Abortion

Originally posted by docb77
See, you're partly right. It' doesn't actually affect me, and if that potential mother were the only person it affected I'd agree with you 100%. The fact is that if that fetus is alive it should have rights. People argue for child rights all the time, why are fetal rights so surprising.

Probably because they are children and actually here living a life in which they are not absolutely dependent on their mother sustaining them to survive. Perhaps because their mother is keeping them alive inside her body, that foetus's right goes as far as she says it does. It's hers. It has no rights beyond her.

Originally posted by docb77
Up to a certain point perhaps. I'm sure you don't actually think that your mother has the right to kill you if she ever feels like it.

Killing a 20 year old male human being is vastly different to aborting a foetus, on so many levels. If you can't see why, hope is lost.

Originally posted by docb77
That's the only argument here, when her needs or its needs take precedence.

It's needs? It NEEDS her to decide to keep it alive, otherwise it's nothing.

Originally posted by docb77
By the way, I know what a parasite is, And while a fetus does exhibit some of the traits you're referring to that doesn't automatically qualify it as a parasite. Even if it did, that doesn't necessarily remove all claim to rights from it.

An organism dependent on it's host to survive, more or less.

Anyway, the rights thing. It has none. It was CREATED by her, it's being sustained by her, it's alive because she wishes it to be and if she decides to kill it, that's the way it is. You push for rights because it can't decide for itself, so like any situation, the decision should fall to the next person in line to it. This would mean the mother.

You wouldn't ask for any right to whether a man in a coma lived or died would you? No. It's his next of kin's decision. Same with the foetus. It's the mother's, not yours.

Originally posted by docb77
Conjoined twins can be parasitic in nature, and yet they are both considered people. a separationin such a case is usually only performed if both would die without it.

Remind me of that when there's a siamese twin thread.

Originally posted by docb77
And you're entitled to your opinion, but don't belittle the 75% or so of the US population that disagrees with you.

I'm sure the majority disagree with a lot of things I agree with. It doesn't make them right.

A million unprovable opinions to one unprovable opinion doesn't matter. They're both unprovable.

Originally posted by docb77
oh, come on. I've already said I tend to agree with you on that, but you gotta admit that there are some arguments that can be made.

Nah, none can be. A cell is factually not a human being anymore than a seed is an actual tree. The irony of it all is that the people claiming it is, are also claiming that it isn't.

EG: Sithsaber saying that all the pieces are in place to make a human. Yes, the pieces are there. This doesn't mean it is one. It becomes one through development. Post-conception development. So this whole argument about humans existing from conception is bs.

Originally posted by docb77
You haven't actually proven anything, you've put forth a hypothesis. I might say that it's really the null hypothesis. Until more data comes forth, we just can't factually say it's proven, supported might be a better term.

You claimed to have read the thread a lot more. Suddenly this seems like bs. Because you've obviously not come across the part where I did prove it.

You want to make any claims that a cell not being a human isn't factual? Go ahead, don't blame me when you look like a complete fool.

-AC

AC, you are an absolutely amazing person. You put forth a great argument, I'll have to admit. Although I'll never agree with your point due to personal morals, I just wanted to compliment you on a well formed opinion and an excellent argument. I'm finished now.

That's...well that's just great.

*Slaps knee*

(Serious, thanks).

-AC

You deserve it.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
When you can provide an example of the cells "evolving" outside of the woman, then you'll have some substance to your argument. [/B]

So your position essentially boils down to the following:

The lives of those who are "dependant" upon others, are not as valuable as the lives of the people they depend on.

Sounds like a noble position to me Captain. But why should society stop at killing an undeveloped human life such as a "fetus", hell we might as well just kill off all of the cripples, retards, and hell, let's get rid of the homosexuals as well.

All of these people are dependant upon others to sustain and advance(syn evolve) their kind, and they aren't as evolved(syn advanced) as the average human being. So yeah, let's continue to assign a value to human life by how evolved that life is, as well as it's overall dependence upon another to sustain it.

I say we start with the homos..then we work are way down the evolutionary(syn advancement) chain..what do you think about that Captain?

Whob, how about evolving into a good or- in the event that this is a tall order- an on topic debator?

-AC

Originally posted by sithsaber408

The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individuals life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his fathers sperm and his mothers ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.

Translated: Don't argue with or f*ck with BIOLOGY and COMMON SENSE it will prove you wrong every time.

Common sense? Are you even qualified to speak on that Mr. A cell is a human being?

-AC

I notice my post went ignored.

Hmmm

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No disrespect here Whob, but I...oh god, I hope I'm not out of my league. Erm...this?

"...human life begins, at the moment of 'conception'".

I've...I've got a bit of a problem with that, you see. You're trying to prove life begins at conception...human life, correct? Yes, you said so in the above quote.

Cells are not a human life, so...oh man..give me a sec, so...if cells are not a human life, and cells are exactly what's there at conception...how can it be human life at conception? It's human life only when it becomes a foetus...so, to refer to your trusty friend Dictionary.Com:

If it's only a human life when it's a human...that means it's first right to human life claims is when it becomes a...foetus. So...if it becomes a foetus by the END of the eighth week...and the eighth week is AFTER conception...

Wait...*Performs various experimenti*

...then that would mean that...*Uses abacus*

...HUMAN life does not begin at conception. Hahaha! How ironic! Because you just claimed that human life is widely regarded and known to begin at conception. Human life. HUMAN.

...and yet, it appears I have just prematurely aborted that little argument.

-AC

This what you're talking about when you keep saying that you've "proven" that a zygote isn't alive?

I don't see any proof in there. A hypothesis, some semantics, throwing around definitions, that while accepted, can and do change with time and further proof.

In other words, you've proven nothing. You're no better than the people you ridicule for keeping the argument going.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wait, I think I might be completely wrong.

*Goes back to check*

Nah, am right. The "Human life begins at conception" argument is pretty much hanging by its neck, dead. Maybe by a coathanger, that would be some irony.

-AC

bzzt

Wrong again, that's just your arrogance and closed mindedness showing.

-edit-

just a reminder that my position is that where life starts is uncertain, unproven. I don't agree that it is unprovable, just that we don't have the tech or data to do so now.

Originally posted by docb77
This what you're talking about when you keep saying that you've "proven" that a zygote isn't alive?

I don't see any proof in there. A hypothesis, some semantics, throwing around definitions, that while accepted, can and do change with time and further proof.

In other words, you've proven nothing. You're no better than the people you ridicule for keeping the argument going.

You're right, you're right. Oh wait, no, you're not. Infact you just made yourself look like the biggest possible fool.

Considering that whole argument was to prove that there are no humans nor HUMAN life at conception, I suggest you be quiet. Denying that a zygote was a living organism never crossed my mind (as stated only a few posts after that when a certain someone purposefully misinterpreted it). I was proving there's no human life at conception, not that there's no cellular life.

Never have I denied that a zygote is alive, only that it's not a human life or a human being. Tsk tsk.

Apparantly you can't/don't read any posts. I'll be waiting on your apology, but we all know I won't get one because doing so would require you to concede to completely f*cking up my post.

Originally posted by docb77
bzzt

Wrong again, that's just your arrogance and closed mindedness showing.

-edit-

just a reminder that my position is that where life starts is uncertain, unproven. I don't agree that it is unprovable, just that we don't have the tech or data to do so now.

No, it's not wrong. There's no human life, or human beings, at conception. I proved this. It's a cell, not a human.

-AC

sorry, same goes for "human" life. You've proven nothing. you've given a hypothesis, nothing more. You're arrogance gets in the way of you admitting that.

Were I you, I'd be embarrassed for claiming to have proven something that simply cannot be currently proven.

Originally posted by docb77
sorry, same goes for "human" life. You've proven nothing. you've given a hypothesis, nothing more. You're arrogance get's in the way of you admitting that.

Were I you, I'd be embarrassed for claiming to have proven something that simply cannot be currently proven.

Is a cell a human being like you or I?

Or is it a living organism that, if left with time to develop, will become a human being at an as yet undecided point in the future? (It's this one, subconsciously even admitted by those claiming the former, ironically)

-AC

Truth is, I don't know. That's what I've been saying all along. What makes a human a human? arms and legs? No, we'd still be human without those. Hearts, lungs, other organs? Try telling people with artificial organs or that are on life support that they aren't human. Brain activity, consciousness? That's a good guidepost I think, but still not proveable.

The most basic definition of human life that I can conceive of is an organism that contains the DNA necessary for human life. That could be comprised of only one cell, yes. Parasitic or not, conscious or not, that could be what makes human life.

Like it or not, you've proven nothing. Neither have I of course, which is what I've been saying all along; we just don't know.

Originally posted by docb77
Truth is, I don't know. That's what I've been saying all along. What makes a human a human. arms and legs? No, we'd still be human without those. Hearts, lungs, other organs? Try telling people with artificial organs or that are on life support that they aren't human. Brain activity, consciousness? That's a good guidepost I think, but still not proveable.

The most basic definition of human life that I can conceive of is an organism that contains the DNA necessary for human life. That could be comprised of only one cell, yes. Parasitic or not, conscious or not, that could be what makes human life.

Like it or not, you've proven nothing. Neither have I of course, which is what I've been saying all along; we just don't know.

What makes a human? Having all the components/abilties (even if artificial) of a living, breathing, thinking, active human maybe? Would that be a relatively clear starting point for you? What does a zygote (cell, conception) have? All of those? No. Ergo; Not a human being.

The previously stated irony is that Sithsaber et al are saying things like "It is a human, all the parts are there necessary for it to become one." Which not only contradicts the first part, but also agrees there is no actual human at conception. You even did it here:

"The most basic definition of human life that I can conceive of is an organism that contains the DNA necessary for human life."

NECESSARY for, as in, could become, as in, isn't at the moment- but could be. Aka, I'm right, there's no human at conception.

We know that the cell, if left to DEVELOP AFTER CONCEPTION will go on to become a foetus, then if left, a born human. The fact is that when it is a cell, a zygote (at conception) it is not a human being.

Why are you being so overly philosophical as to not admit that? To think you accused me of arrogance.

-AC

I'll give you that it's not like you or I. But prove that it has to have all the pieces to be human. The more I think of it the more I think that the most you can say is that it isn't a being (again not currently proveable).

We agree that it is an organism, in at least some way separate from its mother. We agree that it has human DNA. What other kind of organism is it if not human? Is it a human being? That's where the unknown is. Can a cell be a being... might be an interesting thread.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So your position essentially boils down to the following:

The lives of those who are "dependant" upon others, are not as valuable as the lives of the people they depend on.

Sounds like a noble position to me Captain. But why should society stop at killing an undeveloped human life such as a "fetus", hell we might as well just kill off all of the cripples, retards, and hell, let's get rid of the homosexuals as well.

All of these people are dependant upon others to sustain and advance(syn evolve) their kind, and they aren't as evolved(syn advanced) as the average human being. So yeah, let's continue to assign a value to human life by how evolved that life is, as well as it's overall dependence upon another to sustain it.

I say we start with the homos..then we work are way down the evolutionary(syn advancement) chain..what do you think about that Captain?

No, the argument is that the rights of existent persons are paramount to the rights of non-existent or "potential" persons.

You concern yourself with the rights of non-existsent persons because you claim to value human life, but you certainly do not value the lives of existent persons. Or was it someone else who suggested exterminating all of the "cripples, retards, and... homos"?

You are a world class hypocrite. I am sure the Baby Jesus™ is proud of you.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So your position essentially boils down to the following:

The lives of those who are "dependant" upon others, are not as valuable as the lives of the people they depend on.

Sounds like a noble position to me Captain. But why should society stop at killing an undeveloped human life such as a "fetus", hell we might as well just kill off all of the cripples, retards, and hell, let's get rid of the homosexuals as well.

All of these people are dependant upon others to sustain and advance(syn evolve) their kind, and they aren't as evolved(syn advanced) as the average human being. So yeah, let's continue to assign a value to human life by how evolved that life is, as well as it's overall dependence upon another to sustain it.

I say we start with the homos..then we work are way down the evolutionary(syn advancement) chain..what do you think about that Captain?

Basically. But not in the shallow manner you imply with your response. You are th eone that implies a needlessness for the reproductive organism. Or, is baby Jesus that profound? It is a matter of dependant. It is a matter of who's descision it is. And it certainly isn't yours or your gods. If you are the father or the mother, then by all means, toss your hat into the ring. But you aren't. You have no say in the actions of another human being. The prolife argument will always be trumped.

But, what your long and over stated reply suggests is that you have no answer. If those cells, be they human or dolphine, are capable of existing outside the mother, then it should imply some measure of governmental control. Some sort of societal influence. This is not the case. It is no more a matter of society than is removing a tick that feeds on your blood.

Consider the man you stand beside so sternly: GW Bush was the governor of Texas, and has often stated that "we" should always err on the side of life. However, he allowed the deaths of dozens of people, be they mentally challanged or innocent, to die in the Texas state prisions. He motivated the legislature to pass a law bassed on one person, Terry Schiavo. A clear and undisputable disruption of constitutional law.

you can talk about homos all you want. You can confuse the argument. You can confuse it with pedophilia or social injustice. But the reality remains, that evolution has placed homosexuals in practically every observed animal species. If they were not part of your gods grand scheme, then they must be part of evolution. If you can't handle that, then do the world a favor and knock yourself off. Because fags aren't going anywhere. Maybe to hell in your perspective, but they're here(in the reality of this existence) for the long haul. As long as humans exist, there will be human homosexuals. For as long as animals exist, there will be homosexuality. Your bible, your god and your own limited perspective can't change that. By all means, if god existed, then he would be a hell of a lot more proactive in the world he created. Or, has he stopped recently because you people are right in all things?

Originally posted by docb77
I'll give you that it's not like you or I. But prove that it has to have all the pieces to be human. The more I think of it the more I think that the most you can say is that it isn't a being (again not currently proveable).

We agree that it is an organism, in at least some way separate from its mother. We agree that it has human DNA. What other kind of organism is it if not human? Is it a human being? That's where the unknown is. Can a cell be a being... might be an interesting thread.

It's not like you or I, fact. We are human beings. So the conclusion to be drawn is that it's not a human. Infact, why are you even keeping up this anal pretense that it could be a human? It is provable and I have proven as much. You sitting there refusing to admit it doesn't equate to me not proving it. Which is what I've just now realised you are doing.

We don't agree that it's separate. It's not separate in any way until it's born and the cord is cut. All this "That's where the unknown is" nonsense, it's all for nought. Reason being is that you and I are humans, complete humans. A CELL (it's a cellular organism, a CELLULAR ORGANISM) does not have any of that. All it has is the DNA to BECOME what we are if left unchecked. Ergo, if it has what it takes to BECOME what we are, it cannot BE what we are at the same time.

This is what people are foolishly overlooking. "It has the potential to be, the parts to be, so it is."

Stupid rhetoric.

-AC

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, the argument is that the rights of existent persons are paramount to the rights of non-existent or "potential" persons.

You concern yourself with the rights of non-existsent persons because you claim to value human life, but you certainly do not value the lives of existent persons. Or was it someone else who suggested exterminating all of the "cripples, retards, and... homos"?

You are a world class hypocrite. I am sure the Baby Jesus™ is proud of you.

I'm not a hypocrite at all. I'm actually starting to agree with yours and Captain Fantastic's wise positions Adam. I'm starting to believe in this whole "survival of the fittest" evolutionary doctrine that you both seem to adhere to and dogmatically profess.

I'm thinking the next logical step, when it comes to evolving humanity, is to terminate all life that is "dependant" upon others to sustain/advance it.

Homosexual behavior doesn't advance a culture, and really is quite parasitic in it's nature. Homo's are dependant upon "heterosexual" processes to advance their kind. And homosexuality doesn't offer any type of social benefits to a society. Since these "organisms" are dependant upon us hetero's to survive and advance them, we have the right to say whether or not they should be able to live or die.

Cripples and retards are also dependant upon others to take care of them as well. I'm tired of having all of this money taken out of my paycheck, to support some dink who can't provide for themselves. So yeah, logically, us able bodied citizens should have the right to say whether or not these "organisms" should be able to live or die as well.

I know some of you people might think I'm selfish or cruel for believing in such things, but I'm actually not thinking about myself, I'm thinking about "human" rights. And based on the way I define life; homo's, retards and cripples are clearly not "human."

I'm really about freedom of choice and protecting "human" life. I'm not about advancing and protecting my own personal agenda. Pro killing homo's, retards, and cripples really is "Pro life", because I'm insuring the advancement of the most "evolved" forms of life, by weeding out all life from the gene pool that is clearly dependant upon another life to sustain/advance it.

Only those who can take care of themselves and are classified as the most evolved forms of life, should have the right to "choose" who lives or dies, and who they do/do not want depending upon them.

note* It is my strong belief that an "organism" can only be defined as "human" if it is not dependant upon others to provide for it or advance it, and demonstrates certain types of evolved behaviors/physical attributes that are clearly beneficial to advancing(syn evolving) a society.