• 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.

Awesome Little Girl

Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
JP Says " If He or She is not a Baby and not a Human Being in Mom's womb.
What is in Mom's Womb?"
A human fetus or a human embryo.
"Then what is the DNA identifying in the Mom's womb
It identifies speciation and lineage, nothing else (other than perhaps genetic defects).
HMMM I can not think of any other specis that a Human Mom would be pregnant with. Oh please do not tell me about the state fair half snake half human as one Pro Abortion person told me recently."
Not at all. I merely point out that you claim the DNA being able to establish whether or not a "being, a baby or a person is present. These developmental and legal stages do not have unique, differentiating DNA for these stages, and as such your claims are false.

Now, I have pointed this out to you a dozen times, but I don't expect you to get it this time either. Either you re incapable of learning or researching something, or you are deliberately dishonest. Which one is it?

"Unique"
steen "Perhaps, perhaps not. DNA doesn't assure that."
JP says as he is scratching his bald head all the time realizing grass does not grow on a busy street. " What? DNA doen not make someone unique? HMMM"
Not if there are identical twins. In other cases, yes it does, but with identical twins, the dna is the same.
"an individual."
JP is getting hungry he says "HMMMM"
No surprise there.
"Human Being DNA comes from a person."
If Human being DNA does not come from a person. Where does it come from?
A clone, sloughed-off tissue or surgical waste, sperm, egg, zygotes, blastocysts, morulas, embryos, fetuses, corpses, hydatidiform moles some viruses etc.
Anyway What the heck is a hydatidiform mole? Moles are not human and do not produce human being DNA? Only persons produce Human being DNA.
A hydatidiform mole is the product of a human egg merging with a human sperm. Didn't you know this. But I guess you say they are not human and not persons and don't have human DNA. So I wonder WHAT you then will call them.
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
So if it loses maternal Chrosomes it is identified as hydatidiform mole. not a human being?
Well it still got human DNA, which you claim is a determinant in it as a being, an individual and a person.
leaving a 46XX karyotype composed only of paternal chromosomes, enough to form a placenta, but not a fetus.
Actually, what happens is that the morula never differentiates into a blastocyst, the folding never happens. It still grows, though.
So this is saying it is not a Baby
Well, nothing is a "baby" until birth. Now, how about your claim that it is an individual, a person, a being?
because everyone knows fetus is latin for baby.
false.
So it is not human.
Really? It got human DNA. It assuredly is a human hydatidiform mole. "Human" is the only thing it actually is. So even THAT claim of yours is false.
The result is a mass of tissue with grape-like swollen villi.

So that what it is !! Not human.
Ah, so the "human" quality if based on how it looks? How do you know if it is a normal or a molar zygote, f.ex? How would you be able to tell the difference?
Guess what DNA evidence proved that.
DNA evidence would show it to be human DNA. The testing is not able to say whether the 2nd X-chromosome comes from mom or dad. It is completely impossible to tell whether a zygote (You know, the result of conception) is a mole or not. So exactly WHAT is it you say DNA evidence proved, other than that you are ignorant of these things.
 
steen said:
A human fetus or a human embryo.
It identifies speciation and lineage, nothing else (other than perhaps genetic defects).
Not at all. I merely point out that you claim the DNA being able to establish whether or not a "being, a baby or a person is present. These developmental and legal stages do not have unique, differentiating DNA for these stages, and as such your claims are false.

Now, I have pointed this out to you a dozen times, but I don't expect you to get it this time either. Either you re incapable of learning or researching something, or you are deliberately dishonest. Which one is it?

Not if there are identical twins. In other cases, yes it does, but with identical twins, the dna is the same.

My opinion is that a twins are copies of each other again persons. What makes them different from each other Personalities which they have from conception and you steen can not prove otherwise.

No surprise there.
A clone,(DNA from a person) sloughed-off tissue or surgical waste,(DNA from a person )sperm,(DNA from a Person) egg,(DNA from a person) zygotes, (a person developemental stage)blastocysts, (Person developemental stage)morulas,(not familar with the term) embryos,(person Developemental stage) fetuses,(Latin word for Babies Again a person developemental stage) corpses,(assuming human Dead person Not a being anymore at coception he or she "was a Person"hydatidiform moles DNA Identifies it as a Hydratidform mole not a person) some viruses DNA Identifies the virus as a virus )etc.

Human Being DNA Identifying a Baby.Comes from a Person Namely the baby.

A hydatidiform mole is the product of a human egg merging with a human sperm. Didn't you know this. But I guess you say they are not human and not persons and don't have human DNA. So I wonder WHAT you then will call them.[/QUOT

Their DNA does not identify them as a person or human being. If you wish to continue calling this unfortunate event a person or human being that is your opinion I disagree.
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
steen said:
A human fetus or a human embryo.
It identifies speciation and lineage, nothing else (other than perhaps genetic defects).
Not at all. I merely point out that you claim the DNA being able to establish whether or not a "being, a baby or a person is present. These developmental and legal stages do not have unique, differentiating DNA for these stages, and as such your claims are false.

Now, I have pointed this out to you a dozen times, but I don't expect you to get it this time either. Either you re incapable of learning or researching something, or you are deliberately dishonest. Which one is it?

Not if there are identical twins. In other cases, yes it does, but with identical twins, the dna is the same.
My opinion is that a twins are copies of each other again persons. What makes them different from each other Personalities which they have from conception and you steen can not prove otherwise.
HUH? There is no evidence of personality from conception. But I thank you for admitting that their DNA indeed is similar and that the y thus are not unique as you claimed earlier. I am pleased that you admit being wrong.
A clone,(DNA from a person) sloughed-off tissue or surgical waste,(DNA from a person )sperm,(DNA from a Person) egg,(DNA from a person) zygotes, (a person developemental stage)blastocysts, (Person developemental stage)morulas,(not familar with the term) embryos,(person Developemental stage) fetuses,(Latin word for Babies Again a person developemental stage) corpses,(assuming human Dead person Not a being anymore at coception he or she "was a Person"hydatidiform moles DNA Identifies it as a Hydratidform mole not a person) some viruses DNA Identifies the virus as a virus )etc.
So your are trying for sophistry and outright falsehoods to hang on to your bearing false witness instead of dealing with actual facts. yes, I am not surprised, though this is outright trolling. How sad to witness.
Human Being DNA Identifying a Baby.
Nope, it identifies the species, not the developmental stage. Your claim remains false. You have blabbered this absolutist claim for weeks and have had evidence against this ever since, with the best of your responses being "But I still believe this" as defense of your misrepresentation. What a flagrant display of dishonesty.
Comes from a Person Namely the baby.
A baby would be a person. An embryo would not.
A hydatidiform mole is the product of a human egg merging with a human sperm. Didn't you know this. But I guess you say they are not human and not persons and don't have human DNA. So I wonder WHAT you then will call them.
Their DNA does not identify them as a person or human being.
Sure it does. You are unable to tell the difference. I pointed this out before, and you apparently just ignored that, again showing your flagrant dishonesty.
If you wish to continue calling this unfortunate event a person or human being that is your opinion I disagree.
Well, per your claim of the human DNA identifying a person, the hydatidiform mole MUST be a person as it has human DNA indistinguishable from other human DNA. So as long as you hold on to your claim, the hydatidiform mole must be a person per your very own claim.

Burt now you say that it isn't, which can ONLY mean that you have abandoned your flagrantly false claim of DNA somehow identifying personhood.
 
steen) HUH? There is no evidence of personality from conception. But I thank you for admitting that their DNA indeed is similar and that the y thus are not unique as you claimed earlier. I am pleased that you admit being wrong.


JP) Thats right I am glad you agree with me you can not prove a Baby at conception does not have a personality. Two can play that game. Twins are unique. Identical twins more so They still have DNA Identifying them as individuals.

JP from a previous post) Human Being DNA Identifying a Baby.

(steen)Nope, it identifies the species, not the developmental stage. Your claim remains false. You have blabbered this absolutist claim for weeks and have had evidence against this ever since, with the best of your responses being "But I still believe this" as defense of your misrepresentation. What a flagrant display of dishonesty.

JP)I consider a Baby a person and DNA proves that as well as the baby being a human being.

Steen) A baby would be a person. An embryo would not.

JP) Wow is this true steen is now saying a Baby is a person. Since fetus is latin for baby this is a step forward. We are making progress. Embryo is a stage of developement for a person. Then what is an embryo if it is not a person?
 
Where do you come up with this bs?
From the dictionary:
fe·tus (fē'təs)
n., pl. -tus·es.
The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
[Middle English, from Latin fētus, offspring.]

It's latin origin, please note is OFFSPRING.
 
According to Doctor E Albert Reece former Chairman of the OB/GYN at Temple University now Dean of Arkansas U Med School He has written numerous Med Books on OB/GYN used in many Med Schools fetus is latin for baby. This is from a man who I can truely say wrote the book. Note I do not know Dr. Reece's view on abortion.
 
In researching this man's name, what came up had him using the term 'fetus'.
Your claims lack substantiation, as usual.
 
ngdawg said:
In researching this man's name, what came up had him using the term 'fetus'.
Your claims lack substantiation, as usual.

Dr Reese Was at Temple University in his office with my wife and I when he said that. Note I will post some more about this wonderful Doctor. Note I do not know Dr Reese views on abortion. So please do not trhink hei is either Pro Life or Pro Abortion.
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Dr Reese Was at Temple University in his office with my wife and I when he said that.
Ah, so regardless of actual evidence to the contrary, the foundation for your claim is your unsubstantiated claim that this person mentioned this terminology to you in an office visit? THAT is the foundation for your absolutist false claim, ignoring evidence to the contrary?
 
"I duly note that once again are you USING family members and their personal situations as pawns in your political game. All that does is making you appear exploitative of them."

They are not pawns. They are examples about the stuggles of life and how valuable and precious life is. Many say that this child should have been aborted, because of her struggles and her disease. She probably looked at her life a lot differently than we would. I bet she felt her life was full.

And think of what an influence and impact she had on the people she met throughout her lifetime.
 
doughgirl said:
"I duly note that once again are you USING family members and their personal situations as pawns in your political game. All that does is making you appear exploitative of them."
They are not pawns. They are examples about the stuggles of life and how valuable and precious life is. Many say that this child should have been aborted, because of her struggles and her disease.
And who would say that? certainly, prochoice would say that nothing "should" happen, that it is the woman's choice and nobody else have the right to input.

So WHO is it you claim would say this thing about "should"?
 
steen said:
Ah, so regardless of actual evidence to the contrary, the foundation for your claim is your unsubstantiated claim that this person mentioned this terminology to you in an office visit? THAT is the foundation for your absolutist false claim, ignoring evidence to the contrary?

Dr. Reece said it also some posted a meaning as offspring isn't that what baby is. so my claim is not false. In fact it is not a claim it is a fact.
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Dr. Reece said it also some posted a meaning as offspring isn't that what baby is. so my claim is not false. In fact it is not a claim it is a fact.
It is a fact that this Dr. Reece makes these claims. It is NOT a fact that what he says is correct.
 
Fetus Latin young one HMMM sounds like baby to me. Fetus Latin offspring HmMM again Baby.
 
doughgirl said:
. Many say that this child should have been aborted, because of her struggles and her disease. She probably looked at her life a lot differently than we would. I bet she felt her life was full.

And think of what an influence and impact she had on the people she met throughout her lifetime.

Not one person said she should have been aborted and the post was made to try and get that response-didn't work at all because anti-choicers simply DON'T GET IT. So I will ONCE AGAIN echo what every pro-choicer has voiced in every thread:
WE ARE NOT PRO-ABORTION, WE ARE PRO-WOMAN'S CHOICE. Find one person in ANY of these threads that says less-than perfect conditions warrant the necessity for abortion. Find one person in these threads that said they'd most certainly HAVE an abortion under any circumstances.
Ready? GO! I'll wait....
 
ngdawg said:
Not one person said she should have been aborted and the post was made to try and get that response-didn't work at all because anti-choicers simply DON'T GET IT. So I will ONCE AGAIN echo what every pro-choicer has voiced in every thread:
WE ARE NOT PRO-ABORTION, WE ARE PRO-WOMAN'S CHOICE. Find one person in ANY of these threads that says less-than perfect conditions warrant the necessity for abortion. Find one person in these threads that said they'd most certainly HAVE an abortion under any circumstances.
Ready? GO! I'll wait....

From http://www.abortiontv.com/Lies & Myths/AnswersToProChoice.htm#Every person has the

To be prochoice about abortion is to be pro-abortion. Suppose drug dealing were legalized and you heard this argument:

"I’m personally not in favor of someone dealing drugs at schools, but that’s a matter to decide between the drug dealer and his attorney. We don’t want to go back to the days when drug dealing was illegal, and people died in back alleys from bad cocaine. I personally wouldn’t buy drugs, so I’m not pro-drugs. I’m just pro-choice about drug dealing."

Basically, being personally against abortion but favoring another’s right to abortion is self-contradictory and morally baffling. It’s exactly like saying, "We’re personally against child abuse, but we defend our neighbor’s right to abuse his child if that is his choice."

Someone who is prochoice about rape might argue that it’s not the same as being pro-rape. What’s the difference, since being prochoice about rape allows and promotes the legitimacy of rape? Those who were prochoice about slavery believed their moral position was sound since they personally didn’t own slaves. Similarly, most people in Germany did not favor the killing of Jews, but did nothing to stop the killing.

Some people have an illusion that being personally opposed to abortion while believing others should be free to choose it is some kind of compromise between pro-abortion and prolife positions. It isn’t. Pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion people. Both oppose legal protection for the unborn, and both are willing for children to die – even if they do not directly participate in the killings.

I just couldn't say it any better.
 
I CAN be pro-drug legalization and AM, but I don't do drugs.
People who were pro-slavery were just bigots and members of the KKK-that argument is moot.
People who were against the Holocaust did do what they could against it-there are countless heroes in that respect-again, a moot point.
I won't get into your idiocy about rape-it's a violent, dehumanizing crime against women and children.
I'm not compromising-but most anti-choicers do by saying abortion is wrong 'but in the case of the mother's health, ok, then'. WTF? THAT is contradictory and most compromising. Like I said, you don't get it...so I'll be remedial....I don't like asparagus. But others do. So, because I don't like asparagus, farmers must stop growing it, even though others may want some?
Asparagus isn't for everyone, but it's there if they want or need it...GET IT NOW? Didn't think so....
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Fetus Latin young one HMMM sounds like baby to me. Fetus Latin offspring HmMM again Baby.
Fetus does not mean "baby" regardless of what lie prolifers spew here.
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
From http://www.abortiontv.com/...[/quot... have to keep on showing that you are a liar.
 
ngdawg said:
I CAN be pro-drug legalization and AM, but I don't do drugs.
People who were pro-slavery were just bigots and members of the KKK-that argument is moot.
People who were against the Holocaust did do what they could against it-there are countless heroes in that respect-again, a moot point.
I won't get into your idiocy about rape-it's a violent, dehumanizing crime against women and children.
I'm not compromising-but most anti-choicers do by saying abortion is wrong 'but in the case of the mother's health, ok, then'. WTF? THAT is contradictory and most compromising. Like I said, you don't get it...so I'll be remedial....I don't like asparagus. But others do. So, because I don't like asparagus, farmers must stop growing it, even though others may want some?
Asparagus isn't for everyone, but it's there if they want or need it...GET IT NOW? Didn't think so....

Why not give us your definition of abortion? Why do you take offense to being called Pro abortion rather than Pro Choice? Do you not support a womens right to have an abortion? Sorry you can not have it both ways. You can not say I would not have an abortion but it is Ok if someone else has one.I will not eat asparugus (you hate asparugus)it is Ok for someone else to eat them Comparing the taking of another persons life to your dislike of assparugus? HMMM Get it NOW?
 
(when using a quote, then answering it, spell correctly-it'll make your arguments slightly more credible-it's a-s-p-a-r-a-g-u-s)

I get that you anti-choicers spew how much you protect the potential life of an embryo...unless of course it's the woman's life that's at stake, then it's ok to abort. It's hypocritical, to say the least.
I get that you think it's ok to bring a child into ANY condition, regardless of the woman's thoughts and feelings on the issue-perhaps holding her against her will, forcing her to give birth is your way?
I get that you use hyberbole, unsubstantiated claims and 'facts' from anti-choice sites and when times get really desperate for anti-choicers, invoke God or bible quotes.
I get that you have NO alternatives, nothing of substance to sway anyone.
I get that you're anti-woman, anti-privacy and anti-american. The reason you're anti-american? You've no respect for the female portion of this country who are protected from the likes of you by our constitution.
You, indeed, are PRO-slavery as you would rather force someone that has nothing to do with you or your lifestyle into doing something they might otherwise not be willing or capable of doing. You'd rather force someone into doing something that does NOT benefit anyone simply because it's your belief they should do it. Then you call it pro-life????? At least there are some of us who have enough respect for women and their personal lives to allow them to make a choice that's their own.
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
... HMMM Get it NOW?
You were right, ngdawg, he doesn't get it. Or at least he doesn't want to get it because that will show one of his favorite deceitful propaganda tools to be the deception that it is.

And if there is one thing we know, it is that prolifers don't like to have their lies and deceptions exposed.
 
steen said:
You were right, ngdawg, he doesn't get it. Or at least he doesn't want to get it because that will show one of his favorite deceitful propaganda tools to be the deception that it is.

And if there is one thing we know, it is that prolifers don't like to have their lies and deceptions exposed.



Steen why is it that no matter what forum you are on all we ever hear from you is pro life lies or pro liars or hatemongering mysogonist have you actually got a debate in you or are you so full of hate that you just use these forums as a slander board?
You never provide real proof to your points though i don,t know if anyone elses has noticed tyhis if asked for proof you give us refferences from medical libaries knowing full well that your point cannot be clarified as not everyone has access to medical libaries.
 
FISHX said:
Steen why is it that no matter what forum you are on all we ever hear from you is pro life lies or pro liars or hatemongering mysogonist
probably because the prolifers are alike in all these places with their lies and desire to punish and control women.
have you actually got a debate in you
Sure. Do you have a specific, relevant point you want to debate without inserting lies? Then I am all game. How about this one where prolifers deny that there is a right to life:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6031
or are you so full of hate that you just use these forums as a slander board?
Amazing, prolifer seeming to believe that anybody disagreeing with them are slaneding and full of hate. That almost comes accorss as narcissistic. Now, if you have some subject to discuss instead of the feeble attempt at making this about me personally, then by all means get to it.
You never provide real proof to your points
SIGH! I should have known that a prolifer can't make a post without lying.

though i don,t know if anyone elses has noticed tyhis if asked for proof you give us refferences from medical libaries knowing full well that your point cannot be clarified as not everyone has access to medical libaries.
Huh? Oh, I get it. medical sources are not allowed by prolifers in a debate about medical issues. yeah, sure. Would that be ebcause actual medical, scientific evidence contradict the prolife lies and misrepresentations? yes, I can certainly see your distress at this and your desire to thus have actual science excluded form the debate. It must be tough to know that prolife fiction and made-up nonsense can be proven wrong. So lets limit the evidence, right?:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom