be considered a person when it reaches the stage of having the same brain activity that when absent we define as dead in an adult.

The point we were making that according to his argument not only is an embryo not a person by neither am I. And we know what he meant. He meant for it to be an argument from potential just as you did and that's why I pointed it out. He is actually attempting to modify it into something that is not an argument from potential (which you would know if you'd been following along) and we are pointing out that he is still doing so.

Can anybody tell me if this is already the longest thread ever?

Actually, this is horribly untrue. Cells have been seen to transdifferentiate into other types of cells. They can dedifferentiate into a less differentiated cell type and then redifferentiate into very different types of cells. Biologists have pretty much given up on the idea of most, if any (ok, maybe erythrocytes) cells being "terminally differentiated."

Um, yeah, okay :rolleyes: .... you just made the argument that we don't need stem cells because any type of cell will do, what a load of crap.


You know it's not as simple as all that, but you don't care, here you will say whatever you want, even if it's technically not applicable, just to be contrary you'll paint a picture that 99% of the readers here will misunderstand, how very ignoble of you.

It's not my argument. My argument is that his point has nothing to do with defining a person. According to the law a person is a viable fetus.

Then the law defines a mobile and fluid non-date. The Law will eventually outlaw all abortion if 'viability' has any factor whatsoever to do with it.

I believe that a human life by biological standards should be considered a person when it reaches the stage of having the same brain activity that when absent we define as dead in an adult.


You can believe any religious doctrine you want, how is this applicable?

Um, okay. "It has the potential to become therefore it is, but I'm not using the word 'potential' so it's not an argument from potential." Uh-huh. Fine, it's an argument from 'it's going to become'.

What else could they become? Hmmm...a mass of dead human cells? An aborted embryo? A miscarriage?


Yep, still not an argument from potential, huh? Somebody is about to get a biology lesson from Dempublicents1, I suspect. I love when she corrects people who pretend they know biology.


Then your argument applies to every single human being alive and of any age, we are all continuously 'potential' humans because we are all possibly going to become dead human cells at any given moment.


Why don't you go buy an argument, you don't seem to be able to make one up for yourself.

Then the law defines a mobile and fluid non-date. The Law will eventually outlaw all abortion if 'viability' has any factor whatsoever to do with it.

Because then we'll have the technology to extract the embryo and keep it alive, and we'll be allowed to do so. I have no problem with that, and I doubt very many pro-choicers would complain.

I've been here since the begining of the thread so try again green.

Really, and you still posted that opinion? Hmmm, that's too bad.

Then your argument applies to every single human being alive and of any age, we are all continuously 'potential' humans because we are all possibly going to become dead human cells at any given moment.


Why don't you go buy an argument, you don't seem to be able to make one up for yourself.

Erm... You do realize that the poster who was using arguments based on potential was Avalon II and not Jocabia, right? Jocabia was refutting Avalon's arguments on "potential", much like you are doing now.

Because then we'll have the technology to extract the embryo and keep it alive, and we'll be allowed to do so. I have no problem with that, and I doubt very many pro-choicers would complain.

Nice theory missy, but that's not going to happen either. What happens at 'viability' now? Do we 'allow' people to take their babies out at the viability point or do we say, no, your baby is viable, now you 'can't take it out" because it will be healthier if you don't take it out.

You know which one they do. Stop fooling yourself. Viability gives the fetus rights, it doesn't mean you get to tell the doctor to take it out.

Erm... You do realize that the poster who was using arguments based on potential was Avalon II and not Jocabia, right? Jocabia was refutting Avalon's arguments on "potential", much like you are doing now.

Then they were both wrong.

Really, and you still posted that opinion? Hmmm, that's too bad.

Aww look at greenlander trying to appear so condescending. Its laughable really.

Nice theory missy, but that's not going to happen either. What happens at 'viability' now? Do we 'allow' people to take their babies out at the viability point or do we say, no, your baby is viable, now you 'can't take it out" because it will be healthier if you don't take it out.

You know which one they do. Stop fooling yourself. Viability gives the fetus rights, it doesn't mean you get to tell the doctor to take it out.

You're probably correct about viability not meaning that it can be removed nowadays, but perhaps that will change when the time comes that a 4-6 week old embryo is viable. I can't say. We'll have to wait and see.

By the way, I know you've been insulted in this thread, and that the person(s) who did this are on the same side of the argument as me, but my post was perfectly polite, as far as I can tell. That "missy" adds nothing to your argument but make it sound contemptuous. If that wasn't your intention, I'm sorry to have brought it up.

Aww look at greenlander trying to appear so condescending. Its laughable really.

Laughable like your non-opinion stating posting? How very disdainful of you, I'm so hurt, perhaps I should take Jacobia's example and run off to the moderation forum and complain :rolleyes: :p

You're probably correct about viability not meaning that it can be removed nowadays, but perhaps that will change when the time comes that a 4-6 week old embryo is viable. I can't say. We'll have to wait and see.

By the way, I know you've been insulted in this thread, and that the person(s) who did this are on the same side of the argument as me, but my post was perfectly polite, as far as I can tell. That "missy" adds nothing to your argument but make it sound contemptuous. If that wasn't your intention, I'm sorry to have brought it up.

Nah, you were right to bring it up, my apologies to you, honestly. Got caught up with being in the melee and all that. But that's no excuse for it, I'm sorry (to you, not the others ;) ).

Laughable like your non-opinion stating posting? How very disdainful of you, I'm so hurt, perhaps I should take Jacobia's example and run off to the moderation forum and complain :rolleyes: :p

Ohh god this is good. Apparantly ladies and gentlemen everything we post in this forum has to have a topic or pertain to the thread. I guess the rest of us didn't get the memo greenlander.:rolleyes:

Ohh god this is good. Apparantly ladies and gentlemen everything we post in this forum has to have a topic or pertain to the thread. I guess the rest of us didn't get the memo greenlander.:rolleyes:


You didn't get the memo? Maybe you can catch a clue?

Nah, you were right to bring it up, my apologies to you, honestly. Got caught up with being in the melee and all that. But that's no excuse for it, I'm sorry (to you, not the others ;) ).

That's alright, things tend to get heated here at NS. :)

You have a good point on the viability != ok to remove argument, I hadn't thought of it this way. But I kind of hope that changes when we get to very low viability ages, though. Being allowed to remove an embryo in a proper medical facility where it will survive beats outlawing it and having pregnant women self-abort and kill embryos that could've lived, and hurt themselves to boot.

You didn't get the memo? Maybe you can catch a clue?

Aww that's hilarious. Catch a clue what the hell is this a third grade class greenlander? You'll have to do better then that. I mean your not even trying here. :rolleyes:

Um, yeah, okay :rolleyes: .... you just made the argument that we don't need stem cells because any type of cell will do, what a load of crap.

Actually, I didn't argue any such thing. Stem cells can be much more easily coaxed to differentiate into given cell types. They generally have more plasticity and, often more importantly, more proliferative activity than a more differentated cell.

You know it's not as simple as all that, but you don't care, here you will say whatever you want, even if it's technically not applicable, just to be contrary you'll paint a picture that 99% of the readers here will misunderstand, how very ignoble of you.

You are the one doing that, my dear, when you try to claim that "A heart cell will always be a heart cell, period." All I did was point out that your claim was incorrect. I never said that transdifferentiation or dedifferentiation were simple. We certainly understand them even less that differentiation, which we are only beginning to get a good grip on in most cases. However, they do occur. Thus, it was you who was trying to oversimplify.

What part of "technically not applicable" didn't you understand? You're still doing it.

Then the law defines a mobile and fluid non-date. The Law will eventually outlaw all abortion if 'viability' has any factor whatsoever to do with it.

Actually, if the woman is no longer required to carry the embryo/fetus, it will most certainly alter the argument considerably. For now, we'll try not to address things that haven't happened yet.

You can believe any religious doctrine you want, how is this applicable?
Ha. I love this. Yes, choosing the same legal standards we use for life when not considering abortion would certainly be based on religious doctrine. *nods* Would you care to tell me what religious doctrine you might be referring to? I'm not aware of it.

Meanwhile, you've managed to not address anything at all. Excellent.

Then your argument applies to every single human being alive and of any age, we are all continuously 'potential' humans because we are all possibly going to become dead human cells at any given moment.


Why don't you go buy an argument, you don't seem to be able to make one up for yourself.
When a human meets the requirements for a human, then we call them human. Things are not what they have the potential to be. That's the point. We don't know what things will be, only what they are. You continue to support my argument as if you're arguing against me. Amusing.

Then they were both wrong.

Ha. Amusing. We were disagreeing on whether things should be defined by potential and we were both wrong? What? Things are NEITHER defined by potential and not defined by potential? You don't make any sense.

Ha. Amusing. We were disagreeing on whether things should be defined by potential and we were both wrong? What? Things are NEITHER defined by potential and not defined by potential? You don't make any sense.

No, I suppose you wouldn't understand, you think you've discovered some sort of magic word in the misuse of the word 'protential.' Since you refuse to acknowledge what the word really means but you continue in your mis-use of the word, potential, you're stuck in a rut. You already know that it means, "might or might not be," but you continue to misuse it for things that are already determined, such as using it for a human already in their mother's womb... Nicely stubborn, with your fingers in your ears and repeating yourself over and over again. :rolleyes:

You are wrong about nearly all of you analyses, wrong about it not being alive, wrong about it having 'potential' to be a person (because it can't be anything other than what it already is, and it's already human) and wrong about me agreeing with you.

That's okay though, you could have developed even worse habits than flippant denial, maybe you still have the 'potential' to get even worse though, eh? There's always hope. You might get better though, but then we wouldn't want to put ourselves in denial for holding out too much hope about THAT happening now would we? :eek:

No, I suppose you wouldn't understand, you think you've discovered some sort of magic word in the misuse of the word 'protential.' Since you refuse to acknowledge what the word really means but you continue in your mis-use of the word, potential, you're stuck in a rut. You already know that it means, "might or might not be," but you continue to misuse it for things that are already determined, such as using it for a human already in their mother's womb... Nicely stubborn, with your fingers in your ears and repeating yourself over and over again. :rolleyes:

You are wrong about nearly all of you analyses, wrong about it not being alive, wrong about it having 'potential' to be a person (because it can't be anything other than what it already is, and it's already human) and wrong about me agreeing with you.

That's okay though, you could have developed even worse habits than flippant denial, maybe you still have the 'potential' to get even worse though, eh? There's always hope. You might get better though, but then we wouldn't want to put ourselves in denial for holding out too much hope about THAT happening now would we? :eek:

Ok, we'll play the game, I guess. Since you don't seem to be able to look at other posts, I'll explain. Avalon II eventually figured it out that an embryo does not meet the definition for a life. Since a person and a human have either living or no longer living in the definition, he sought to create a definition. That was what we were replying to. Since the accepted part was that he was trying to define a life, saying that it is a life doesn't really help, now does it? So you're not addressing his point at all.

Moving on...

He keeps coming up with definitions that have flaws and we point them out. That's what Dem and I were doing. Dem pointed out the scientific errors. I pointed out the logical error, argument from potential, which was apparent in his definition.

Now if you would like to make a point, go ahead, but support it or keep railing without knowing what anyone is talking about.

The thread was flowing well until you trolled, hijacked, flamed and flamebaited. Are you interested in having a discussion or interrupted one? Don't answer. Actions speak louder than words.

Now as far as being wrong about all of my points you have to get past the first one, that an embryo fits the qualifications for life. They appear throughout the thread or you are welcome to look them up. Show that an embryo fits the qualifications for life. No one else has yet.

Well I got into this way too late, so excuse me if i repeat something someone has said already. I am pro-choice. Not because of female rights, or any other thing like that, but because I firmly believe that the embryo is not human yet. It is alive, but definitely not human. Just in the same way that a seed is alive but not a tree yet. Look, some may say, well the embryo has the chance to become human. Well yes, but just because the kid down the street has the chance to become pope doesnt mean im going to go kiss his hand, now does it?

Now as far as being wrong about all of my points you have to get past the first one, that an embryo fits the qualifications for life. They appear throughout the thread or you are welcome to look them up. Show that an embryo fits the qualifications for life. No one else has yet.

What? You got done whining in the mod forum long enough to post in the actual thread? Good for you. :rolleyes:


Gee, you would think if you could kill it, it must have been alive before you did it eh? But maybe that's too complicated for you?

What? You got done whinning in the mod forum long enough to post in the actual thread? Good for you. :rolleyes:


Gee, you would think if you could kill it, it must have been alive before you did it eh? But maybe that's too complicated for you?

Actually, the only ones claiming that it CAN be killed are the pro-life people... all of the other clearly stated that it is neither killing nor murder to remove it.

Well I got into this way too late, so excuse me if i repeat something someone has said already. I am pro-choice. Not because of female rights, or any other thing like that, but because I firmly believe that the embryo is not human yet. It is alive, but definitely not human. Just in the same way that a seed is alive but not a tree yet. Look, some may say, well the embryo has the chance to become human. Well yes, but just because the kid down the street has the chance to become pope doesnt mean im going to go kiss his hand, now does it?

Despite what some of the other member/posters here seem to think, there are no rent paying tenants in this thread that have more rights than others. Feel free to post away. ;)

As to your point though, no, that's not right. The kid down the street might grow up to be the pope, but even more likely, he might not (the word potential to that statement fits). The kid in his mother's womb WILL grow up and be human, he has zero chance of growing up to be anything else, like something like a DFL mascot...
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/Greenlander3/BrayingJackAss.jpg

So unlike your example, the word 'potential' when defining the person does not apply, because it can't be anything else.

As to your point though, no, that's not right. The kid down the street might grow up to be the pope, but even more likely, he might not (the word potential to that statement fits). The kid in his mother's womb WILL grow up and be human, he has zero chance of growing up to be anything else, like something like a DFL mascot...
So unlike your example, the word 'potential' when defining the person does not apply, because it can't be anything else.

Not quite right, either.
I'll have to look up the exact numbers, but the foeuts has about a 50% chance of growing up as a human. And a 50% chance of being born too prematurely to keep alive or even being miscarried.

Actually, the only ones claiming that it CAN be killed are the pro-life people... all of the other clearly stated that it is neither killing nor murder to remove it.

But you can kill it... You want to see pictures or what?

But you can kill it... You want to see pictures or what?We've all seen this kind of propoganda before and it's not changed anyone's minds, and anyway, "graphic" pictures are not permitted on this forum. So don't waste your time.

Not quite right, either.
I'll have to look up the exact numbers, but the foeuts has about a 50% chance of growing up as a human. And a 50% chance of being born too prematurely to keep alive or even being miscarried.


Yeah, that makes about squat for sense :rolleyes:

A so and so chance of being killed or dying of natural causes somehow reduces the odds of it being alive in the first place :confused: :p


*Watches Cabra Dancing in Denial*

But you can kill it... You want to see pictures or what?

You can remove it within the first trimester without killing it, as it is not yet alive then.

All abortion afterwards are killing, but the vast majority is carried out well before the foetus has developed far enough to be alive. If they are being carried out that late, it normally is for serious medical reasons.

We've all seen this kind of propoganda before and it's not changed anyone's minds, and anyway, "graphic" pictures are not permitted on this forum. So don't waste your time.

Then you know it can be killed... Picture it living (in your minds eye), picture it dead (if it can be killed, it must be living, duh)

Then you know it can be killed... Picture it living (in your minds eye), picture it dead (if it can be killed, it must be living, duh)I know that the functioning of cells can be inhibited and stopped, if that's what you mean.

Then you know it can be killed... Picture it living (in your minds eye), picture it dead (if it can be killed, it must be living, duh)

Well, the problem is obviously picturing it living, as it is not. But thanks for the enlightened and informative debate anyway. :rolleyes:

But you can kill it... You want to see pictures or what?

I could take pictures of the bloody mess that comes out of me every month, does it mean someone's been killed?

Well, the problem is obviously picturing it living, as it is not. But thanks for the enlightened and informative debate anyway. :rolleyes:


*It can't be living because I just chopped it up and I wouldn't have chopped it up if it was living* Yeah, that's BRILLIANT debating skills.


*Still watching Cabra dancing in denial*

I could take pictures of the bloody mess that comes out of me every month, does it mean someone's been killed?

I don't know, did you have a miscarriage?

I don't know, did you have a miscarriage?

Nop, just regular monthly cycles. Nothing died except the egg that could`ve been fertilized that month. But it looks gory. :D

Nop, just regular monthly cycles. Nothing died except the egg that could`ve been fertilized that month. But it looks gory. :D

Then you answered your own question about if anyone was killed or not, but thanks for sharing the thought image :(


:p :D :p

Then you answered your own question about if anyone was killed or not, but thanks for sharing the thought image :(


:p :D :p

The point is, it can look like something's been killed. I'm sure those aborted embryos/fetuses pictures are disturbing, but so are pictures of amputation surgery. You can`t claim that it was living just because it 'looks like' it was killed. You have to prove it was living first.

The point is, it can look like something's been killed. I'm sure those aborted embryos/fetuses pictures are disturbing, but so are pictures of amputation surgery. You can`t claim that it was living just because it 'looks like' it was killed. You have to prove it was living first.

No, it's was killed and I will prove it. It's moving and growing, you kill it, it's not moving and growing anymore.

Walla, I proved it.

*Takes a bow*

Thank, thank you very much, signed pictures in the back of the lobby, $20.00 ea. :p

No, it's was killed and I will prove it. It's moving and growing, you kill it, it's not moving and growing anymore.

Walla, I proved it.

*Takes a bow*

Thank, thank you very much, signed pictures in the back of the lobby, $20.00 ea. :p

1. Before the end of the first trimester, it is not moving.
2. Stalagmites grow. When you cut them down, they don't grow any more. So you just killed a stone, then?

No, it's was killed and I will prove it. It's moving and growing, you kill it, it's not moving and growing anymore.

Walla, I proved it.

*Takes a bow*

Thank, thank you very much, signed pictures in the back of the lobby, $20.00 ea. :p

I'd say the same thing about any amputated body part. But I'll let the people with greater knowledge of biology than mine argue over that. I just wanted to point out the fallacy in saying "it looks like it's been killed, therefore it must've been alive".

1. Before the end of the first trimester, it is not moving.

Hahahahaha... *wipes away tear*


Wrong.

2. Stalagmites grow. When you cut them down, they don't grow any more. So you just killed a stone, then?

Okee dokee, :rolleyes: If you ever have a baby and it's time for breast feeding, I hope you're not near a cave, you might get confused eh?

I'd say the same thing about any amputated body part. But I'll let the people with greater knowledge of biology than mine argue over that. I just wanted to point out the fallacy in saying "it looks like it's been killed, therefore it must've been alive".


Looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck and lays duck eggs...



I say we shoot it and see if it's really a DFL Mascot... :D

Thanks to contraception and abortion, I can make sure to never ever have one. Isn't that nice? ;)

Anyway, I don't see the point in putting up arguments against a person who obviously is not interested in debate. Have fun.

Thanks to contraception and abortion, I can make sure to never ever have one. Isn't that nice? ;)

Anyway, I don't see the point in putting up arguments against a person who obviously is not interested in debate. Have fun.

When you come up with a valid debate position, ya' all come back now ya hear?

Hahahahaha... *wipes away tear*


Wrong.



Okee dokee, :rolleyes: If you ever have a baby and it's time for breast feeding, I hope you're not near a cave, you might get confused eh?


Actually, in the first trimester, you are right, but the movements are extremely limited to things like swallowing and a beating heart. Reflexes, mostly. Nothing that requires concious thought.

Your insults are getting ridiculous. I'm offended by your childish behaviour, and your insults haven't even been directed at me yet! People like you are one of the downfalls of any movement. You hinder your own progress by making everyone believe you aren't worth listening to because your opinions have no basis and your argument is sustained and supported by insults.

Looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck and lays duck eggs...



I say we shoot it and see if it's really a DFL Mascot... :D

The pictures you were gonna show come with smell?? *nauseous*

:p :D

You go on and argue whether or not it's alive with the people that think this matters.

Actually, in the first trimester, you are right, but the movements are extremely limited to things like swallowing and a beating heart. Reflexes, mostly. Nothing that requires concious thought.

Your insults are getting ridiculous. I'm offended by your childish behaviour, and your insults haven't even been directed at me yet! People like you are one of the downfalls of any movement. You hinder your own progress by making everyone believe you aren't worth listening to because your opinions have no basis and your argument is sustained and supported by insults.

Obviously you disagree and think it's okay to kill it, maybe you're just angry?

But either way, what is the 'potential' that they are interested in changing their position today?

More likely, it will take weeks and months of reminiscing and re-analyzing of my words of wisdom for them come to the conclusion that I was right. Maybe, lets say, in 40 weeks?
:p

Obviously you disagree and think it's okay to kill it, maybe you're just angry?

But either way, what is the 'potential' that they are interested in changing their position today?

More likely, it will take weeks and months of reminiscing and re-analyzing of my words of wisdom for them come to the conclusion that I was right. Maybe, lets say, in 40 weeks?
:p

You disgust me. I'm not talking about potential, and that argument is dead and done with. Drop it.

Secondly, I'm not killing anything, whether it can be killed or not, seeing as my entire position from the get-go has been that a woman has the right to an abortion, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get one. I'd rather she didn't if she can, but it isn't my decision, it's hers. I have one living child, and one 9wk old fetus. It's not moving yet, nor is it doing much. Yes, it has the potential to be a person, but it also has the potential to be a miscarriage or to develop abnormally and fail to become a person. It's potential, however, is not what it currently is, as the other posters have tried again and again to get across to you. I have the potential to become a lot of things, but that doesn't make me any of those things. Potential does not equal being.

And now that I've beaten that dead horse...

What wisdom? Why would I, or anyone else, bother to analyze 3 or 4 pages of insults and drivel? You have said nothing enlightening or that aids your cause.

Despite what some of the other member/posters here seem to think, there are no rent paying tenants in this thread that have more rights than others. Feel free to post away. ;)

As to your point though, no, that's not right. The kid down the street might grow up to be the pope, but even more likely, he might not (the word potential to that statement fits). The kid in his mother's womb WILL grow up and be human, he has zero chance of growing up to be anything else, like something like a DFL mascot...
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/Greenlander3/BrayingJackAss.jpg

So unlike your example, the word 'potential' when defining the person does not apply, because it can't be anything else.

Yes it can. It can be a mass of dead cells. There is no guarantee it will ever reach personhood. You don't seem interested in showing it's a life. Did you just come to make assertions?

But you can kill it... You want to see pictures or what?

I'd love to see pictures. Show me pictures that show that an five-week embryo reacts to stimuli. It is only forming it's earliest synapses and isn't capable of doing so, but, hey, show us a picture that proves otherwise.

What? You got done whining in the mod forum long enough to post in the actual thread? Good for you. :rolleyes:


Gee, you would think if you could kill it, it must have been alive before you did it eh? But maybe that's too complicated for you?

You can't kill it. That's the point. You're the only one saying it can be killed as an embryo. Prove an embryo can be killed, prove it's a life.

I'm sure you can do better than flamebait.

You disgust me. I'm not talking about potential, and that argument is dead and done with. Drop it.

Secondly, I'm not killing anything, whether it can be killed or not, seeing as my entire position from the get-go has been that a woman has the right to an abortion, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get one. I'd rather she didn't if she can, but it isn't my decision, it's hers. I have one living child, and one 9wk old fetus. It's not moving yet, nor is it doing much. Yes, it has the potential to be a person, but it also has the potential to be a miscarriage or to develop abnormally and fail to become a person. It's potential, however, is not what it currently is, as the other posters have tried again and again to get across to you. I have the potential to become a lot of things, but that doesn't make me any of those things. Potential does not equal being.



Should I "drop it" before or after reading your post? :rolleyes: :p

It still doesn't have the potential to be a DFL Mascot, or to NOT be
human...

I digust you? :( Awwww

Yeah, that makes about squat for sense :rolleyes:

A so and so chance of being killed or dying of natural causes somehow reduces the odds of it being alive in the first place :confused: :p


*Watches Cabra Dancing in Denial*

Wrong. It has a so-so chance of ever living. In most cases it never becomes a life. It is common for it not to implant (though it's really not possible to know how common because there are no noticable signs). Once it implants there are tons of reasons that it aborts before it becomes a life. I love your arguments.

"I assume it's a life."
"But it's not."
"I must be or how could you kill it."
"It can't be killed. It's not a life."
Rinse. Repeat.

Show it's an a life? Show it responds to stimuli as an EMBRYO not as a fetus, we know there is a point where a fetus meets the qualifications for life. An embryo doesn't, but you keep claiming that an embryo is alive. Responding to stimuli is one of the requirements for life (there are numerous others but let's just start with that one.)

Should I "drop it" before or after reading your post? :rolleyes: :p

It still doesn't have the potential to be a DFL Mascot, or to NOT be
human...

I digust you? :( Awwww

You're right it doesn't have the potential to not be human. Good thing no one is talking about that. It does have the potential to not be A human, A person.

Should I "drop it" before or after reading your post? :rolleyes: :p

It still doesn't have the potential to be a DFL Mascot, or to NOT be
human...

I digust you? :( Awwww

You failed to come up with a cohesive argument, yet again, oh why am I not surprised.

Sure it has the potential to NOT be human. It has the potential to be a ball of undeveloped cells. I might be carrying around a ball of cells that will never become human, it's called a myopic pregnancy, where the egg implanted and grew, but failed to develop into anything even resembling a human. It could happen, it's not what I want, but it would distinctly make that embryo not a potential human. It just won't happen.

You failed to come up with a cohesive argument, yet again, oh why am I not surprised.

Sure it has the potential to NOT be human. It has the potential to be a ball of undeveloped cells. I might be carrying around a ball of cells that will never become human, it's called a myopic pregnancy, where the egg implanted and grew, but failed to develop into anything even resembling a human. It could happen, it's not what I want, but it would distinctly make that embryo not a potential human. It just won't happen.


Is it legal to get an a myopic abortion? Is anyone arguing that is should be illegal? Let's keep with the program here, shall we?

If the baby dies or doesn't develop all on it's own, is it illegal to get an abortion, is anyone arguing that it should be illegal? Nope, not there either.

Maybe we can light a bonfire and roast marshmallows on your strawman though, so that your effort doesn't go completely to waste, what ya say? Shall we get the sticks?

You're right it doesn't have the potential to not be human. Good thing no one is talking about that. It does have the potential to not be A human, A person.


I've submitted this post to the CIA's Code Deciphering Department, they said they'd get back to me if they can make heads or tails of it, but they said I shouldn't get my hopes up, because it looks like you are simply agreeing with me, it is alive or dead, end of options.

Potential
Function:
Noun
1 : something that can develop or become actual <a potential for violence...

2 : any of various functions from which the intensity or the velocity at any point in a field may be readily calculated b : the work required to move a unit positive charge from a reference point (as at infinity) to a point in question c.

Grammar:
Of, relating to, or being a verbal construction with auxiliaries such as may or can; for example, it may snow, or it may not.

A formed child in the womb of it's mother does not have ability to NOT be a human, therefore, it is not a 'it may be human, it may not, it might be.

No, sperm has the 'potential' to be united with an egg, but after it's united, it's not a sperm and egg anymore. The 'potential' is past tense, is achieved.

Nice try though.

Hmmm... looks like your definition of potential has no requirement that it be able to develop into or become anything else. Seems like you're making that requirement up.

Sperm has the potential to become an embryo or the cell dies. Those are the choices. An embryo has the potential to become a fetus or the cells each die. Those are the choices. The fetus has the potential to become a human or the cells each die. No significant difference in their potential. However, a sperm is not an embryo, an embryo is not a fetus, a fetus is not necessarily a human (although at a given point it meets the requirements for life provided the cells that compose it do not die and becomes a human).

Is it legal to get an a myopic abortion? Is anyone arguing that is should be illegal? Let's keep with the program here, shall we?

If the baby dies or doesn't develop all on it's own, is it illegal to get an abortion, is anyone arguing that it should be illegal? Nope, not there either.

Maybe we can light a bonfire and roast marshmallows on your strawman though, so that your effort doesn't go completely to waste, what ya say? Shall we get the sticks?

I'm arguing that an embryo might not become a human, and you are trying to twist my words. Poor poor form. I hope you rot in hell.

I've submitted this post to the CIA's Code Deciphering Department, they said they'd get back to me if they can make heads or tails of it, but they said I shouldn't get my hopes up, because it looks like you are simply agreeing with me, it is alive or dead, end of options.
Nope. It has to have been alive in order to be dead. The cells are alive and thus can be dead. The embryo is not alive and cannot die. It does not meet the biological requirements for life.

The part of that argument you ignored (on purpose) is that having human cells and being A human are not the same thing. No has ever argued that an embryo is not human, only that it is not A human. One is an adjective and one is a noun. A sperm is human but is not a human. An egg is human but not a human. Together they make a zygote that is human but not a human, and so on.

Then you know it can be killed... Picture it living (in your minds eye), picture it dead (if it can be killed, it must be living, duh)

Ha, what a wonderful argument.

"Let's assume it's living."
"Okay."
"Okay, now can it die?"
"Sure."
"Then it must be living."
"Um, what."

Here's my argument for that (it should make equal sense), picture it not living (in your mind's eye), picture it dead (if it can't be killed, it must not be living, duh).

Nope. It has to have been alive in order to be dead. The cells are alive and thus can be dead. The embryo is not alive and cannot die. It does not meet the biological requirements for life.

The part of that argument you ignored (on purpose) is that having human cells and being A human are not the same thing. No has ever argued that an embryo is not human, only that it is not A human. One is an adjective and one is a noun. A sperm is human but is not a human. An egg is human but not a human. Together they make a zygote that is human but not a human, and so on.


*It's not alive It's not alive!*

Do you have an argument? You know, one that's actually related to reality?


If it's not alive, why do you want to kill it?

*It can't be living because I just chopped it up and I wouldn't have chopped it up if it was living* Yeah, that's BRILLIANT debating skills.


*Still watching Cabra dancing in denial*

Is this seriously your argument? Who talked about chopping it up? You made an argument that requires us to assume it's living so you can show that you are assuming it's living. The fact that you assume it's living doesn't make it living anymore than her belief that it's not makes it not living. The fact that it does not meet the biological requirements for life however...

Ha, what a wonderful argument.

"Let's assume it's living."
"Okay."
"Okay, now can it die?"
"Sure."
"Then it must be living."
"Um, what."

Here's my argument for that (it should make equal sense), picture it not living (in your mind's eye), picture it dead (if it can't be killed, it must not be living, duh).


Ooh Looky there! Jacobia's writing satire... Nicely done.


*begins roasting marshmellows on the burning strawman*

*It's not alive It's not alive!*

Do you have an argument? You know, one that's actually related to reality?


If it's not alive, why do you want to kill it?

We don't want to 'kill it,' obviously, if it isn't alive, we can't. And obviously your logic does not resemble our earth logic, since a large number of us seem to agree that what Jocabia has said makes more sense than what you said. Or are we all just part of a mass insanity now?

*It's not alive It's not alive!*

Do you have an argument? You know, one that's actually related to reality?


If it's not alive, why do you want to kill it?

I don't. No one does. It can't be killed.

Yes, I have an argument and I'll just keep posting it until you address it. One of the requirements for life is that it respond to stimuli. Does it respond to stimuli as an embryo?

Then you know it can be killed... Picture it living (in your minds eye), picture it dead (if it can be killed, it must be living, duh)

Ha, what a wonderful argument.

"Let's assume it's living."
"Okay."
"Okay, now can it die?"
"Sure."
"Then it must be living."
"Um, what."

Here's my argument for that (it should make equal sense), picture it not living (in your mind's eye), picture it dead (if it can't be killed, it must not be living, duh).


Ooh Looky there! Jacobia's writing satire... Nicely done.


*begins roasting marshmellows on the burning strawman*

I love that you pretend like people are saying something different on internet forum where they (me) and you can be quoted. Seriously, are you intending to not make any sense? How is my writing the same argument you made only replacing living with not living a strawman? It isn't. That doesn't appear to bother you though.

By the by, it was satire and thank you for the compliment. I liked it too.

Is this seriously your argument? Who talked about chopping it up? ...

Well, you could inject saline solution or chemical poisons to destroy it, you know, like how you would kill something that's living :rolleyes:

... You made an argument that requires us to assume it's living so you can show that you are assuming it's living. The fact that you assume it's living doesn't make it living anymore than her belief that it's not makes it not living. The fact that it does not meet the biological requirements for life however...

Biological requirements of life?!?!? Ewwww, you sound so 'scientific' I'm intimidated. :rolleyes:

Is anyone here searching for the biological requirements for life? Maybe if we look at the people over at th Jet Propulsion Laboratory and specifically the ones running the NASA Mars missions, they probably have a list of biological requirement for life over there. Is that the one you want to use Jacobia?

No, it's was killed and I will prove it. It's moving and growing, you kill it, it's not moving and growing anymore.

Walla, I proved it.

*Takes a bow*

Thank, thank you very much, signed pictures in the back of the lobby, $20.00 ea. :p

Um, when I was seven, my heart was moving and growing. It was not a life. My heart can't be killed, only I can.

An embryo, of course, is not moving. The first movements (they are automatic movements related to the development of synapses) occur at about six weeks.

I love that you pretend like people are saying something different on internet forum where they (me) and you can be quoted. Seriously, are you intending to not make any sense? How is my writing the same argument you made only replacing living with not living a strawman? It isn't. That doesn't appear to bother you though.

By the by, it was satire and thank you for the compliment. I liked it too.


I love how you pretend to have a rational position.

Well, you could inject saline solution or chemical poisons to destroy it, you know, like how you would kill something that's living :rolleyes:

The cells are living. The solution causes the cells to die. The embryo, however, which we are talking about, cannot die because it does not live.

Biological requirements of life?!?!? Ewwww, you sound so 'scientific' I'm intimidated. :rolleyes:

Is anyone here searching for the biological requirements for life? Maybe if we look at the people over at th Jet Propulsion Laboratory and specifically the ones running the NASA Mars missions, they probably have a list of biological requirement for life over there. Is that the one you want to use Jacobia?

You don't have to show how it meets all of them. I'm happy if you just show how it meets the one I offered. Does a biological

The Nasa missions would settle for virii which do not meet the requirements for life. They are neither alive nor dead. Nasa is happy to find living cells, and they will worry later about classifying them. On earth however, we have this problem of identifying whether something is part of another organism or a seperate organism or not an organism at all. A heart is part of another organism. An embryo is not an organism at all.

Um, when I was seven, my heart was moving and growing. It was not a life. My heart can't be killed, only I can.

An embryo, of course, is not moving. The first movements (they are automatic movements related to the development of synapses) occur at about six weeks.


Are we talking about your heart Jacobia? I didn't think so, try to keep up, maybe we can slow down for you if you need a little help staying with us?

I love how you pretend to have a rational position.

If the argument sounded irrational it is because I simply regurgitated your argument that required one to accept your position first in order to accept the argument, that you think proves your position.

"If x = 7, what will it be if you add four to x?"
"11"
"x + 4=11"
"Yes, given your assumption."
"Good then we've proven that x is 7."
"Um, only because you started with that assumption."
"Strawman!!"

If the argument sounded irrational it is because I simply regurgitated your argument that required one to accept your position first in order to accept the argument, that you think proves your position.

"If x = 7, what will it be if you add four to x?"
"11"
"x + 4=11"
"Yes, given your assumption."
"Good then we've proven that x is 7."
"Um, only because you started with that assumption."
"Strawman!!"


Hey, looky, he did it again! Such an ability to publish great big nothings... I bet your mother was able to tell there was something special about you even while you were still in the womb.

Are we talking about your heart Jacobia? I didn't think so, try to keep up, maybe we can slow down for you if you need a little help staying with us?

Again, you avoid the point. The point is that growing does not make it an organism, nor does moving or the two together. If these are the only requirements then lots of my body parts are organisms. That's called logic. You are aware that whatever definition you are trying to make up does not exist in a vacuum, no? That if it is accepted that it must be able to be applied to other 'organisms'? That's how these things work.

came across this thread and just have a quick question -

Do you believe in the sanctity of all life or are we just special somehow?

Again, you avoid the point. The point is that growing does not make it an organism, nor does moving or the two together. If these are the only requirements then lots of my body parts are organisms. That's called logic. You are aware that whatever definition you are trying to make up does not exist in a vacuum, no? That if it is accepted that it must be able to be applied to other 'organisms'? That's how these things work.


No the point is, you don't have a point so you keep making analogies that are incorrect. It's not your heart, the biological requirements of life are somehow 'just' the ones Jacobia wants to use and the embryo and not the fetus discussion (even though that's not the legal definition for abortion, Jacobia says we have to us it)...


You don't have an argument DFL mascot boy, you don't have a position, you don't even talk about the topic, you are just repeating the same old unrelated clap-trap...

It's time for me to go, I've spent way too much time on this, you can now commence telling everyone that you won because you got the last word in. :rolleyes: :p

*snip*

Why are you still bothering arguing with Greenlander, Jocabia? He's obviously all-knowing and all-powerful, and his opinions shape the laws of physics to his liking. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I think you,re losing your time. At least Avalon II was consistant and respectful while debating with us. Greenlander is neither.

No the point is, you don't have a point so you keep making analogies that are incorrect. It's not your heart, the biological requirements of life are somehow 'just' the ones Jacobia wants to use and the embryo and not the fetus discussion (even though that's not the legal definition for abortion, Jacobia says we have to us it)...

Um, no. I'm saying the embryo and not the fetus because I agree that it becomes a life during the fetal stage, so there is no point making that argument. It meets the requirements. You want to extend life back to conception so show that an embryo is alive, otherwise, you haven't really made an argument for calling an embryo a life, now have you?

I also said you are welcome to come up with your own definition of a life, but so far the ones you've come up with do not include the embryo and include my heart.

The biological requirement for what is considered a living organism is an unbiased means of defining when a fetus becomes a life since those rules were made independent of abortion and with no consideration for it. It's much better than "life begins at birth because I want it to" or "life begins at conception because I want it to".

You don't have an argument DFL mascot boy, you don't have a position, you don't even talk about the topic, you are just repeating the same old unrelated clap-trap...

Apparently, you can't support your argument so you have to continually call me a jackass, which you were asked to stop. I'm sure the people who are reading your posts are very impressed.

It's time for me to go, I've spent way too much time on this, you can now commence telling everyone that you won because you got the last word in. :rolleyes: :p

No, I can just let people read the thread and see that you did nothing but insult people declare that the fetus is alive because it can be killed so it must be alive. Why can it be killed? Because it's alive, you say. Circular argument. It's a logical fallacy. Whenever anyone points out your logical fallacy, you call it a strawman. It's really not even clever.

came across this thread and just have a quick question -

Do you believe in the sanctity of all life or are we just special somehow?

An embryo is not alive, therefore, it is not a life, therefore, not sacred. I believe a fetus that has reached the point of viability (currently with modern technology approx 24 weeks gestation) has the right to live. Before that, as many pro-choicers will argue, a fetus is not a viable person who has no right to demand that another human use their body to keep it alive. Suppose I'm dying and need a kidney transplant, and you and I type match and you have two fully functioning kidneys, and you don't need them both. I cannot demand that you give me your kidney, even if I will die without it. I have no right to your kidney. The same, many women will say an unwanted child does not have the right to their uterus for nine months. It may seem harsh, but it's true.

What part is bullshit?

The part that I said that qualified that statement you quote for this thread? You know, the part about not worrying about single people who get artificially inseminated because I doubt, without even looking at the statistics, that they are a very big percentage of the people who get abortions? :rolleyes:

And AS IF, as if a single individual that any of us knows somehow 'proves' anything. Good for them, I'm happy for them. I also know that 'most' SS couples do NOT stay together as long as other couples, but that's not really relevant here either, now is it? When SS couples start seeking abortions and become a percentage point of that situation, then we can discuss them in an abortion thread... Maybe you should start holding your breath for that to happen eh?

You were talking about same sex families equaling broken homes.

Do I have to go back and find your own posts, so I can show you what YOU said?

I quoted it in my reply, didn't I?

Why are you talking about artificial insemination, here? What on earth does THAT have to do with the subject? Even this little direction of rant you have created?

Verdict: ***Strawman***

Second point: Where did I say that I ONLY knew one gay couple with children? In actuality I have known dozens... I just choose to reference one in particular. One is an example... ten is a catalogue.

I'd like to see evidence for your claim that "I also know that 'most' SS couples do NOT stay together as long as other couples". In my experience it is untrue, and I've certainly never seen statistics that come CLOSE to reflecting such an idea.

Also - considering how only something like 30% of 'straight' marriages stay together... it would be hard to see how same-sex relationships could be LESS successful, no?

I don't even have to look up his point to 'know' instinctively' that....

Brave choice.

Most avoid the 'I can tell without looking' approach to debate...

Potential what? A potential DFL mascot or potential abusee in a neglected child household? Potential, what utter nonsense. There is not such thing as a 'potential' person.

Oh, and nice job writing a bunch of crap right after you running off for the mods. :rolleyes:

You continue baiting Jocabia through these sort of attacks. Quit it. If you're going to debate, use actual debating tactics without resulting to insults, which you continue to do, and yes, I have read Jocabia's responses to you.

Um, yeah, okay :rolleyes: .... you just made the argument that we don't need stem cells because any type of cell will do, what a load of crap.


You know it's not as simple as all that, but you don't care, here you will say whatever you want, even if it's technically not applicable, just to be contrary you'll paint a picture that 99% of the readers here will misunderstand, how very ignoble of you.

That isn't a reply... that is purely an attack... mainly on the poster, rather than the post.

Flawed technique, my friend... an ad hominem can never win a debate for you.

No, I suppose you wouldn't understand, you think you've discovered some sort of magic word in the misuse of the word 'protential.' Since you refuse to acknowledge what the word really means but you continue in your mis-use of the word, potential, you're stuck in a rut. You already know that it means, "might or might not be," but you continue to misuse it for things that are already determined, such as using it for a human already in their mother's womb... Nicely stubborn, with your fingers in your ears and repeating yourself over and over again. :rolleyes:

You are wrong about nearly all of you analyses, wrong about it not being alive, wrong about it having 'potential' to be a person (because it can't be anything other than what it already is, and it's already human) and wrong about me agreeing with you.

That's okay though, you could have developed even worse habits than flippant denial, maybe you still have the 'potential' to get even worse though, eh? There's always hope. You might get better though, but then we wouldn't want to put ourselves in denial for holding out too much hope about THAT happening now would we? :eek:

Well, you swagger a lot, but I've yet to see any evidence presented for a single point...

"You already know that it means, "might or might not be"...". Fair enough. PROVE that THAT is Jocabia's understanding of that phrase, in THIS context.

"You are wrong about nearly all of you analyses". Fair enough... PROVE that the analyses are wrong. Show some evidence.

"wrong about it not being alive". Again - this is still opinion until you PROVE it. Once more - let us see you provided evidentiary support for an argument.

"wrong about it having 'potential' to be a person". Once more - let us see the evidence. Let us see you PROVE something.

If you cannot support your arguments, my friend.... if all you have is your opinion... then the strength of your argument is only as good as the strength of your hollow rhetoric.

Which - while a worthy tool in politics, serves no real purpose in debate.

Gee, you would think if you could kill it, it must have been alive before you did it eh? But maybe that's too complicated for you?

It has yet to be 'proved' that you CAN 'kill' a foetus.

The consensus seems to be that an embryo, and a foetus, are something less than 'living people'. If you wish to sway the opinion in the other direction, you would need to present some form of evidence.

*It can't be living because I just chopped it up and I wouldn't have chopped it up if it was living* Yeah, that's BRILLIANT debating skills.

*Strawman*

How did this go on for 230 pages?

How did this go on for 230 pages?I've been wondering that too!

I'm arguing that an embryo might not become a human, and you are trying to twist my words. Poor poor form. I hope you rot in hell.

Please - I realise you are being excessively provoked, but do not lower yourself to the same level.

It would be a shame to see someone who has CONTRIBUTED to the debate, become victim of Moderator actions, through responding to insults and hollow rhetoric.

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.

Too many times people think there chikdern are mistakes. But they are not. I think All life should be honored.

*It's not alive It's not alive!*

Do you have an argument? You know, one that's actually related to reality?


If it's not alive, why do you want to kill it?

Is this PURE trolling flamebait?

Is there actually ANY semblence of wishing for debate in this?

"If it's not alive, why do you want to kill it?": *Strawman*... it has yet to be proved that ANYONE is killing ANYTHING.

At best, my friend, you are using fallacious arguments... Strawman and ad hominem.

At worst, this is just trolling and flamebaiting.

How did this go on for 230 pages?

By people repeating the same things over and over and over again.

Well, you could inject saline solution or chemical poisons to destroy it, you know, like how you would kill something that's living :rolleyes:


Irrelevent.

I can sdestroy' a human with a highly concentrated acid.

I can 'destroy' a cell with that same solution.

I can 'destroy' a nickel with the same solution.

That doesn't make the three things related. The nickel is not 'alive' just because the human is... the human is not made of metal, just because the nickel is.

How did this go on for 230 pages?

Through a combination of some excellent debate... and some 'less than excellent' debate.

Please - I realise you are being excessively provoked, but do not lower yourself to the same level.

It would be a shame to see someone who has CONTRIBUTED to the debate, become victim of Moderator actions, through responding to insults and hollow rhetoric.

I'm pregnant and moody and he made a backhanded attack on my being pregnant. I overreacted. But I'm not apologizing, he doesn't deserve it.

I'm pregnant and moody and he made a backhanded attack on my being pregnant. I overreacted. But I'm not apologizing, he doesn't deserve it.

You are almost certainly right... in all likelihood, it is not worth the keystrokes it would take, anyway... plus - he/she/it has certainly been 'asking for it' (one could argue) with the constant barrage of insults, ad hominems and generally 'flamey' behaviour.

On the other hand, you're above it... and we'd hate to lose someone who DOES wish to debate (and CAN)... because you got suckered in.

Well, is their a single good reason to be pro-life. Even if the is considered a life, that is not the be all end all of arguments. If killing is the ultimate thing to be avoided how can you justify that not all soldiers are not seen as criminal. I personnally think a life is a life. The soldiers who were shooting the nazis in WWII were not doing anything different than the doctor who performs an abortion. Why would killing someone in legitimate defense be any different than an abortion?

Humans have given themselves the right to kill other humans in certain conditions if this threatens their way of life. There is not a single country, religion, culture that does have circumstances in which killing is not accepted.

What is the critical element that makes YOU think it was right - or not - for US soldiers to kill nazi soldiers but not vice versa? That is the critical element of decision, not whther the fetus is alive or not.

Too many times people think there chikdern are mistakes. But they are not. I think All life should be honored.

What do you eat, rocks and dirt? Or do you live off of sunlight like plants?

What do you eat, rocks and dirt? Or do you live off of sunlight like plants?

One can honor life and still kill to eat. The Native Americans certainly did it....

One can honor life and still kill to eat. The Native Americans certainly did it....

The other poster was extremely vague on what s/he means by "honoring".

How did this go on for 230 pages?
I blame human stupidity and teenagers who have too much free time on their hands :p

I blame human stupidity and teenagers who have too much free time on their hands :p
some of us are young adults not teens (20 through 28 is a young adult to me). But same idea.

some of us are young adults not teens (20 through 28 is a young adult to me). But same idea.

I'm 22 myself. But I had to stop wasting my time here around page 120 to go to work and attend my classes.

Besides, we all know teenagers have it easy. God damn I wish I was still in highschool with 25 hours of class a week and not a worry on my mind. :(

Edit: Of course, we don't realize how easy we have it until it's over. To think I was actually convinced I was working hard in highschool. Meh :D

I'm 22 myself. But I had to stop wasting my time here around page 120 to go to work and attend my classes.

Besides, we all know teenagers have it easy. God damn I wish I was still in highschool with 25 hours of class a week and not a worry on my mind. :(

Edit: Of course, we don't realize how easy we have it until it's over. To think I was actually convinced I was working hard in highschool. Meh :D

I'm a stay at home mom, and my one year old's nap times equals several hours of 'free' time, that instead of doing my dishes or vacuuming or something useful, I far too often come online.

I do usually get all the house stuff done, just usually in a burst of energy first thing in the morning, and then whatever doesn't get done waits until the next day, lol. Bad mommy...

If a life is a life, then why do people support capital punishment?

Pro-choice and anti-death penalty is more logical, and it's more efficient. Think about how much money could be saved if we rid ourselves of capital punishment, and think about how many lives we would lose (mother AND baby) to illegal practices of abortion.

Also, what do you think a terrorist or a murderer is more ready for... being put to death or serving a 200 year sentence in prison? Think about how degrading it is to your mind to live the rest of your days in a 4x4 cell, cut of from the rest of the world permanently. From the time you walk into the cell no words can comfort you about your actions, and no person can say "you did it for Allah/God." You are left with years upon years of reflection only to watch the world progress while your brain turns into mush and slop.

Around the end of their life after serving life in prison, ask them what they think about their actions that got them there in the first place. What would they say? I sure as hell would go as far to say that they'd regret it. Eliminating capital punishment is the right thing to do... the death penalty just makes it too easy for them to escape pain and misery. Why do I favor eliminating it? Because they are NOT PREPARED for it, guaranteed. No one is, and there is nothing you can do to prepare for such.

I don't support it and I never shall.

According to Leviticus (THE BIBLE), the soul is in the blood. I am not sure of the verse or when exactly blood forms, but those using the Bible as a defence really need to read it more.
Can anyone clarify the verse I am trying to remember or te day when blood begins to form?
If this is all aboout whether or not a fetus is a human, those who use the Bible contradict themselves.

And I know there is much strength to that argument, however there are more quotes that shoot it down.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

According to Leviticus (THE BIBLE), the soul is in the blood. I am not sure of the verse or when exactly blood forms, but those using the Bible as a defence really need to read it more.
Can anyone clarify the verse I am trying to remember or te day when blood begins to form?
If this is all aboout whether or not a fetus is a human, those who use the Bible contradict themselves.

And I know there is much strength to that argument, however there are more quotes that shoot it down.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Generally, knowing how to make words REALLY BIG doesn't add any value to your argument, even if they're dark red. In fact, I would say it makes it more likely that people will not reply.

By people repeating the same things over and over and over again.

How did this go on for 230 pages?

How did this go on for 230 pages?

*giggle*:D

How did this go on for 230 pages?

By people repeating the same things over and over and over again.

Generally, knowing how to make words REALLY BIG doesn't add any value to your argument, even if they're dark red. In fact, I would say it makes it more likely that people will not reply.

And yet you replied. :p

By people repeating the same things over and over and over again.

*hole tears in the temporal fabric of the universe; time collapses in on itself; Death, War, Famine and McDonalds stalk the land.*

*hole tears in the temporal fabric of the universe; time collapses in on itself; Death, War, Famine and McDonalds stalk the land.*
How can both Famine and McDonald's stalk the land at the same time?

Wouldn't they undo each other's work? :confused:

How can both Famine and McDonald's stalk the land at the same time?

Wouldn't they undo each other's work? :confused:

Have you EATEN at McDonalds? Your question answers itself....

Have you EATEN at McDonalds? Your question answers itself....

Yup, try to keep your food down after eating one of their burgers.;)

Yup, try to keep your food down after eating one of their burgers.;)

That's weird... it LOOKED like you used the word 'food', in a sentence describing McDonald's burgers...

Must just be the angle I'm looking at it from...

And the thread dies a quiet death.

And the thread dies a quiet death.
This thread was murdered. It was old and cantankerous and often fell to repeating itself, but it still had some of its wits and refused to back down even if it couldn't get out of bed anymore. And then someone (GL) came along and put a pillow over its face, probably just because they were tired of waiting for it to die, just like Caligula did to Tiberius.

I was away a few days. Just got back. Too late, too late. And I had questions pending, too...

(PS: All the ironic -- and false -- comparisons between abortion and end of life decisions that anti-choicers might find in this post are intentional.)

This thread was murdered. It was old and cantankerous and often fell to repeating itself, but it still had some of its wits and refused to back down even if it couldn't get out of bed anymore. And then someone (GL) came along and put a pillow over its face, probably just because they were tired of waiting for it to die, just like Caligula did to Tiberius.

I was away a few days. Just got back. Too late, too late. And I had questions pending, too...

(PS: All the ironic -- and false -- comparisons between abortion and end of life decisions that anti-choicers might find in this post are intentional.)

Let's give it CPR. What were your questions? (And, yes, it's amazing what three pages of flaming and hijacking can do, huh?)

Let's give it CPR. What were your questions? (And, yes, it's amazing what three pages of flaming and hijacking can do, huh?)
They were mostly addressed to Avalon, but anyone is invited to address them. Avalon, and others, have made it clear they want to see a change in law to outlaw all or most abortions. I want to parse out exactly how this would work. I want to know the desired parameters of the law. I want to know how it should be enforced, against whom, and I especially want to know how women, doctors, and families will be prevented from circumventing such a law. I am prepared to consider every point anti-choicers make on this issue and to challenge them if I can.

It's my contention that such laws are detrimental to society as a whole and ultimately unenforceable. If society is allowed to function normally, then there will be no way to stop people from getting around the law. If a government makes a serious effort to enforce such laws, then not only will organized crime rise, but society will become crippled as more and more of its resources are funneled into this one issue. Eventually, you will have a society that functions as a black market economy with the majority of citizens operating outside some aspect of law, whether they are involved with abortion or not.

In the end, society does not exist to promote idealogies. If you try to use it that way, it falls apart.

In the end, society does not exist to promote idealogies. If you try to use it that way, it falls apart.

Society IS idealgy. Society is comprised of almost as many idealogies as there are people in the society, all competing to be heard. As to whether promotion of idealogies causes a society to fall apart, I'd go so far as to say that the converse is true: if a society promotes a single idealogy above all others, it becomes stronger, not weaker (for good or ill).

Look how long the Soviet Union took to die despite its expending all of its resources trying to make the people in power more powerful at the expense of the others. Look at how China has gone from being an agrarian, massively overpopulated country to a country with space travel that is showing all the earmarks of being as big a polluter and consumer as the USA within 20 years.

Civilization is an evolving amalgamation of competing memes (and idealogies) which has seen an incredibly rapid change. 20,000 years ago, there was no such thing as a civilization. 2,000 years ago, an idea could spread no more than 100 miles per day or so and tended to batter itself against bastions of language and religion. 200 years ago, that 100 miles could only be bested by a few elite organizations that took strong measures to create chains of communication, all of which had at heart a strong ideology (e.g., the pony express, "the mail must get through").

None of that has anything to do with abortion--an unpleasant but necessary practice in any long-lived civilization but it was such a pompous pronouncement of drivel that I felt it necessary to pound it into dust with more pomposity. :headbang: :sniper: So there.

An obligatory on-topic statement: the practice of abortion antedates Jesus, so if he felt like he needed to say anything about it, he could have done it then. Most of the people who object to permitting abortion think Jesus is coming back. I say, just let's leave things as they are until he clarifies things in person, ok?