Real simple:

[jallman]

See now, jallman...this doesn't work. All human beings are "masses of cells" and the value judgement that you place upon the "mass of cells" is arbitrary based upon your opinion of what makes an individual human valuable. By agreeing that a zygote is a totipotent cell, you acknowledge that a zygote is an individual biological entity. Your judgement that it is merely "cells" is based upon nothing but a desire to "de-humanize" this distinct human entity. What is your explanation for the biologically individual human entity that is a totipotent cell being of less value than other biologically individual human entities? In other words--why are you a bigot?:mrgreen:

Well, for one, it does not have any ability except one. It can gestate. It can't even do that if it is denied resources from a being who can and does have ability. It may be a biological entity, but it certainly is not a closed system. It demands (and that's not even an appropriate word as it has no ability to even demand) fostering from completed organism in order to even be perceived as an entity. It has no wishes, no desires, no sense of awareness, no history, no future except that which is granted to it by another through direct intervention in its development. It cannot be recognized as anything except a cell. The only descriptors appropriate to it are clinical nomenclatures for its constituent parts. Even when the baby is born, it will have no concept of having been derived from such a thing. In the course of human history, it was only in this last century that we even came to know of the zygotes appearance and workings. How can you equate something who's history depends upon two others for even that. I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that a zygote carries the same worth as a baby.

Perhaps part of it is arrogance on my part. I refuse to submit to the idea that the sum of my hopes, desires, fears, loves, accomplishments, breaths, moments, and failures is in any way equivalent to a single cell that cannot conceive of even itself.

 

[Jerry]

Your *creative* spelling of the word "share" makes a lot of your statements sound really creepy, Jer.
Like, especially that time you said that conjoined twins shear organs.
You're a strange one, alright.

What can I say, Microsoft Word did not offer "share" as a corrective option.

 

[jallman]

A totipotent cell can't be your's as it would be a different organism, ie. another. If you die the organism that is you is dead. Any totipotent cells would be from "another."

So it's another who is not individual and unique because it has my DNA...so does it still have a right to life? You know, being that the unique descriptor can no longer apply.

 

[jallman]

I am afraid I have to leave for now, but guys, this has been very engaging and interesting. I hope we can take this up again sometime later?

 

[Felicity]

Well, for one, it does not have any ability except one. It can gestate. It can't even do that if it is denied resources from a being who can and does have ability. It may be a biological entity, but it certainly is not a closed system. It demands (and that's not even an appropriate word as it has no ability to even demand) fostering from completed organism in order to even be perceived as an entity. It has no wishes, no desires, no sense of awareness, no history, no future except that which is granted to it by another through direct intervention in its development. It cannot be recognized as anything except a cell. The only descriptors appropriate to it are clinical nomenclatures for its constituent parts. Even when the baby is born, it will have no concept of having been derived from such a thing. In the course of human history, it was only in this last century that we even came to know of the zygotes appearance and workings. How can you equate something who's history depends upon two others for even that. I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that a zygote carries the same worth as a baby.

Perhaps part of it is arrogance on my part. I refuse to submit to the idea that the sum of my hopes, desires, fears, loves, accomplishments, breaths, moments, and failures is in any way equivalent to a single cell that cannot conceive of even itself.

So you admit your bigotry because you "refuse to submit to the idea..."? Well...for someone I think would characterize himself as "open-minded"--that's a little "close-minded" IMO.

Court Blunders on Slavery and Abortion

 

[Felicity]

I am afraid I have to leave for now, but guys, this has been very engaging and interesting. I hope we can take this up again sometime later?

Kinda hit a wall on the arbitrary valueing of specific types of human individuals, eh?

 

[1069]

What can I say, Microsoft Word did not offer "share" as a corrective option.

Well you could say, for example, that you'll quit trying to meddle with my human rights.
I don't try to tell you how to run your life, even though it's fairly obvious that I've got probably 20 to 30 IQ points on you.
It vacillates between insulting and comical, the way prolifers are always coming at me with this, "you think yur so smart, but realy you dont know nothing. A fetus is a inocint litle child, and yur a discusting baby murdurer. You shuld read the bibel and ask god for fergiveniss."
Amazing that you people seriously believe you're ever actually going to accomplish anything.
I guess so long as your prolife activities keep you happy and occupied, though, more power to you.

 

[Felicity]

Well you could say, for example, that you'll quit trying to meddle with my human rights.
I don't try to tell you how to run your life, even though it's fairly obvious that I've got probably 20 to 30 IQ points on you.
It vacillates between insulting and comical, the way prolifers are always coming at me with this, "you think yur so smart, but realy you dont know nothing. A fetus is a inocint litle child, and yur a discusting baby murdurer. You shuld read the bibel and ask god for fergiveniss."
Amazing that you people seriously believe you're ever actually going to accomplish anything.
I guess so long as your prolife activities keep you happy and occupied, though, more power to you.

Your ego is so fun to watch. Your sardonically expressed need for superiority is such a personal tell and your ignorance of it is mind-boggling.:doh

 

[Jerry]

Every time I see one of Jerry's posts, I am reminded of this poem by Janet Minor:

I have a spelling checker
It came with my PC
It plainly marks four my revueMistakes
I cannot sea.
I've run this poem threw it
I'm shore your please to no
Its letter perfect in it's weigh,
My checker tolled me sew.

Moderator's Warning:

Your'e a poopy-head

 

[Jerry]

Well you could say, for example, that you'll quit trying to meddle with my human rights.
I don't try to tell you how to run your life, even though it's fairly obvious that I've got probably 20 to 30 IQ points on you.
It vacillates between insulting and comical, the way prolifers are always coming at me with this, "you think yur so smart, but realy you dont know nothing. A fetus is a inocint litle child, and yur a discusting baby murdurer. You shuld read the bibel and ask god for fergiveniss."
Amazing that you people seriously believe you're ever actually going to accomplish anything.
I guess so long as your prolife activities keep you happy and occupied, though, more power to you.

That pretty much confirms that your pointing out my spelling errors is just you expressing spite.

I won’t go down to your level.

 

[Felicity]

Moderator's Warning:

Your'e a poopy-head

That should be "YORE" a poopy-head. :mrgreen:

 

[Jerry]

That should be "YORE" a poopy-head. :mrgreen:

:doh
my bad

 

[jallman]

Kinda hit a wall on the arbitrary valueing of specific types of human individuals, eh?

Hardly...some of us do work for a living you know. :doh

Don't be such a poopy head. :mrgreen:

 

[jallman]

So you admit your bigotry because you "refuse to submit to the idea..."? Well...for someone I think would characterize himself as "open-minded"--that's a little "close-minded" IMO.

Court Blunders on Slavery and Abortion

Bigotry would only be if I discriminated based on sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, age, or creed. I discriminate against a zygote because cells do not carry the same worth as a developed human being (here we go with the quibbling over definitions again) no matter how you spin it.

 

[1069]

I won’t go down to your level.

More errors; that should've been: "I can't come up to your level."

But you know what? I don't hold it against you. Not too many people can.
Nevertheless, they are as worthwhile as I am, and deserve all the rights and freedoms I deserve. I would never attempt to tell other people how to live their lives, simply because I'm smarter than they are, and therefore my ideas about how they ought to live their lives might be more correct and valid than theirs are.
It's not my right to do so.

Like it's not your right to pathetically attempt to convince me or anyone else that women don't deserve the same human or civil rights you do, simply because they have an inny, rather than an out-y.
Capisci?

 

[talloulou]

So it's another who is not individual and unique because it has my DNA...so does it still have a right to life? You know, being that the unique descriptor can no longer apply.

Why would an embryo residing in your body have your DNA? Answer...it wouldn't. It has it's own unique DNA. There are no adult stem cells that are totipotent. The only way a living person (organism) could die while their totipotent cells lived on was if a woman died and she had ownership of some frozen embryos. Those embryos, while treated as her property, are not her. They are individual organisms. They do not share her DNA.

 

[1069]

Why would an embryo residing in your body have your DNA? Answer...it wouldn't. It has it's own unique DNA. There are no adult stem cells that are totipotent. The only way a living person (organism) could die while their totipotent cells lived on was if a woman died and she had ownership of some frozen embryos. Those embryos, while treated as her property, are not her. They are individual organisms. They do not share her DNA.

It's less a matter of viewing them as "property", than it is of viewing one's unwanted infestation with them as a condition.
One does not view tapeworms or head lice as one's "property"; that does not change the fact that few people would hesitate to rid themselves of an unwanted infestation.
The DNA of said parasitic invaders is hardly relevant, either.
Nothing- and I mean nothing- has the "right" to inhabit the body of an unwilling human host, nor to subsist by extracting a person's bodily resources without their consent.

 

[talloulou]

It's less a matter of viewing them as "property", than it is of viewing one's unwanted infestation with them as a condition.
One does not view tapeworms or head lice as one's "property"; that does not change the fact that few people would hesitate to rid themselves of an unwanted infestation.
The DNA of said parasitic invaders is hardly relevant, either.
Nothing- and I mean nothing- has the "right" to inhabit the body of an unwilling human host, nor to subsist by extracting a person's bodily resources without their consent.

But the unborn aren't parasites. And even if I were to agree that they act in a parasitic manner they are still humans. It sounds like you're claiming abortion is an "act of self defense." But I'd say since you are taking that other human's life then you should have to prove that not ending that human's life could cause great threat to your own. That's why I think it's okay for mother's with genuine health problems to abort. If a woman is really acting out of self defense than the abortion is understandable. The vast majority of abortions are not acts of self defense.

 

[Felicity]

Bigotry would only be if I discriminated based on sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, age, or creed. I discriminate against a zygote because cells do not carry the same worth as a developed human being (here we go with the quibbling over definitions again) no matter how you spin it.

There you have it. A zygote/totipotent cell is a very young individual human entity (based on your own admission). You discriminate based on his or her age (based on your own admission).

Hence, you are a bigot.

You are a bigot because you discriminate against a certain segment of individual human life based on your arbitrary valuation of their maturity, or rather, their lack of maturity.

 

[Jerry]

But the unborn aren't parasites. And even if I were to agree that they act in a parasitic manner they are still humans. It sounds like you're claiming abortion is an "act of self defense." But I'd say since you are taking that other human's life then you should have to prove that not ending that human's life could cause great threat to your own. That's why I think it's okay for mother's with genuine health problems to abort. If a woman is really acting out of self defense than the abortion is understandable. The vast majority of abortions are not acts of self defense.

Justifiable Homicide.

 

[OKgrannie]

Here is some interesting info on how other countries deal with abortion, or at least what their LAW says regarding abortion:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Europe's abortion rules

I notice that a huge portion of the map is occupied by the section that says abortion available "on request", that is what the nay-sayers here call "on demand."

 

[1069]

Here is some interesting info on how other countries deal with abortion, or at least what their LAW says regarding abortion:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Europe's abortion rules

I notice that a huge portion of the map is occupied by the section that says abortion available "on request", that is what the nay-sayers here call "on demand."

More prolife semantic games.
It riles up a significant portion of the population- puts them on the defensive, so to speak- to imagine females demanding anything, even something so fundamental as reproductive choice.

On the other hand, this perverse new "Abortion victimizes women; protecting women by eliminating reproductive choice is a women's rights issue" tactic may cause prolifers to have to rethink the wisdom of the catch-phrase, "abortion on demand".
The connotations of it- that is, hostile, hairy-armpitted feminists rudely and aggressively demanding abortions- is at odds with this new scenario they wish to promote: predatory abortionists deluding and then victimizing helpless, vunerable females.

Consistency is important, even in propaganda campaigns. Marked incongruities like the one described above could turn out to be an Achilles' Heel for the prolife movement. They'll want to see to that, I would think.

 

[talloulou]

Here is some interesting info on how other countries deal with abortion, or at least what their LAW says regarding abortion:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Europe's abortion rules

I notice that a huge portion of the map is occupied by the section that says abortion available "on request", that is what the nay-sayers here call "on demand."

Nice to see that most of them aren't nearly as lenient as we are here and that many outlaw the procedure after 12 weeks only less the mother's health is in danger. I'd love to see that type of regulation here.

 

[Jerry]

Nice to see that most of them aren't nearly as lenient as we are here and that many outlaw the procedure after 12 weeks only less the mother's health is in danger. I'd love to see that type of regulation here.

Free access to abortion through 12 weeks, then only allowed for medical reasons....I would be happy with that and would stop there.

PL activists wouldn’t stop there, but they would have no teeth, so no worries.

 

[1069]

Nice to see that most of them aren't nearly as lenient as we are here and that many outlaw the procedure after 12 weeks only less the mother's health is in danger. I'd love to see that type of regulation here.

Duh... every country in Europe has free health care?
Women who are too poor to afford a child are often too poor to simply pull five hundred dollars cash out of their arses for an abortion within a month, either.
We won't even go into where I got my abortion money, but I will tell you I'd never held that much cash in my hand all at once in my life.
Also, there are entire states now without abortion providers; women without transportation have to arrange for time off work, arrange for a ride out of state, and arrange for care for their children while they travel to a state that does have a provider.
In Europe, you can't throw a rock without hitting an abortion provider; all women's health care providers perfom abortions there, and Europe is much smaller than America; I mean, the entire UK is small enough to fit inside the state of Texas. There would be far fewer logistical problems with locating a provider, arranging for transportation, etc. And payment would not be an issue.
Entirely different situation, over there.