• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

And You Are?

Felicity said:
Have you READ his posts on the FYI Hydatidiform Moles thread? He doesn't care a whit about "fact"--it's what supports his view of reality that he claims to be "fact."

I have read them. What I would ask now is...what are your credentials for making such a bold statement about him? I am simply asking, so dont start belly-aching that I am a baby murderer...I really would like to know.
 
jallman said:
I have read them. What I would ask now is...what are your credentials for making such a bold statement about him? I am simply asking, so dont start belly-aching that I am a baby murderer...I really would like to know.
Oh please...:roll: ...Show me where I've called anyone a "baby killer"--the supposed pro-"choice" side tries to marginalize every pro-lifer by sweeping generalizations. You want I should assume you're a radical name-calling nut as well simply because you have a differing opinion? Then don't go doing it to others!

My credentials are: I am a college educated mother of five--who has a good head on her shoulders, a rational mind, and who can read and research fairly well. I have conversed with steen on this forum and on another forum at length--I have lots of experience speaking with him--and his vocabulary for describing pro-lifers is rather limited, though colorful.
 
jallman said:
I have read them. .
Did you notice he went from arguing partial hydatidiform moles are not life, to arguing that sperm and eggs are "life" also, to arguing there is no "fetus" because the foundations of the systems may or may not be layed down. I have consistently asserted life begins at conception--individual, unique HUMAN life (note his sig. line?) All his verbal gyrations are nonsense.
 
Sob said:
IF he considers it false witness,
Why wouldn't he? The claim was outright false.
I doubt he's got her with the same group who sees nothing wrong with killing babies.

How do YOU think he feels about that group?
I don't know. What group is talking about killing babies? You are not about to make false claims about others now, are you? YOU wouldn't bear false witness the same way Felicity nearly always do, would you?
 
Felicity said:
Have you READ his posts on the FYI Hydatidiform Moles thread? He doesn't care a whit about "fact"--it's what supports his view of reality that he claims to be "fact."
Actually, I care a great deal about facts. That is why I challenge you when you lie about them.

And in that forum, you have yet to show the hydatidiform mole actually qualifying for being a fetus, actually having the foundation for all organ systems laid down.

But you are of course so much of a coward that you ran from that specific evidence of the fetal stage.

So we have established that you are a liar and a coward. ... Oh, wait, we already established that many weeks ago, so all we see here is you cowardly spewing the same lies as always.
 
Felicity said:
Did you notice he went from arguing partial hydatidiform moles are not life,
Nope, I never argued that. You are again lying. As usual.
to arguing that sperm and eggs are "life" also,
SO you are claiming that sperm and egg are not alive?
to arguing there is no "fetus" because the foundations of the systems may or may not be layed down.
The DEFINITION of a fetus is that the foundation for all organ structures have been laid down. That is a FACT> There is no fetus if this is not the case.
I have consistently asserted life begins at conception--individual, unique HUMAN life (note his sig. line?)
And your assertions remain false.

Which is fine in itself. You can lie all that you want. But when you claim SCIENTIFIC evidence for your lies, THEN I get in your face.

Prolifers and other fundies spew lies all the time. That is what you do, and we are used to it and even have come to expect it. But when you claim scientific foundation for your lies, THEN I will be all over you. If you don't like to constantly being exposed as an outright liar, then stop lying about science. It really is that simple.

And you have been told this before, so it is not like you don't know what you need to do to not continuously be exposed as a liar!
 
steen said:
Nope, I never argued that. You are again lying. As usual.
SO you are claiming that sperm and egg are not alive?
The DEFINITION of a fetus is that the foundation for all organ structures have been laid down. That is a FACT> There is no fetus if this is not the case.
And your assertions remain false.

Which is fine in itself. You can lie all that you want. But when you claim SCIENTIFIC evidence for your lies, THEN I get in your face.

Prolifers and other fundies spew lies all the time. That is what you do, and we are used to it and even have come to expect it. But when you claim scientific foundation for your lies, THEN I will be all over you. If you don't like to constantly being exposed as an outright liar, then stop lying about science. It really is that simple.

And you have been told this before, so it is not like you don't know what you need to do to not continuously be exposed as a liar!


The odyssey and evolution of steen’s mole argument....
there is never a developing embryo to begin with.

Not so...what would you call a statement such as this? I can PROVE it’s false. I assume you are simply mistaken, but you would call a statement such as yours above A LIE (and probably write it in big red letters, to boot!).

Even if no embryo remnant can be found at the time the mole aborts or is delivered, the presence of typical nucleated embryonic erythroblasts in the molar villi indicates that an embryo was present. On rare occasions, an abnormal fetus is delivered. Source: The Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb. 16,1994. Volume 271 (p498L) http://www.goshen.edu/bio/dvert/refe...l#hydatidiform



The fetus is what originates upon the maturity of the embryo per the laying down the foundation of organ structures


Okay....and....???


And again, as the structures never even undergo a proper folding, it really isn't ever a blastocyst, let alone an embryo or a fetus.

Oh,....but that’s not so is it, steen. Again, does that make you a LIAR? Or merely mistaken?


Actually, the elements going into the formation of the zygote are alive themselves. So your claim is still false.

Red herring...(and piteously transparent at that!). You darn well know we are talking about “individual human life”—you verbal gyrations notwithstanding.

fetal tissue is what developes at the end of the embryonic stage per the laying down of all major organ systems.

Would you care to speculate as to why reference after reputable reference I supplied in that thread refer to “fetal” structures? The whole medical world is wrong but YOU? I doubt it.


Why? They are not making false claims about embryos.

Oh....so you changed your mind about the presence of embryos? Is that an admission of your error?

It points out that cells with NORMAL genetic material, such as that after a miscarriage, or per remaining placental tissue after birth can develop into a fetus.

(I think you meant “can develop into a MOLE”)


A fetus is a very specific entity with all the major organ system foundations laid down. Such structures are not uniformly laid down in either a partial, nor a complete hydatidiform mole.

So, why are all these sources “lying” steen? What’s the agenda???


Quote:
most of this thread is other's words.
And I don't care, it still doesn't meet the requirement for being a fetus.


“I don’t care” says it all...

The fact is, all you care about is preserving your narcissistic mirage. You’re in the psych field....does the description of the Narcissist feel like you’re reading your autobiography?


A fetus is the CONSINUATION of development after the embryonic stage, per the actual depositiong of the foundations of all major organ systems in the embryo. THAT is what makes it a fetus.

Do you mean conTinuation? So you mean development occurs on a fashion where one developmental stage follows another? Like after the fetal stage comes the neonate stage, then infant, toddler, etc...? Yes...I agree then...

Which Aslo means that you claim the complete hydatidiform mole to be a human life. After all, it is the result of conception.

And as your sig. line notes—I said a partial mole because it is a unique individual. Talk about revisionist linguistics—SPIN, baby, SPIN....

A quote from that site:
" No embryo formation "
Without an embryo formation, it is not possible to form a fetus.

Back to that eh....well...that is so for a complete mole...BUT NOT for a partial mole and you KNOW it despite all your denial!
 
Back
Top Bottom