Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They're not human beings at a cellular level, though. They're cells...at a cellular level. Hence the "cell" at the beginning. You know, like cells and such. Being cell-ular.Did you think it meant the movie; CELLular? Or the telephone device; A CELLphone? No, it means cells, buddy. The organism: Cell. The cell that's on it's way to becoming a human. Becoming, not actually is one. You know? The organism that even the pro-lifers have been saying is; "The parts necessary to become/create a human".
Yeah, Mr thinks-he's-funny-but-isn't, I know what cells we're talking about; The ones you can refer to in the singular for about 4 minutes after conception. You're really an ass, you know that? You ever think that someone might now more than you? you ever think that even if someone disagrees with you you should show some respect? My guess is that people leave the forum to you because of your attitude not your arguments. You still haven't answered the question. What keeps a small bunch of cells from qualifying as human? Again, (since you tried to evade the question last time) scientifically if you will.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not too good at this are you?
Better than you, at least I'm using logic. You're precious wordplay is the only thing you've got going for you and you won't even admit that I've torn it apart.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You saying "I'm a biochemist" after the sheer rampant hypocricy and stupidity- not to mention ignorance- of your debates, is like Bush saying "You can't tell me about politics, I'm a politician."
Says the blind man to the seeing. So the biochemistry, cellular and molecular biology, and microbiology classes on my transcript mean nothing?
Where have I been hypocritical? I've been open-minded is all. All I've said is that there is no clear line, yet you try to make me out to be a hardliner. Sounds like you're the hypocrite. rampant? Like you saying that "oh, I've proven it!" when you've done no such thing. just words, no actual data. Stupidity and ignorance? that would be you again. Can't admit the value of an opposing argument. Got your eyes nice and closed don't you? I never said you couldn't tell me anything about biochem, I just said make it good for a change.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You believe cells are human beings. It says a lot for your knowledge doesn't it?
a) No, again, all I've said is that it's possible, not that it is.
b) The more you learn, the more you find you don't know.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I've provided evidence. You f*cked up and misread it, tried to dodge and I proved you wrong again. Now, with the pretention of ten Pink Floyds, you're keeping up this entirely laughable "Cells are humans" debate. Which isn't really a debate at all.
Fine, then quote yourself, and show me where anything you've said, contains any scientific data pertinent to whether or not the group of an early zygote/fetus is void of any human characteristics.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If she wants. Can't say I'd be applauding her, but it's her foetus.
You can't be that stupid! Even by your argument it's not a fetus after it's born. I'll take a different track for a second here. When, in your world, does a person gain "rights"? When you go to school? when you finally move out of your parents house? Does a mother have the right to kill her 17 year old child because he's not off living on his own?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hence why I said it has the qualities OF.
Which means it's really irrelevant to the discussion.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
But enough, and therein lies your problem.
No problem here. I just pointed out that the artificial line you drew does not exist!!!i/b]
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
[B]It's not. It's called you-don't-like-what-I'm-bringing-so-you're-dodging-like-neo-tics.
Semantics
1- Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2- Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3- The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language
Look at number 3. You still think that's not what you're doing.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Try some reading, some people even think it's useful.
I read a book or two a week, a newspaper a day, and a couple of magazines a month. How you doing with that?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"Try some science", says the guy who believes cells are as human as a man with some organs not working properly."Try some science", says the guy who believes cells are human, period.
already refuted. And yes, try some science. I haven't seen any so far.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Or do you? I swear you've said before that you do not, thereby proving my argument correct. That argument being that there is no human life or human beings at conception.
Nope, I believe that the question is still open.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I've got the backup of cells factually not being humans. Where's your argument? Oh yeah, up there with all the hypocritical philosophy you've used.
Oh you've got that back-up do you? Well then.... OH that's right, that's just your semantics and arbitrary definitions again. My argument is only that you've not made your case. I've used no philosophy (look it up). I've shown no hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) I've not seen a single pro-abortionist in this thread. I'm not a pro-abortionist, but I'll bet you'd call me one on account of your ignorance.
You really must be blind. Here, let me spell it out for you:
pro
adj : in favor of (an action or proposal etc.); "a pro vote" [ant: anti] n 1: an athlete who plays for pay [syn: professional] [ant: amateur] 2: an argument in favor of a proposal [ant: con] adv : on the affirmative side [ant: con]
I'm guessing you know what abortion is. You and all these "pro choice" people are arguing to "keep abortion on the table as a choice" You yourself have pointed out that we don't disagree on the other options. Hence you are pro-abortion.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
B) The irony in that "big-headed" claim was pathetic.
The irony is that you're so blinded by your pride that you see irony where there was none.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
C) Chill out. I understand you're pissed that you've come in here as if you're Macho Man Randy Savage with all the wanky pretention of a thousand Pink Floyds, been dealt with and also laughed at because you're just another dime/dozen pro-choice/christian debator, but that's no need to go for the Academy Award.
Pissed? Moi? Nah, I'm having fun. If I were pissed I would have left already. Like I said in another post, I like a good debate (though this one would be better if you'd bring some evidence to the table). Never really liked pro wrestling or pink floyd.
As for the rest of your meaningless insult, you my friend are another dime-a-dozen pro-abortion propagandist (couldn't use the word debator, because you haven't been debating, just bashing). By the way, what does the academy award have to do with it???
Originally posted by StyleTime
This thread IS hilarious. You've got all these ignorant pro life people calling pro choice people "pro abortionists".Maybe I missed these pro abortionists you speak of?
See above.
Originally posted by StyleTime
This is getting old. 300 pages and the pro life side has still given absolutely no justification for banning abortion.
There has been justification given, it's just not good enough for you. but 75% of the populus disagrees with you so, majority should rule in a democracy, eh?
Why don't you try giving a justification for not banning it that the other side would agree with and let's see how far you'd get. Oh wait, you have tried, that 75% still doesn't agree.