Hypocrites!

[sissy-boy]

Let me enlighten you with some BIOLOGY; There are these called the 8 Characteristics of Life, which means that any objects that carries any of these is living, well let me tell you them:
1) It must be made of cells
2) It must be able to reproduce
3) It must be able to metabolise
4) It must have a Universal Genetic Code (DNA)
5) It must be able to perform homeostasis (A stable internal enviroment)
6) It must be able to Grow & Develope
7) It must be able to Respond to it's enviroment
8) It must be able to change over time
Now if a fetus carries one of these it is indeed living and if you don't believe me search it up on your computer!

Actually, you're WRONG. It needs to contain ALL of them. But I don't know many pro-choice people who would deny that abortion is killing a living thing. It doesn't cross my mind. But there is a HUGE difference between killing a fetus and killing a child. There is also a HUGE difference between killing and murder. I think the Menendez brothers are heros. It was about TIME that the cycle of abuse was broken by the victims and they went after the SOURCE of the abuse instead of repeating the cycle.

 

[vergiss]

Let me enlighten you with some BIOLOGY; There are these called the 8 Characteristics of Life, which means that any objects that carries any of these is living, well let me tell you them:
1) It must be made of cells
2) It must be able to reproduce
3) It must be able to metabolise
4) It must have a Universal Genetic Code (DNA)
5) It must be able to perform homeostasis (A stable internal enviroment)
6) It must be able to Grow & Develope
7) It must be able to Respond to it's enviroment
8) It must be able to change over time
Now if a fetus carries one of these it is indeed living and if you don't believe me search it up on your computer!

Flawed. Everything changes over time. A landscape changes over time, thanks to erosion, etc. Is a mountain alive? What about a flame? That can certainly grow and develop. There are plenty of robots nowadays that respond to their environment, as well. Are they alive, too?

 

[theheartbreakkid13]

Flawed. Everything changes over time. A landscape changes over time, thanks to erosion, etc. Is a mountain alive? What about a flame? That can certainly grow and develop. There are plenty of robots nowadays that respond to their environment, as well. Are they alive, too?

A mountain is not made of cells genius and it also does contain DNA. Erosion is caused by the movement of the world and also by humans adding or taking away landscape. A flame grows only if you feed wood or any other flammable item to it. Robots respond to there enviroment because they are programmed to not because it's god given gift.

 

[theheartbreakkid13]

Actually, you're WRONG. It needs to contain ALL of them. But I don't know many pro-choice people who would deny that abortion is killing a living thing. It doesn't cross my mind. But there is a HUGE difference between killing a fetus and killing a child. There is also a HUGE difference between killing and murder. I think the Menendez brothers are heros. It was about TIME that the cycle of abuse was broken by the victims and they went after the SOURCE of the abuse instead of repeating the cycle.

My bad I had a smalll flaw they MUST contain all of these. a fetus is a human creation (natural) thus we give it life if you take something from existence as long as it can breathe your killing something.

 

[vergiss]

A mountain is not made of cells genius and it also does contain DNA. Erosion is caused by the movement of the world and also by humans adding or taking away landscape. A flame grows only if you feed wood or any other flammable item to it. Robots respond to there enviroment because they are programmed to not because it's god given gift.

Um. You might want to read your own post, whereupon you said it must meet only one of the criteria, rather than all of them. So I replied to that.

So it must meet all criteria, hey? But a mule cannot reproduce. Does that mean it's not alive? For that matter, nor can any pre-pubescent humans (foetuses included). Whoops, seems we weren't alive even when we started school.

Likewise, a foetus at the typical time of termination can't respond to its environment. By the end of the second trimester they can respond to external stimuli, but in the first trimester (when the far majority of abortions are performed), they cannot. Just like people in deep comas or permenent vegetative states, really. So you agree that Terri Schiavo wasn't alive?

What's more, regarding homeostasis - many humans aren't able to produce a perfect state of homeostasis. The most obvious example I can think of is the inability to regulate their own blood glucose levels. So diabetics aren't alive, either? Obviously foetuses aren't able to produce perfect homeostasis, such as insulin production, waste removal etc because they simply aren't developed enough. So that's another one off the list.

a fetus is a human creation (natural) thus we give it life if you take something from existence as long as it can breathe your killing something.

Heh. Problem is, foetuses in the first trimester can't breathe. They can't breathe without medical assistance until the beginning of the third trimester. So if that's the sole criteria regarding if it's killing or not, the pro-choice movement has passed by a mile.

 

[sissy-boy]

My bad I had a smalll flaw they MUST contain all of these. a fetus is a human creation (natural) thus we give it life if you take something from existence as long as it can breathe your killing something.

Hello?! I never said that I was pro-abortion because I didn't think it was killing a fetus. You'd be hard pressed to find a single pro-choice person who did NOT agree that it is killing a fetus. My view is that a fetus is NOT yet a child and is NOT governed by laws of morality. It would never know the difference whether it lived or not. It doesn't even have a nervous system. Wake UP for chrissakes!

 

[Elektra]

Let me enlighten you with some BIOLOGY; There are these called the 8 Characteristics of Life, which means that any objects that carries any of these is living, well let me tell you them:
1) It must be made of cells
2) It must be able to reproduce
3) It must be able to metabolise
4) It must have a Universal Genetic Code (DNA)
5) It must be able to perform homeostasis (A stable internal enviroment)
6) It must be able to Grow & Develope
7) It must be able to Respond to it's enviroment
8) It must be able to change over time
Now if a fetus carries one of these it is indeed living and if you don't believe me search it up on your computer!

As said, all of these have to apply.

 

[Elektra]

My bad I had a smalll flaw they MUST contain all of these. a fetus is a human creation (natural) thus we give it life if you take something from existence as long as it can breathe your killing something.

Please, do learn to write coherently: the conclusion of this is what?

A kingdom for a comma!

 

[steen]

A mountain is not made of cells genius and it also does contain DNA.

Hmm, a hydatidiform mole, a product of human conception, has live cells with human DNA. Are they human? Are they A human?

 

[Fantasea]

Actually, you're WRONG. It needs to contain ALL of them. But I don't know many pro-choice people who would deny that abortion is killing a living thing. It doesn't cross my mind. But there is a HUGE difference between killing a fetus and killing a child.

Please explain your understanding of this HUGE difference.

 

[Fantasea]

Hmm, a hydatidiform mole, a product of human conception, has live cells with human DNA. Are they human? Are they A human?

Give it up. You already acknowledged that your moles cannot produce a human child.

 

[steen]

Give it up. You already acknowledged that your moles cannot produce a human child.

Are you really THAT MUCH of a coward that you can't admit what your argument was? It was not about outcome, solely about DNA as descriptor of humanness. That you now chose to be dishonest is of course evidence that your previous argument about the DNA was false. We accept your acknowledgement that you were wrong before, and that your insistence in the face of evidence merely showed you to outright lie.

Your appology is accepted.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Give it up. You already acknowledged that your moles cannot produce a human child.

Are you really THAT MUCH of a coward that you can't admit what your argument was? It was not about outcome, solely about DNA as descriptor of humanness. That you now chose to be dishonest is of course evidence that your previous argument about the DNA was false. We accept your acknowledgement that you were wrong before, and that your insistence in the face of evidence merely showed you to outright lie.

Your appology is accepted.

My sole point in these discussions is that abortion kills living, growing, developing, human children in the womb.

You propose ridiculous argument after ridiculous argument in an attempt to obscure that point. Your incessant commentary with respect to your moles is as out of place as your assumption of an apology where none exists.

 

[sissy-boy]

Please explain your understanding of this HUGE difference.

I don't think that your mind is equipped to understand. You've been told the difference many times before but your 'rat back' conformity always gets the best of you, preventing you from having truly rational thought.

 

[Fantasea]

My view is that a fetus is NOT yet a child and is NOT governed by laws of morality.

Your view is simply that, your view. Support it with facts if you wish it to be accepted by those who disagree.

 

[Fantasea]

I don't think that your mind is equipped to understand. You've been told the difference many times before but your 'rat back' conformity always gets the best of you, preventing you from having truly rational thought.

So you're copping out again, are you?

 

[steen]

My sole point in these discussions is that abortion kills living, growing, developing, human children in the womb.

And your point remains a lie. Repeating it still leaves it a lie, merely exposing you as a habitual liar.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
My sole point in these discussions is that abortion kills living, growing, developing, human children in the womb.

And your point remains a lie. Repeating it still leaves it a lie, merely exposing you as a habitual liar.

You are powerless to prove me wrong. All you are able to do is to deny truth and call names.

Enjoy yourself.

 

[steen]

You are powerless to prove me wrong.

All those lies, and you are also delusional? I have pointed out numerous times where your claims are outright false. They are documented in my posts, and as such, it is easily proven. You are again lying, as we have come to expect from you.

 

[sissy-boy]

Your view is simply that, your view. Support it with facts if you wish it to be accepted by those who disagree.

I'll give you the most APPARENT fact of all: It doesn't even LOOK like a CHILD! When the fetus if formed it resembles ALL other non-human fetus's. It isn't until much later that it begins taking on the form of a human -- but even THEN I still think it's ok to suck it's slimy brains out. In China eating human fetus is a delicacy. I wonder how many children one would have to eat to be as smart as Jesus??

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
You are powerless to prove me wrong.

All those lies, and you are also delusional? I have pointed out numerous times where your claims are outright false. They are documented in my posts, and as such, it is easily proven. You are again lying, as we have come to expect from you.

All those lies, and you are also delusional? I have pointed out numerous times where your claims are outright false. They are documented in my posts, and as such, it is easily proven. You are again lying, as we have come to expect from you.

You have agreed that the product of conception is human. Biologically, you are on solid ground. Your big complaint lies with the concept of personhood which, as you have acknowledged, is a political invention of men.

Supreme Court Justices have ignored the biological fact to which you subscribe and have opined that the product of conception is not a person. The opinion is subject to review and change by any competent authority such as a subsequent supreme court. Therefore it lacks the strength and permanence of fact.

Refute that.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Saying women who don’t want to get pregnant shouldn’t have sex in nonsensical. I remember my developmental psych prof telling our class that the primary function of pleasurable sex is to keep a pair-bond together long enough to raise the fruits of their affection. We know this because other species don’t have nearly as much fun as humans do, they simply come into heat whenever and are hormonally compelled to perpetuate the species; because their offspring don’t require nearly as much effort to raise to maturity, fathers are optional. Humans are designed to want sex even when there is no chance of pregnancy; it’s a tactic that helped keep your great^10000 grandpa from loosing interest and wandering off. Taking the stance that ‘sex is just for reproduction’ belies the fact that the vast majority of people have sex for pleasure, and nothing short of castration is ever going to stop them. You can live your life of staid ascetism, but try to foist this yoke on the masses, and you’ll quickly find out just how powerful this biological imperative can be.

You guys may care deeply about all those unwanted blobs of cells sucking the nutrients out of unsuspecting women’s bodies, but until the number of people wanting adoptions surpasses the number of people wanting to shuck that burden, mandatory motherhood is a life sentence that roughly 9,000 girls a year will kill themselves trying to get avoid. I think you pro-lifers are better off focusing your energies on making adoption more common and on ameliorating the lives of single-mothers, to make the alternative to abortion more desirable.

 

[sissy-boy]

You have agreed that the product of conception is human. Biologically, you are on solid ground. Your big complaint lies with the concept of personhood which, as you have acknowledged, is a political invention of men.

Supreme Court Justices have ignored the biological fact to which you subscribe and have opined that the product of conception is not a person. The opinion is subject to review and change by any competent authority such as a subsequent supreme court. Therefore it lacks the strength and permanence of fact.

Refute that.

My objection is based from a PURELY MORAL pov, being that humanity is CANCER itself. It is the responsibility of humans to STOP breeding and if a pregnancy occurs it is their responsibility to SNUFF IT!

You are confusing my intentions for letting a person 'decide' whether they want to keep the baby or not. In my church, abortion is REQUIRED for any member who becomes pregnant. It is the morally responsible thing to do. But in my church we also only practice sodomy, so abortion is a rare occurence to begin with.

http://churchofeuthanasia.org

 

[vergiss]

Saying women who don’t want to get pregnant shouldn’t have sex in nonsensical. I remember my developmental psych prof telling our class that the primary function of pleasurable sex is to keep a pair-bond together long enough to raise the fruits of their affection. We know this because other species don’t have nearly as much fun as humans do, they simply come into heat whenever and are hormonally compelled to perpetuate the species; because their offspring don’t require nearly as much effort to raise to maturity, fathers are optional. Humans are designed to want sex even when there is no chance of pregnancy; it’s a tactic that helped keep your great^10000 grandpa from loosing interest and wandering off. Taking the stance that ‘sex is just for reproduction’ belies the fact that the vast majority of people have sex for pleasure, and nothing short of castration is ever going to stop them. You can live your life of staid ascetism, but try to foist this yoke on the masses, and you’ll quickly find out just how powerful this biological imperative can be.

You guys may care deeply about all those unwanted blobs of cells sucking the nutrients out of unsuspecting women’s bodies, but until the number of people wanting adoptions surpasses the number of people wanting to shuck that burden, mandatory motherhood is a life sentence that roughly 9,000 girls a year will kill themselves trying to get avoid. I think you pro-lifers are better off focusing your energies on making adoption more common and on ameliorating the lives of single-mothers, to make the alternative to abortion more desirable.

Remind me to worship you.

 

[Fantasea]

You guys may care deeply about all those unwanted blobs of cells sucking the nutrients out of unsuspecting women’s bodies, but until the number of people wanting adoptions surpasses the number of people wanting to shuck that burden, mandatory motherhood is a life sentence that roughly 9,000 girls a year will kill themselves trying to get avoid. I think you pro-lifers are better off focusing your energies on making adoption more common and on ameliorating the lives of single-mothers, to make the alternative to abortion more desirable.

Many would argue that saving a million and a half children in the womb from dying in abortoriums has far greater value than the lives of 9,000 foolish girls.