Quote :

"well, an infant isn't completely independent either. let's allow 4th trimester abortions, too!"

You know what he means by independent you obtuse fuck.

Quote :

"no, I want everyone to think about the ramifications of their actions before they act and not resort to the murder of children."

Fetuses aren't children you obtuse fuck.

Quote :

"heeeeeeeeeey, we've finally got a statistic! so, 1 out of 2 aborted babies are murdered by poor women. now, let's get rid of abortion and get these women some BC and sex ed classes STAT."

Fetuses aren't babies and no matter how many times you say it, or post pictures of tiny little hands, it won't make it true.

5/23/2011 7:59:34 PM

Quote :

"no elective abortions."

Getting into semantics again...

Although, technically speaking, all abortions are elective, even the ones to save a mother's life. She has the choice to proceed with the birth and roll the dice...

Quote :

"well, an infant isn't completely independent either. let's allow 4th trimester abortions, too!"

Wow. It's like you just completely ignore what I'm saying...

Let me dumb this down for you.

If you rip the fetus out of the mother and it can't live (and by live, I mean it cannot live with the aid of life support, a clean room, modern medicine, ect), then it is not capable of independence.

If the only thing you can argue off of is semantics, then you really have no case.

Quote :

"no, I want everyone to think about the ramifications of their actions before they act and not resort to the murder of children."

Unfortunately the world isn't perfect. I too would prefer this as well. But banning abortions won't do this, and you damn well know it.

Quote :

"heeeeeeeeeey, we've finally got a statistic! so, 1 out of 2 aborted babies are murdered by poor women. now, let's get rid of abortion and get these women some BC and sex ed classes STAT."

It's more than what you have cared to offer. Please, provide me statistics as to how many women are aborting babies because they are inconvenient, or because daddy doesn't want his baby girl to have a baby. I backed my shit up, now you back yours up.

And birth control is already readily available and sex ed is typically taught in school (at least the very basics to the point of making them aware of condoms and shit), yet we still have unplanned pregnancies. Please tell me you're not trying to suggest that banning abortions will fix the problem of unplanned pregnancies...

5/23/2011 10:01:36 PM

Outlawing guns won't stop people from owning guns.
Outlawing abortion will suddenly end all abortions.

5/23/2011 10:30:31 PM

all personal opinions on the issue aside, i really don't see how there could be a legal justification for anti-abortion legislation up to the point that baby is separated from her body

5/23/2011 11:44:55 PM

Quote :

"You know what he means by independent you obtuse fuck."

no, he said we should measure it by independence.

Quote :

"Fetuses aren't children you obtuse fuck."

the hell they aren't, you obtuse fuck.

Quote :

"Getting into semantics again... Although, technically speaking, all abortions are elective"

I hope you see the irony in this.

Quote :

"If you rip the fetus out of the mother and it can't live (and by live, I mean it cannot live with the aid of life support, a clean room, modern medicine, ect), then it is not capable of independence."

Yet an infant is still dependent on people for survival. I see no difference between the two. You are making a magic line between when it is inside a vagina and when it is outside, and it makes no sense.

Quote :

"But banning abortions won't do this, and you damn well know it."

actually, I think it would.

5/24/2011 3:53:35 PM

Quote :

"Yet an infant is still dependent on people for survival."

An infant can survive without direct support from a human female a fetus cannot. This is very simple and has been addressed many times in this thread. You are an obtuse fuck.

5/24/2011 4:27:59 PM

Quote :

"An infant can survive without direct support from a human female a fetus cannot. "

not really. It needs a human to care for it. The sex of the human is irrelevant.

5/24/2011 4:53:21 PM

ITT, aaronburro conflating the care that a human can give to a baby to the preservation of a fetus a woman's body gives.

No wonder he doesn't think a woman has any right to her own body.

5/24/2011 5:01:32 PM

when the issue is "independence," then comparing the two is certainly of issue. And a woman has a right to her own body. She does NOT have the right to kill a defenseless human being, though

5/24/2011 5:19:03 PM

No matter how many times you repeat it A FETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING.

5/24/2011 5:46:33 PM

No matter how many times you repeat it A FETUS JEW NOT IS A HUMAN BEING.
No matter how many times you repeat it A FETUS BLACK MAN NOT IS A HUMAN BEING.
No matter how many times you repeat it A FETUS WOMAN NOT IS A HUMAN BEING.
No matter how many times you repeat it A FETUS MUSLIM NOT IS A HUMAN BEING.

5/24/2011 5:52:30 PM

In case you don't remember you said this on 2/21/10

Quote :

" typical liberal. can't actually support your bullshit ideas, so you have to resort to calling someone a racist and using selective quotes"

Sounds exactly like what you are doing doesn't it. What a fucking liberal

An interesting point:
" When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation." (Swomley 1983:1)"

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 6:00 PM. Reason : asdf]

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 6:04 PM. Reason : pwned]

5/24/2011 6:00:31 PM

Quote :

"The old standby of when you cant win an argument immediately accuse the other person of being a bigot/ racist. "

I'm not accusing you of being a racist. I'm merely pointing out other arguments where the exact same logic was used, namely the logic of dehumanizing the person at issue. This argument is no different.

Quote :

"When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation."

Right. You speculate it's not a human, despite the obvious evidence that it is. Thus, we should preserve life.

5/24/2011 6:05:41 PM

what obvious evidence? About the only coherent argument you have made is the presence of human DNA. You do realize a corpse is made up of human DNA and it is clearly not "alive".
A simple question for you. If your god came down and told you that there was no soul until the 7th month would you be ok with pre 7 month abortions? You clearly aren't using logic here so it must be some kind of religious hangup.

5/24/2011 6:13:35 PM

Quote :

"Yet an infant is still dependent on people for survival. I see no difference between the two."

Really? Come on. You might say it's not a good enough difference, but there is most certainly a difference between a child that lives in a crib and cannot get it's own milk, and a fetus that lives INSIDE of another person and is fed through a cord physically connecting the two and sharing fluids.

Quote :

"It needs a human to care for it. The sex of the human is irrelevant."

Whether or not that care comes from being located inside another human and gaining that food directly through a cord connecting them could be considered relevant.

Quote :

"I'm merely pointing out other arguments where the exact same logic was used, namely the logic of dehumanizing the person at issue. This argument is no different."

Let's see how that logic stands up to things we agree are not humans.

No matter how many times you repeat it A FETUS HORSE NOT IS A HUMAN BEING.

Nope, it looks like we can dehumanize things without necessarily being a bigot.

5/24/2011 6:20:19 PM

Quote :

"About the only coherent argument you have made is the presence of human DNA. You do realize a corpse is made up of human DNA and it is clearly not "alive"."

Let's see... Human DNA. Heartbeat, bloodflow. Other clear obvious signs of being alive. None of which are present in a corpse. Yes let's compare those two.

Quote :

"A simple question for you. If your god came down and told you that there was no soul until the 7th month would you be ok with pre 7 month abortions? You clearly aren't using logic here so it must be some kind of religious hangup."

Actually, my "hangup" is specifically non-religious. But I know it makes you feel better about yourself to think otherwise.

Quote :

"You might say it's not a good enough difference, but there is most certainly a difference between a child that lives in a crib and cannot get it's own milk, and a fetus that lives INSIDE of another person and is fed through a cord physically connecting the two and sharing fluids."

I agree, there is a difference. But he was specifically talking about "independence" from another human, and I have clearly shown that an infant is dependent upon other humans.

Quote :

"Nope, it looks like we can dehumanize things without necessarily being a bigot."

That would make sense, if only I were calling anyone a bigot. DOH! by the way, you can't dehumanize something that was never human. A horse, by definition, is not human.

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 6:24 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2011 6:23:39 PM

Quote :

"Human DNA. Heartbeat, bloodflow"

Pre 5th week of pregnancy this does not exist yet you swear it is still "murder". Heartbeat and bloodflow are also present in someone in a vegetative state and pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state isn't considered "murder". So yet again your logic breaks down.

5/24/2011 6:29:14 PM

Quote :

"Heartbeat and bloodflow are also present in someone in a vegetative state and pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state isn't considered "murder"."

depends on the circumstance.

Quote :

"Pre 5th week of pregnancy this does not exist yet you swear it is still "murder"."

and this would be true. at which point we would look at the fact that there are clearly cellular processes going on that are associate with "life" and not decomposition.

5/24/2011 6:32:39 PM

Cellular processes associated with life also continue after death so yet again your logic FAILS.

5/24/2011 6:37:45 PM

yes, those processes are called "decomposition," which is NOT associated with life. nice try.
moreover, in the case of a corpse, we have a heart that clearly was capable of inducing blood flow, yet is not. Thereby automatically ruling it out.

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2011 6:41:23 PM

Quote :

"Let's see... Human DNA. Heartbeat, bloodflow. Other clear obvious signs of being alive. None of which are present in a corpse. Yes let's compare those two."

You can make a corpse's heart beat and blood flow with a bit of electricity, just look at Dick Cheney.

Quote :

"But he was specifically talking about "independence" from another human, and I have clearly shown that an infant is dependent upon other humans."

Sure an infant is, so are a lot of far more grown people, but a big difference is the fetus is inside of, and physically connected to, the mother.

Quote :

"A horse, by definition, is not human."

I would say the same about a fetus.

Quote :

"we have a heart that clearly was capable of inducing blood flow, yet is not. Thereby automatically ruling it out"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacemaker

5/24/2011 6:50:23 PM

Quote :

"You can make a corpse's heart beat and blood flow with a bit of electricity, just look at Dick Cheney."

and it's not regulating it itself, nor is it inducing it on its own. The body will continue to decompose. And I'd be hard-pressed to call a pacemaker "human," given that it isn't even alive.

Quote :

"Sure an infant is, so are a lot of far more grown people, but a big difference is the fetus is inside of, and physically connected to, the mother."

So, then, he should have never brought up the issue of independence, then. got it. thanks for helping me show it's absurdity.

Quote :

"I would say the same about a fetus."

And you would be wrong, as the horse does not have human DNA, while a fetus most certainly does. Even a corpse is technically human, just not one that is alive.

5/24/2011 6:57:04 PM

Quote :

" it's not regulating it itself, nor is it inducing it on its own. The body will continue to decompose. And I'd be hard-pressed to call a pacemaker "human," given that it isn't even alive."

Did anyone else just see arronburro define a human being as something that can regulate its own biological processes?

5/24/2011 7:05:30 PM

did any one else see a strawman?

5/24/2011 7:11:46 PM

What was the strawman exactly and what argument was I ignoring by presenting said strawman?

5/24/2011 7:28:44 PM

Quote :

"and it's not regulating it itself, nor is it inducing it on its own."

Nor is a person's heart with a pacemaker.

Quote :

"And I'd be hard-pressed to call a pacemaker "human," given that it isn't even alive."

It's the person with a pacemaker who does not have a heart that can pump itself.

Quote :

"The body will continue to decompose."

You can keep a body from decomposing.

Quote :

"So, then, he should have never brought up the issue of independence, then."

I believe the "independence" implied that an infant is independent from it's mother in that it does not have to be inside her nor does it directly rely on her body for sustenance through an organic tube.

Quote :

"as the horse does not have human DNA"

My semen has human DNA, in addition, it is different DNA from my own. A cancerous tumor would be another example of something with human DNA different from it's host.

Quote :

"Even a corpse is technically human, just not one that is alive."

Agreed, it is kind of irrelevant as we would both consider a fetus alive, we would also agree that a fetus has human cells while another animal does not, where we differ is in calling a fetus independent enough from it's host to be considered a separate organism.

5/24/2011 7:29:48 PM

Quote :

"What was the strawman exactly and what argument was I ignoring by presenting said strawman?"

saying that my only qualification for human life was self-regulation of biological processes.

Quote :

"It's the person with a pacemaker who does not have a heart that can pump itself."

True, and without that pacemaker, the person would probably die. The pacemaker would be keeping the person alive, not giving them all the qualities that would make them "alive".

Quote :

"Nor is a person's heart with a pacemaker."

And yet, the person's body is certainly regulating the rest of their functions, except in the case of a person on crazy life-support. Then we get into the problem of when death occurs. But certainly we must admit that a person who is self-regulating all of his functions is most certainly alive.

Quote :

"You can keep a body from decomposing."

Yes, but at the point where you restore the conditions where decomposition can occur, it will decompose.

Quote :

"My semen has human DNA, in addition, it is different DNA from my own. A cancerous tumor would be another example of something with human DNA different from it's host."

But the claim is not that something with human DNA, alone, is human. My finger has human DNA, yet it is clearly a part of me, and not a human on its own.

Quote :

"where we differ is in calling a fetus independent enough from it's host to be considered a separate organism."

at which point I ask what the definition of "independent enough" is. Is an infant "independent enough?"

5/24/2011 7:50:31 PM

Quote :

"at which point I ask what the definition of "independent enough" is. Is an infant "independent enough?""

Of course it is. It can survive without the the direct organic connection with another specific human. You could have a robot take care of an infant. In addition to it not being attached to a human, like a finger, it is also not inside a human.

I would ask you the same question, when is an egg independent enough to be a separate organism? When it comes in contact with a sperm it somehow becomes more independent?

5/24/2011 8:14:06 PM

I'm not really arguing the independence aspect, so your question makes no sense.

I'd argue that its being a separate organism occurs at the point where it has actually different DNA from the person in question and is capable of self replication. An egg, as I understand it, does not have full DNA, so it would technically not have the same DNA as the host, yet I'd be hard pressed to call it a human being

5/24/2011 8:25:21 PM

Quote :

"occurs at the point where it has actually different DNA from the person in question occurs at the point where it has actually different DNA from the person in question and is capable of self replication"

So then cancer is a separate organism? Sperm or egg stem cells would also fall under that definition.

Quote :

"An egg, as I understand it, does not have full DNA"

Neither do people with any number of genetic deficiencies.

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 8:34 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2011 8:33:06 PM

I'd be curious to know if burro is also against in vitro fertilization given his intransigence.

5/24/2011 8:35:46 PM

Quote :

"But he was specifically talking about "independence" from another human, and I have clearly shown that an infant is dependent upon other humans."

First of all, who are you to fucking say what I mean? This goes back to me telling you that you're building strawmen again. Stop that shit.

Here is what I was "specifically talking about "independence" from another human":

Quote :

"While legally the hard line is birth, but to me, if a fetus has developed to the point that it is realistically possible for it to survive outside of the womb, then a fetus should not be allowed to be aborted. But to me, it just sets the metric further back in the development process, and it just narrows down the grey area."

You know, that's what I actually fucking said, so how about you argue against that instead of claiming I said shit I did not.

Quote :

"depends on the circumstance."

You mean as long as it is done by a doctor and they starve the person to death instead of quickly and painfully killing the patient...

Quote :

"yes, those processes are called "decomposition," which is NOT associated with life. nice try."

Not all of them. Your skin cells still live and many of your body's organs can be harvested within hours after death...

Quote :

"Yet an infant is still dependent on people for survival"

Did you totally miss this?

Quote :

"I mean it cannot live with the aid of life support, a clean room, modern medicine, ect"

Meaning, even if it depends on nourishment/care/attention/ect, and it cannot survive, then it is not capable of independence...

Quote :

"I see no difference between the two."

Willful ignorance doesn't disprove a point, it just shows you're an idiot.

Quote :

"You are making a magic line between when it is inside a vagina and when it is outside, and it makes no sense."

If by "magic line," you mean adding the qualifier "capable of independence" to it and then defining "independence" as being the "fetus has developed to the point that it is realistically possible for it to survive outside of the womb," then yes, I suppose it is a 'magic' line...

Quote :

"actually, I think it would."

Care to back that up?

5/24/2011 8:40:22 PM

Quote :

"So then cancer is a separate organism?"

Cancer is a disease. We consider it a part of the body and not distinct from the body, as well. A fetus is not a body part.

Quote :

"Sperm or egg stem cells would also fall under that definition."

They may be alive, but they don't have a full complement of human DNA, so they wouldn't fall under that definition.

Quote :

"Neither do people with any number of genetic deficiencies."

Which is an interesting contradiction, yet we would still consider them humans, would we not? They've clearly got enough DNA to stay alive, so there you go.

Quote :

"You know, that's what I actually fucking said, so how about you argue against that instead of claiming I said shit I did not."

OK, fine, then I ask why you draw the dividing line at the vagina. What mythical and magical thing occurred as the baby passed out of the vagina to now make it a human being?

Quote :

"You mean as long as it is done by a doctor and they starve the person to death instead of quickly and painfully killing the patient..."

No. If you walked up to the patient and shot them in the face, would you consider that murder? I would. If the person had a living will and a doctor pulled the plug or administered sedatives, I wouldn't consider it murder. Again, "depends on the circumstance." How is that hard to comprehend?

Quote :

"Not all of them. Your skin cells still live and many of your body's organs can be harvested within hours after death... "

and yet, they are all, very clearly, moving to that state. You said "decomposition," despite the fact that I specifically mentioned that as an exception in the quote you referenced. Really...

Quote :

"Meaning, even if it depends on nourishment/care/attention/ect, and it cannot survive, then it is not capable of independence..."

And with the advance of technology, we will inevitably push this line further and further back in the development process. Seems like an irrational line to draw.

Quote :

"Care to back that up?"

let's see... people now know they can't depend on an abortion to fix their mistakes. yep, there will be NO change in people's behaviours

5/24/2011 11:46:12 PM

Quote :

"A fetus is not a body part."

Why not? It shares many things in common with other components of the body, it's inside the body, it will die if detached, it survives on the blood produced and transfered throughout the body, it grows, those are pretty much what I would describe as the defining characteristics of a component of the body.

Quote :

"They may be alive, but they don't have a full complement of human DNA, so they wouldn't fall under that definition."

Again, this definition would not allow those living with genetic deficiencies as human beings.

Quote :

"They've clearly got enough DNA to stay alive, so there you go."

Sperms and eggs seem to have enough to stay alive as well.

Quote :

"What mythical and magical thing occurred as the baby passed out of the vagina to now make it a human being?"

I never drew the line as passing through the vagina, I haven't drawn any lines. However there are two major distinctions that happen right around that time that seperates it from any other component of the body, for one it no longer lives inside a mother, secondly it no longer depends on her blood supply.

Quote :

"let's see... people now know they can't depend on an abortion to fix their mistakes. yep, there will be NO change in people's behaviours"

Let's see... you ban abortions, suddenly all abortions stop, right?

[Edited on May 25, 2011 at 12:02 AM. Reason : ]

5/25/2011 12:01:24 AM

Quote :

"OK, fine, then I ask why you draw the dividing line at the vagina. What mythical and magical thing occurred as the baby passed out of the vagina to now make it a human being?"

Who said I agree with that line?

In fact, I could have sworn that I felt that the line should be changed...

Quote :

"Again, "depends on the circumstance." How is that hard to comprehend?"

Why didn't you explain it to begin with? Jesus fucking shit. You put a 4 word response down and expect us to know exactly what you mean? Get a clue.

Quote :

"and yet, they are all, very clearly, moving to that state. You said "decomposition," despite the fact that I specifically mentioned that as an exception in the quote you referenced. Really..."

A) I never said the word "decomposition," "decompost," or any variant of the word. Don't mix people up.

B)There is a difference between being at a state and going toward that state...

It's like saying a person with cancer isn't really alive because they are moving towards the state of death...

Quote :

"And with the advance of technology, we will inevitably push this line further and further back in the development process. Seems like an irrational line to draw."

If you noticed how I worded it and some of my previous replies that I am basically saying that the line will be fully dependent on our medical capability. So no, it's not an irrational line to draw, as the line can always be changed.

Although there is a bit of irony in you calling my line irrational when you're trying to erase that line...

Quote :

"let's see... people now know they can't depend on an abortion to fix their mistakes. yep, there will be NO change in people's behaviours"

Lets go back to your original statement:

Quote :

"no, I want everyone to think about the ramifications of their actions before they act and not resort to the murder of children."

And lets look at what happens now. People have abortion available to them as of now. Right now, we have people getting pregnant when they don't want a child and they don't get abortions... Even with the option available to them and they make the choice to not take the option they still fuck up. People are right now fucking without thinking about the ramifications of not having the guy wrap it up. Many of these very same people are then going to choose to keep the baby anyway, when quite a few of them don't have the capability to provide for their children.

So you tell me how banning abortions is going to make people think about the ramifications of their actions, when many people who get "knocked up" end up not getting an abortion anyway...

Banning abortions doesn't fix people being irresponsible to begin with. Abortions isn't the root cause, stupid people are the root cause. And unfortunately, you can't fix stupid.

Ohhh! This is better:

Quote :

"Let's see... you ban abortions, suddenly all abortions unplanned pregnancies stop, right?"

That's better.

[Edited on May 25, 2011 at 12:11 AM. Reason : .]

5/25/2011 12:09:14 AM

Quote :

"Why not?"

Well, for starters, my finger has the same DNA as the rest of me. A fetus, does not. Cancer exists as a few mutations of the DNA, enough to call it the "same" DNA.

Quote :

"Sperms and eggs seem to have enough to stay alive as well."

Not in the same way. Nice try. They have zero self replication on their own, one of the requirements for being "alive." DOH!

Quote :

"Let's see... you ban abortions, suddenly all abortions stop, right?"

let's see, you ban abortions, and people's decisions will not change one bit, right?

Quote :

"Who said I agree with that line? In fact, I could have sworn that I felt that the line should be changed..."

OK, then, to what?

Quote :

"Why didn't you explain it to begin with? "

Because it was pretty fucking obvious to begin with, that's why.

Quote :

"I never said the word "decomposition," "decompost," or any variant of the word. Don't mix people up."

I did. And you ignored it. Thus the reason I posted what I did. Learn to read.

Quote :

"If you noticed how I worded it and some of my previous replies that I am basically saying that the line will be fully dependent on our medical capability."

Which makes zero sense. Either it is a life worth protecting or it is not.

Quote :

"So you tell me how banning abortions is going to make people think about the ramifications of their actions, when many people who get "knocked up" end up not getting an abortion anyway..."

Because the people who already aren't thinking about it and aren't getting abortions aren't in the target group to begin with. Pretty obvious.

Quote :

"Banning abortions doesn't fix people being irresponsible to begin with. Abortions isn't the root cause, stupid people are the root cause. And unfortunately, you can't fix stupid."

This is absolutely true. So let's not compound the problem by killing innocent people.

5/25/2011 3:48:35 PM

I'd be curious to know if burro is also against in vitro fertilization given his intransigence.

5/25/2011 4:09:06 PM

Quote :

"Well, for starters, my finger has the same DNA as the rest of me. A fetus, does not. Cancer exists as a few mutations of the DNA, enough to call it the "same" DNA."

Again, a sperm does not have the same DNA, and it is a part of you. Additionally identical twins have enough in common to call them the "same" dna, yet we consider them different.

Quote :

"They have zero self replication on their own"

Fetuses do not self replicate either. One fetus can not split and make two fetuses. If you are refering to their ability to grow, then sperms, eggs, or fetuses can all do that.

5/25/2011 4:36:25 PM

Quote :

"Additionally identical twins have enough in common to call them the "same" dna, yet we consider them different."

because they are separate entities.

Quote :

"Again, a sperm does not have the same DNA, and it is a part of you."

not really. it's not a body part.

Quote :

"Fetuses do not self replicate either."

Their cells most certainly do. And, given time, they will have the ability to self replicate.

Quote :

"If you are refering to their ability to grow, then sperms, eggs, or fetuses can all do that."

Sperm and eggs will not grow on their own. A fetus, while using the resources of the host, is still growing on account of its own self-regulated biological processes. An egg, by itself, will never grow

5/25/2011 4:40:45 PM

Quote :

"because they are separate entities."

Yet a mother and a fetus are not really seperate entities, and in the case of Siamese twins, neither are the twins.

Quote :

"not really. it's not a body part."

You're using a weak definition of the term body part, which I could easily point out faults with but instead I'll point out that it's a component of the body.

Quote :

"Their cells most certainly do."

Every cell in your body is able to do that, exactly the same as a fetus.

Quote :

"Sperm and eggs will not grow on their own."

Yes they do. Your finger will also grow on it's own, as will any other component of your body. They all grow in slightly different ways, but they all grow by splitting cells.

5/25/2011 5:12:25 PM

Quote :

"Yet a mother and a fetus are not really seperate entities"

except, they actually are. different DNA, pretty much separate.

Quote :

"Every cell in your body is able to do that, exactly the same as a fetus."

thus the reason we say our cells are alive, as is the fetus.

Quote :

"Yes they do. Your finger will also grow on it's own, as will any other component of your body. They all grow in slightly different ways, but they all grow by splitting cells."

Sperm cells do not undergo cell division. you failed biology.

5/25/2011 5:16:38 PM

Quote :

"let's see, you ban abortions, and people's decisions will not change one bit, right?"

You're not fixing the problem... The problem is unplanned pregnancies by people who don't want the child. When I say you're not going to change their decision, I'm speaking of the decision to have sex.

Quote :

"OK, then, to what?"

To the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the mother. Before that point, abortion is ok IMO. After that point, it is not ok.

Quote :

"Either it is a life worth protecting or it is not."

It is not a life worth protecting before it is able to live outside of its mother. Afterwards, it is.

Quote :

"Because the people who already aren't thinking about it and aren't getting abortions aren't in the target group to begin with. Pretty obvious."

You honestly think women who get knocked up who get abortions already had their mind up before they got knocked up?

Banning abortion doesn't address the actual issue at hand. Banning abortion just compounds the issue even further.

Quote :

"This is absolutely true. So let's not compound the problem by killing innocent people."

We're not compounding the problem by allowing abortion. You're compounding the problem by not allowing them to fix the issue at no harm to any worthy life.

5/25/2011 7:27:42 PM

Quote :

"except, they actually are. different DNA, pretty much separate."

We're going in circles. An egg has different DNA, yet is not seperate. DNA is not a quantifier for a seperate person.

Quote :

"thus the reason we say our cells are alive, as is the fetus."

I don't doubt the fetus is alive, only that it is not a separate person at that point. And as I've pointed out mitosis is not a quantifier for a separate person considering any cell in your body can do it.

Quote :

"Sperm cells do not undergo cell division."

Yes they do.
http://www.britannica.com/facts/5/313862/sperm-as-discussed-in-cell-biology

5/25/2011 10:23:23 PM

Quote :

"To the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the mother. Before that point, abortion is ok IMO. After that point, it is not ok. "

so, it's only a life if it can be saved. what a worthless stance to take.

Quote :

"Banning abortion just compounds the issue even further."

so, it's OK to murder if it fixes a problem. got it.

Quote :

"You're compounding the problem by not allowing them to fix the issue at no harm to any worthy life."

now we see your true colors. A "worthy" life.

Quote :

"An egg has different DNA, yet is not seperate. DNA is not a quantifier for a seperate person."

No, an egg, as far as I can remember, doesn't even have DNA.

Quote :

"only that it is not a separate person at that point."

Well, if it's part of the mother, then surely we can use the mother's mind to control it, right? Right?

Quote :

"And as I've pointed out mitosis is not a quantifier for a separate person considering any cell in your body can do it."

Right, but mitosis is one way that scientists use to show life.

Quote :

"Yes they do. http://www.britannica.com/facts/5/313862/sperm-as-discussed-in-cell-biology"

Not at the point where they are sperm. Reading is fundamental.

5/26/2011 6:41:38 PM

Quote :

"No, an egg, as far as I can remember, doesn't even have DNA."

I can guarantee you it does.

Quote :

"Well, if it's part of the mother, then surely we can use the mother's mind to control it, right? Right?"

The pancreas is part of a mother's body, can her mind control that?

Quote :

"Right, but mitosis is one way that scientists use to show life."

That's because any living cell uses mitosis, skin cells, blood cells, fetus cells, they all use mitosis, that doesn't mean they are seperate organisms.

Quote :

"Not at the point where they are sperm"

They are always sperm

5/26/2011 7:32:25 PM

Quote :

"so, it's only a worthy life if it can be saved. what a worthless stance to take."

FTFY. Your opinion on whether it is a "worthless" stance is just that, an opinion, not an argument.

Quote :

"so, it's OK to murder if it fixes a problem. got it."

You have still yet to show me that aborting a fetus/zygote before it is capable of living outside of the womb is murder.

I'm aware of your opinion of "BUT IT'S A LIFE!" But you have yet to show me that a zygote, at the instant of conception is equivalent to my life and to your life, when quite clearly, we have more differences than similarities.

You have yet to show why a 9 week old fetus is worth protecting. All you do is just say that my view is "worthless." And really, that is a worthless thing to say. It's an argument against nothing, and it's more or less your way of saying that you have nothing else to say because you can't refute my logic without resorting to illogical arguments.

Quote :

"now we see your true colors."

Yup. I'm realistic instead of an idealistic fool such as yourself. Your idealism and principles blind you to the truth.

5/26/2011 8:51:48 PM

My opinion is once there is a heartbeat it is a life.

and it is hard to appreciate that until you see it for yourself. even more of a game changer when it is your baby's heartbeat.

not hear to argue with anyone. just saying how i feel.

5/29/2011 12:58:18 PM

"I brought you into this world, I'll take you out."

-Bill Cosby's dad

[Edited on May 29, 2011 at 1:06 PM. Reason : pater]

5/29/2011 1:06:07 PM

my dad still says that to me.

5/29/2011 1:07:44 PM

Quote :

"I can guarantee you it does."

I can guarantee you it doesn't. see how easy it is to spew bullshit?

Quote :

"The pancreas is part of a mother's body, can her mind control that?"

Yes, it actually does. What a huge bunch of fail.

Quote :

"That's because any living cell uses mitosis, skin cells, blood cells, fetus cells, they all use mitosis, that doesn't mean they are seperate organisms."

Yes, but mitosis is a way to show life. deeerrrrrrrrr.

Quote :

"They are always sperm"

Someone needs to go back to biology class.

Quote :

"FTFY. Your opinion on whether it is a "worthless" stance is just that, an opinion, not an argument."

Yes, and Hitler also had beliefs as to what life was "worthy".

Quote :

"You have still yet to show me that aborting a fetus/zygote before it is capable of living outside of the womb is murder."

And it would be equally impossible to show Hitler that he as murdering people. You've proven yourself capable of devaluing life, and deciding who is "worthy" of it.

Quote :

"You have yet to show why a 9 week old fetus is worth protecting."

I don't have to. You are the one saying it should be legal to murder it. Burden of proof is on you.

5/29/2011 10:38:01 PM