Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I...I hate to be the one to ask this but... are any of you aborted foetuses? I mean, really...
I did see a recent anti-abortion video/add. It had a woman saying she was a failed abortion, ie she survived a botched abortion attempt, so she's wonderful and people shouldn't ever have abortions.
Originally posted by cococryspies
Have any of you guys actually spent any time with some one who is retarded? They're not all out of control animals. The ones who do act out are the ones who weren't cared for properly.You guys seem to think we should go back to sixties when these kids were stuck in institutions.
Or you could refer to what we actually said. As neither are "animals" out of control. I, at least, said that it is entirely a problem I have. I feel like they might be like that...not that they actually are like it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
What you explain there can also be summed up as......wait for it...
...READING COMPREHENSION PROBLEM.
You ****tard. Creative excuse for one though.
Technically, I have learning disabilities. lol I could get modified tests, even in college if I went to a psychiatrist and got a note. MWAHAHAHAHAHA!
All those anti abortionists pleeing for women to hand their babies over for adoption should be lining up at the adoption agencies. They seem so eager for women to give their babies up, why don't we see a bunch of lifers waiting to adopt a child?
Because they are a bunch of hypocrites, all talk and no action. If I got pregnant and some lifer told me I should give the kid up for adoption, I'd ask them if they wanted it. Bet they'd so no. Gee, I wonder why? They have all these pathetic excuses, 'I already have kids', 'I plan on adopting, just not now', 'I can't afford to' etc.
It's my right to do with my body whatever I please. If I ever wanted an abortion, I would have one. Abortion is not murder, it is legal. My life is more important and as I am the only living, breathing, thinking and feeling person here. The fetus is none of those.
Originally posted by Burning thought
agree with above, its a womens or the families choice,being anti abortion and saying abortion is murder is the same as saying killing a Sperm cell is as well...
No, it's not. I could see your argument if you said zygote...but even then, it's still not comparable.
A sperm cell is far and away removed, biologically, from a human* 3 months along in gestation.
*"Human being" was not used because I guess to some, that constitutes all rights inherent with being human.
Originally posted by dadudemonMeh, you draw the line when sperm and egg fuze. Why is your line better than any other?
No, it's not. I could see your argument if you said zygote...but even then, it's still not comparable.A sperm cell is far and away removed, biologically, from a human* 3 months along in gestation.
*"Human being" was not used because I guess to some, that constitutes all rights inherent with being human.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Meh, you draw the line when sperm and egg fuze. Why is your line better than any other?
Have you heard of science?
This isn't the "old testament" days were people still believe "seed" from a man is the "life" and the womb is simply the vessel that life matures in. If that were the case, billions of babies are aborted everday by bates, all over the world.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Have you heard of science?This isn't the "old testament" days were people still believe "seed" from a man is the "life" and the womb is simply the vessel that life matures in. If that were the case, billions of babies are aborted everday by bates, all over the world.
No, I get why you choose that stage. It's still arbitrary.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I get why you choose that stage. It's still arbitrary.
If you still consider it arbitrary, you're an idiot, obviously. This is rather elementary biology.
Tell me, Mr. Arbitrary/Economics, how many chromosomal pairs form a complete set? How many does a sperm have? And an egg?
Originally posted by dadudemonSo, to you having the correct amount of Chromosomes makes a human? Why can't one say the potential to get the right set of chromosomes makes one human? Why not gaining consciousness? Why not being independent from the mother's body? Why not, etc., etc.
If you still consider it arbitrary, you're an idiot, obviously. This is rather elementary biology.Tell me, Mr. Arbitrary/Economics, how many chromosomal pairs form a complete set? How many does a sperm have? And an egg?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Have you heard of science?
I tried to argue this earlier and it seemed like nobody got it, but...
There is no "science" to drawing the line which indicates the beginning of a human being. "human being" in that sense cannot be defined scientifically, because the term assumes certain existential qualities and hasbasic philisophical assumptions that are rooted in western philosophy and not science.
Your definition of chromosomes then qualifies every cell in your body as being a human, scratching your face potentially now qualifies as murder.
Originally posted by lord xyz
He just said people with down syndrome aren't humans because they have a different set of chromosomes.Beautiful.
lol, or the men born XYY
Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
All those anti abortionists pleeing for women to hand their babies over for adoption should be lining up at the adoption agencies. They seem so eager for women to give their babies up, why don't we see a bunch of lifers waiting to adopt a child?
being pro choice, isn't it hypocritical to judge the choices of others?
Originally posted by Bardock42
So, to you having the correct amount of Chromosomes makes a human? Why can't one say the potential to get the right set of chromosomes makes one human? Why not gaining consciousness? Why not being independent from the mother's body? Why not, etc., etc.
If that would have been my point, I would have argued it, now wouldn't I? I simply disagreed on a scientific level that a sperm cell is just as valid as a fetus. That's not correct. If you want to argue about something else, by all means, go ahead, but that's not what I was saying. If you think that I was arguing about how many pairs of chromosomes comprise a human, you really missed the point. Those questions were rhetorical, obviously. It was to illustrate that a sperm cell is far removed from actually passing as human on a genetic level. I was showing that even a few short days shows, on a scientific level, a differentiation between a sperm cell and a fetus.
If you want to go down the erroneous path you've concluded, then I would argue that the sperm cells are actually the possession of the male who made them, until they are out and about. When the egg becomes fertilized and begins the process of turning into a fetus, that clump of cells belongs to the women and she can do as she likes...including getting rid of that clump of cells. What I'm still on the fence about is when the clump of cells becomes a human with rights.
And how the hell can you determine when the clump of cells gains consciousness? I'm not even sure a baby is aware of "self" even after being born. It is a slow gradual process that is even different for each "subject". Sure, you could argue self-awareness on some level, but I'm talking about awareness on a complex level and not just pre-programmed behaviors. (queue the argument that those simple behaviors are complex or those complex behaviors are just as much of preprogrammed behaviors...bla bla bla...stop "missing" the point for the sake of argument.)
Originally posted by lord xyz
He just said people with down syndrome aren't humans because they have a different set of chromosomes.Beautiful.
Good job on missing the point there, Bob. You probably shouldn't post for a while. Go ahead and hit the log out button.
And, no, thy don't have a "different" set. They have the same set with a trisomy of the 21st pair. Nee nars doped
Originally posted by inimalist
I tried to argue this earlier and it seemed like nobody got it, but...There is no "science" to drawing the line which indicates the beginning of a human being. "human being" in that sense cannot be defined scientifically, because the term assumes certain existential qualities and hasbasic philisophical assumptions that are rooted in western philosophy and not science.
Your definition of chromosomes then qualifies every cell in your body as being a human, scratching your face potentially now qualifies as murder.
That's not what is being argued. Someone tried to pass off a sperm as being just as legit as a fetus. That's simply not science. I would argue that a down syndrome fetus at 3 months along in gestation is still millions of times more of a human than a sperm cell (Or for any sexual species with similar reproductive traits). And, yes, I would agree that almost ever cell in our bodies (with the exception of certain cells, obviously) would be qualify-able as "human" than a sperm cell, purely based on genetic semantics.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, or the men born XYY
lol, or chimpanzees, etc.
People, people, people. I was simply pointing out that it was erroneous to assume, in his or her callous, that a sperm cell is just as legitimate on a scientific level as a fetus. You guys stop being so bored and arguing points that aren't there. schmoll
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not what is being argued. Someone tried to pass off a sperm as being just as legit as a fetus. That's simply not science. I would argue that a down syndrome fetus at 3 months along in gestation is still millions of times more of a human than a sperm cell (Or for any sexual species with similar reproductive traits). And, yes, I would agree that almost ever cell in our bodies (with the exception of certain cells, obviously) would be qualify-able as "human" than a sperm cell, purely based on genetic semantics.
My bad, I confused what you said with what Alpha Centauri and I were talking about earlier