That "Thing's a Baby"

[Hornburger]

I don't necessarily view all people that have committed murders as a danger to society....if they're mass murderers/serial killers, yes. But if they killed someone for some stupid who-knows-what reason, who are we to say they'd do it again? Not like it matters, they'd still be in prison, but...eh.

Well, I just think that if they are again exposed to that type of environment which made them commit such a crime, I think they are bound to do it again. Of course there are exceptions, but to my knowledge the re-committing crime rate is pretty high. The fact is, a lot of people don't know what to do with freedom.

Part of the reason I think the appeals process isn't shorter is because there's been too many cases where people have either been executed and it has been found after the fact that they were in fact innocent, or they have been given 11th hour pardons because they were found to indeed be innocent. The government, while a bit "trigger happy", is also playing it very cautiously.

Yeah, that's true, but I think such appeals and investigations shouldn't need to take longer than 2-5 years. If all the evidence can't be collected in that amount of time....then there is something wrong with the investigation forces.

But yes, I do agree that juries need to be almost 100% sure that the defendant did the crime. There can't be ANY room for reasonable doubt.

I think we should try out making the appeals time from 2-5 years. If things are still quite costly or many people are found innocent who were killed, maybe change the policy around a bit. But I don't think it needs to be any more than that length of time-it's simply unnecessary. Take Tookie Williams for example-26 years on Death Row. 26! ...Gah!

 

[Stace]

Well, I just think that if they are again exposed to that type of environment which made them commit such a crime, I think they are bound to do it again. Of course there are exceptions, but to my knowledge the re-committing crime rate is pretty high. The fact is, a lot of people don't know what to do with freedom.

But, if they're serving a life sentence, that's just that....LIFE. As long as they also have the stipulation of no possibility for parole, they would never be reintroduced into society, and therefore would not be a danger or a threat.

Yeah, that's true, but I think such appeals and investigations shouldn't need to take longer than 2-5 years. If all the evidence can't be collected in that amount of time....then there is something wrong with the investigation forces.

But yes, I do agree that juries need to be almost 100% sure that the defendant did the crime. There can't be ANY room for reasonable doubt.

You're completely right, appeals and investigations SHOULDN'T take that long, but sometimes, witnesses lie, or just don't come forward.....a whole myriad of scenarios.

I dunno. I know all of these posts make me sound like I'm completely against the death penalty, but in all honesty, I'm on the fence about it. Certain people, like Timothy McVeigh for example, do deserve to die. But little Johnny that shot Jack because he was scared and angry, maybe not so much. It's a tricky issue, just like abortion and many others.

 

[Hornburger]

But, if they're serving a life sentence, that's just that....LIFE. As long as they also have the stipulation of no possibility for parole, they would never be reintroduced into society, and therefore would not be a danger or a threat.

Yeah I know, that's why the exclusion from society isn't really a factor. I was just saying why I wouldn't support like just letting all the criminals go free lol. That's why the only thing I'm looking at is "Which one costs less?" lol, I know it sounds bad, but hell, they killed someone, might as well save me some money lol.

You're completely right, appeals and investigations SHOULDN'T take that long, but sometimes, witnesses lie, or just don't come forward.....a whole myriad of scenarios.

I dunno. I know all of these posts make me sound like I'm completely against the death penalty, but in all honesty, I'm on the fence about it. Certain people, like Timothy McVeigh for example, do deserve to die. But little Johnny that shot Jack because he was scared and angry, maybe not so much. It's a tricky issue, just like abortion and many others.

Yes, yes, that tis true, I know what you mean.

 

[steen]

You said right here that it's human.

Yes, its species designation is "human." I have pointed that out more times than I can count. It is not my fault that prolifers then try to extrapolate this to something else than I said, showing ignorance of what these words actually mean.

Here are a series of words. prolifers try to use them all as the same, but each one is separate and have different meaning. That means that when prochoice agrees to one, they don't agree to the other meanings of other sayings. Clear? Good, lets try: Human. A human. Human Being. Person. Zygote. Embryo. Fetus. Baby. Child. Life. Alive. Living.

Each of these terms are different. Thus, when a person agrees on something related to, f.ex. "human," that doesn't mean that the person agreed to anything relating to "a human," and implying so would be very dishonest and an outright misrepresentation.

I would HOPE that prolifers are not OK with such outright misrepresentations. Do you agree?

"Huh? It certainly is of the human species. That has not been denied."

"Huh? It certainly is of the human species. That has not been denied."

certainly. However, you tried to misrepresent this as somehow meaning that it was "a human." And that is not a valid conclusion from my words. So I am sure you see the error of your claims here. Thanks.

That is not the only criteria in determining life.

But then, the other criteria that you may find necessary are not all applying to the zygote either. Nice try, but nope.

But the egg doesn't have the male DNA..lol

SIGH! If you are just out for silly sophist laughs, go bother somebody else. If you can't debate in honesty, then there is no point wasting time on you.

I mean that the 2 DNA's are combined (you know what I mean) to form the DNA of the embryo.

And so?

But individual DNA doesn't mean individual life form. This idea doesn't automatically go both ways.

How? If DNA doesn't tell who someone is, WHAT DOES?

But it doesn't mean individual life form. It could be from your hair, which would not be an individual life form at all. It could be from a gamete or a zygote and thus not an individual life form. Etc.

Nope, I nowhere stated this. Please don't misrepresent my posts.

"Huh? It certainly is of the human species. That has not been denied."

But then, that was not the claim of yours that I replied to, so once again, I must request that you please don't misrepresent my posts.

Then what is the difference, Oh Great Scientist?

The difference is NOT in the "amount" of DNA like your post indicated.

No one's DNA is the same. People of different races have a different DNA combination. People with disorders have different combinations. But human DNA is still human DNA-it's what makes a human a human.

The same human DNA that is found in the egg and the sperm, yes. So when you claim that they sperm and egg are "different" in their DNA, then you are also saying that the people with Down's or Kleinfelter's syndromes are MORE different, as their DNA is even more different that that of the gametes.

So are you SURE you want to go the route of talking DNA? You seem woefully not-educated in that field. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Well, I am no scientist, understand that, so I'm doing my best here,

I would suggest, then, that you don't make absolutist claims when you don't know the subject (And no, prolife prolie sites is really not the place to get accurate, scientifically accurate information.)

but to my understanding the sperm cell does not have the counterpart egg cell's DNA, and both DNA's will be combined (or something of that nature) to form the embryo's DNA.

Correct. But if the sperm contains the X-chromosome, then the difference in the DNA between the sperm and the egg is rather minimal.

But people with disorders are still human-this can not be argued.

Oh, I agree.

I don't see how any of this can be debated

Well, we are debating your claim and what you provided as "evidence," namely the amount of/difference in DNA. The argument is based on your claim, nothing else. I am simply pointing out that your argument is unrealistic, that it has no bearing in reality, that when you argue a=on the amount or form o the DNA, you run into your artificial definitions also excluding many people with genetic disorders from what you call "human."

-sperm and eggs are not human,

"human," the species designation. Sure the sperm is a human sperm as contrasted to the sperm of another species.

and people with disorders are.

Certainly. SO when you are trying to argue on the basis of amounts of DNA, you end up with invalid points.

How about before going out making personal accusations and insulting people in an uncivilized manner, you actually explain your position and understandings?

I have explained this and other things to you many times in the past and you have ignored it. For you to ask for an explanation is starkly dishonest given your track-record. Why should I believe you are sincere this time rather than just trying to run me through a lot of busywork?

If YOU want to discuss this, it is your job to know what you are talking about before making claims about it. The rest of us did. If you ask questions, you might have gotten serious answers. But making false, absolutist claims and misrepresentations of others posts has not helped you credibility, not has ignoring actual evidence or repeating false claims after having been shown that they are false.

So let me get it straight. You have the nerve to ask for an explanation and claiming that we are at fault for not telling you this stuff?:rofl :2funny: :crazy3:

 

[Hornburger]

Yes, its species designation is "human." I have pointed that out more times than I can count. It is not my fault that prolifers then try to extrapolate this to something else than I said, showing ignorance of what these words actually mean.

I personally don't think you can seperate the two...but okay.

Here are a series of words. prolifers try to use them all as the same, but each one is separate and have different meaning. That means that when prochoice agrees to one, they don't agree to the other meanings of other sayings. Clear? Good, lets try: Human. A human. Human Being. Person. Zygote. Embryo. Fetus. Baby. Child. Life. Alive. Living.

What? A child is different than human? But I still know what you mean. I disagree, but there is no use debating the subject, because it is a difference in opinion.

Each of these terms are different. Thus, when a person agrees on something related to, f.ex. "human," that doesn't mean that the person agreed to anything relating to "a human," and implying so would be very dishonest and an outright misrepresentation.

Why do you keep saying "dishonest and an outright misrepresentation"? I am trying to find out what you actually mean, you are being quite vague. To me, "human" and the development stages of the human are all the same-they are part of being a human being. A child is a human being, a fetus is a human being, an embryo is a human being, a baby is a human being, etc etc.

I would HOPE that prolifers are not OK with such outright misrepresentations. Do you agree?

No, because I am not misrepresenting anything. Perhaps you aren't making yourself clear enough.

certainly. However, you tried to misrepresent this as somehow meaning that it was "a human." And that is not a valid conclusion from my words. So I am sure you see the error of your claims here. Thanks.

THEN MAKE YOUR POINT.

But then, the other criteria that you may find necessary are not all applying to the zygote either. Nice try, but nope.

How? Instead just saying I'm wrong, show me how the zygote doesn't meet the requirements.

SIGH! If you are just out for silly sophist laughs, go bother somebody else. If you can't debate in honesty, then there is no point wasting time on you.

What are you talking about? Seriously. How was I lying? That is ridiculous. I'm out for "silly sophist laughs"? You saying things like this make me have a "silly sophist laugh".

And so?

So the zygote's DNA is different than the sperm or egg's.

But it doesn't mean individual life form. It could be from your hair, which would not be an individual life form at all. It could be from a gamete or a zygote and thus not an individual life form. Etc.

You still didn't answer my question. What has to be present for YOU to consider it an individual?

But then, that was not the claim of yours that I replied to, so once again, I must request that you please don't misrepresent my posts.

Oh, oh well. I don't feel like looking to what I was supposed to, and I know you're too cocky to post it again, lol.

The difference is NOT in the "amount" of DNA like your post indicated.
The same human DNA that is found in the egg and the sperm, yes. So when you claim that they sperm and egg are "different" in their DNA, then you are also saying that the people with Down's or Kleinfelter's syndromes are MORE different, as their DNA is even more different that that of the gametes.

It's also in the combinations and DNA structure. People with such disorders have a very similar DNA structure to people without the disorder. Eggs and sperm are not alive, again, because they can't grow or reproduce.

So are you SURE you want to go the route of talking DNA? You seem woefully not-educated in that field. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

I'm trying my best, **** you. You don't seem to be contributing much or proving any argument one way or the other.

I would suggest, then, that you don't make absolutist claims when you don't know the subject (And no, prolife prolie sites is really not the place to get accurate, scientifically accurate information.)

You haven't been proving me wrong anywhere I made such claims, so you don't seem too strong on the subject yourself.

Correct. But if the sperm contains the X-chromosome, then the difference in the DNA between the sperm and the egg is rather minimal.

Rather minimal? It turns to change 50% because the DNA is combined. I would find that to be rather significant.

Well, we are debating your claim and what you provided as "evidence," namely the amount of/difference in DNA. The argument is based on your claim, nothing else. I am simply pointing out that your argument is unrealistic, that it has no bearing in reality, that when you argue a=on the amount or form o the DNA, you run into your artificial definitions also excluding many people with genetic disorders from what you call "human."

No, it also shows that it depends on the DNA structure and combinations. And I have not excluded people with genetic disorders...They are similar in structure and combinations. Count is not the only thing that is looked at in DNA.

And I am doing my best to base my argument in scientific fact. You on the other hand, have nothing but claims!

"human," the species designation. Sure the sperm is a human sperm as contrasted to the sperm of another species.

...Sperm is not living.

Certainly. SO when you are trying to argue on the basis of amounts of DNA, you end up with invalid points.

It's not JUST the basic amounts of DNA.

I have explained this and other things to you many times in the past and you have ignored it. For you to ask for an explanation is starkly dishonest given your track-record.

Dishonest? Dishonest? Tell me, when have I been dishonest?

And my "track-record"? You know NOTHING of me in the long-run, so you can't say ANYTHING about my so-called "track-record." Really, stop being so ignorant.

And what have you explained? You haven't explained anything, all you have done was trying unsuccessfully to disprove my arguments. You haven't made any conjectures on your own.

Why should I believe you are sincere this time rather than just trying to run me through a lot of busywork?

"Run you through a lot of busywork?" Then why are you here?

You really don't have to be replying and debating with a "stupid fool like me". But of course its your "pride" at stake, you cocky son of a bitch.

If YOU want to discuss this, it is your job to know what you are talking about before making claims about it. The rest of us did. If you ask questions, you might have gotten serious answers. But making false, absolutist claims and misrepresentations of others posts has not helped you credibility, not has ignoring actual evidence or repeating false claims after having been shown that they are false.

"The rest of us did?" Yeah, I see, trying to exclude me from "the group". Because I'm just another ****-up teenager who doesn't know what he's talking about. You know what, **** you. Stop being so cocky. You're one of those old people who go around thinking about how stupid and pathetic the "X" generation is.

I have never made such "absolutist claims". This whole time I have been stating my opinion in a civilized manner, and have done my best to read up on the scientific facts from credible sources.

I HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS! Jesus Christ. You really are a blind old geizer. You just make snide remarks and replies and don't even answer my questions!

Misrepresentations? You're quite big on these "misrepresentations" and "lies". I have never lied, and you have been too vague on your positions to actually know what you really think on the subject and the TRUTH. You seem big on trying to discredit the other side instead of also trying to PROVE your side. You only want to defend your position to death, but you would NEVER want to find the best conclusion. Try being a little more open-minded.

And ignoring evidence? What evidence have you actually presented? What a joke. You're ridiculous.

So let me get it straight. You have the nerve to ask for an explanation and claiming that we are at fault for not telling you this stuff?:rofl :2funny: :crazy3:

When did I say you are at fault? I only said that you, up to this point, have not explained yourself on what you feel is true and why you feel that way; in contrast, you have replied to MY arguments, but you haven't really talked about YOUR arguments.

You refuse to act in a civil manner, fine. It figures that people like you can't debate in a calm way. You are too stupid too even know how to debate well. You refuse to prove your own side and you debate in "emotional hysteria" (which you have said doughgirl did...*coughcoughhypocritecoughcough*) Debating in a calm and friendly manner has much better chances of the other person changing their mind on the subject if you present your argument well. But you must have ruled out that one. What are you even doing on these forums, just to **** people off? You aren't going to change anyone's minds the way you flame people. It really does nothing to find the truth. But of course the truth isn't the main goal in these debates. It's only to make yourself feel better because you can accuse people and make fun of people over a computer screen. So you just enjoy flaming people just for the hell of it? Wow, I feel sorry for you. I truely do. Go get a life.

 

[doughgirl]

Stace says “Death penalty.....if we kill someone that killed someone else, shouldn't the executioner also be killed? Eventually, we'd all have to die.”

Then lets just clear the books and do away with all laws to protect society. Then I can kill anyone I want for their views, even yours. You can kill me and I can kill you. Survival of the fittest.


Vergiss says, “Your Christian compassion is just touching.”

And who is judging now? Some can not be compassionate to those who are murderers.
And tolerant.......my my my are you being tolerant of others views?

Hornburger says, “woa woa woa...I hope you aren't serious dude.”

So what if he is? What is so wrong with his view? I don’t think it’s as bad as those who sit here on a daily basis calling for the dismemberment of unborn children.
That is why I pray and will continue to pray that they never are blessed with children.

DeeJay say’s “I find it very disgusting how so many so called 'enlightened people' can so callously cast aside a life”


I do too.
But remember they don’t see it as life. The hearts beating, organs formed, but they do not see it as life. It's dead. To them it’s nothing. I wonder how many of these pro-abortionists on here could stand and help a doctor dismember a child. How many could empty the contents without feeling sick to their stomachs.
I know of a few on here no doubt that would have no problem, but for the majority I doubt they could handle it. They are just big talkers. Talk to any doctor who’s been in this field for a long time and it mentally gets to them. Gee I wonder why………

”but this is the real world, and all things change
I do believe you will see the end of Abortion on Demand
and I will do all I can to facilitate that”

Yea a brave new world it is. One that doesn’t value life. I hope like me you’re working hard in some way to help this cause because we need all the help we can get to expose the truth of abortion. We need to educate those whose hearts are not hardened.

BUT……..you say,

"the people who support Abortion on Demand vs. Abortion in cases of rape/incest/mothers health is not the same
there is a huge difference”

Not so. If we are talking about rape…….I would ask you, is rape any fault of the child? Is the child the guilty party? Should this child be punished? Could you tell me… if eight babies were just born and were all laying in their beds and I told you ones mother had been raped, could you pick that one out?

If you are pro-life then you are for every life.

Why should Person A be killed because Person B raped Persons A’s mother? If your father committed a crime, should you go to jail for it? If you found out today that your biological father raped your mother would you feel you no longer had the right to live?

Rape is horrible, so horrible that we easily transfer our horror to the wrong object. We must not impose the ugliness of rape or incest upon either the innocent woman or the innocent child. The woman is still carrying a precious human being with dignity and value that not even the vilest act can take from her. The child is not some cancer to be removed, but a living human being. Punish the rapist, but lets not punish the wrong person by inflicting upon the innocent child our rage against the rapist.

When you think of it really I think you could say that the violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape. When a woman exercises her right to control her own body in total disregard of the body of another human being, it’s called abortion. When a man acts out the same philosophy, it’s called rape. Both are done in response to a subjective and misguided sense of need and both are done at the expense of an innocent person. Neither are any consolation to the innocent child. And regardless of whatever the motives the mother might have, the child is just as brutally killed.

 

[Caine]

Stace says “Death penalty.....if we kill someone that killed someone else, shouldn't the executioner also be killed? Eventually, we'd all have to die.”

Then lets just clear the books and do away with all laws to protect society. Then I can kill anyone I want for their views, even yours. You can kill me and I can kill you. Survival of the fittest.


Vergiss says, “Your Christian compassion is just touching.”

And who is judging now? Some can not be compassionate to those who are murderers.
And tolerant.......my my my are you being tolerant of others views?

Hornburger says, “woa woa woa...I hope you aren't serious dude.”

So what if he is? What is so wrong with his view? I don’t think it’s as bad as those who sit here on a daily basis calling for the dismemberment of unborn children.
That is why I pray and will continue to pray that they never are blessed with children.

DeeJay say’s “I find it very disgusting how so many so called 'enlightened people' can so callously cast aside a life”


I do too.
But remember they don’t see it as life. The hearts beating, organs formed, but they do not see it as life. It's dead. To them it’s nothing. I wonder how many of these pro-abortionists on here could stand and help a doctor dismember a child. How many could empty the contents without feeling sick to their stomachs.
I know of a few on here no doubt that would have no problem, but for the majority I doubt they could handle it. They are just big talkers. Talk to any doctor who’s been in this field for a long time and it mentally gets to them. Gee I wonder why………

”but this is the real world, and all things change
I do believe you will see the end of Abortion on Demand
and I will do all I can to facilitate that”

Yea a brave new world it is. One that doesn’t value life. I hope like me you’re working hard in some way to help this cause because we need all the help we can get to expose the truth of abortion. We need to educate those whose hearts are not hardened.

BUT……..you say,

"the people who support Abortion on Demand vs. Abortion in cases of rape/incest/mothers health is not the same
there is a huge difference”

Not so. If we are talking about rape…….I would ask you, is rape any fault of the child? Is the child the guilty party? Should this child be punished? Could you tell me… if eight babies were just born and were all laying in their beds and I told you ones mother had been raped, could you pick that one out?

If you are pro-life then you are for every life.

Why should Person A be killed because Person B raped Persons A’s mother? If your father committed a crime, should you go to jail for it? If you found out today that your biological father raped your mother would you feel you no longer had the right to live?

Rape is horrible, so horrible that we easily transfer our horror to the wrong object. We must not impose the ugliness of rape or incest upon either the innocent woman or the innocent child. The woman is still carrying a precious human being with dignity and value that not even the vilest act can take from her. The child is not some cancer to be removed, but a living human being. Punish the rapist, but lets not punish the wrong person by inflicting upon the innocent child our rage against the rapist.

When you think of it really I think you could say that the violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape. When a woman exercises her right to control her own body in total disregard of the body of another human being, it’s called abortion. When a man acts out the same philosophy, it’s called rape. Both are done in response to a subjective and misguided sense of need and both are done at the expense of an innocent person. Neither are any consolation to the innocent child. And regardless of whatever the motives the mother might have, the child is just as brutally killed.

Ummmm... No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, and No.

Okay, Im going to pass legislations that states every time a woman has her period, she is punishable by death because she is killing a potential life.

The argument of "potential" means nothing, prior to birth, it all has to do with value. If YOU value the "potential life" then you will have the child. If YOU do not value to "potential life" than its not murder, its having control over your own bodily resources.

The rest of your post was an emotional rant aimed at making others feel guilty about letting women have the right to choose. Nobody advocates abortion, unless they are being sarcastic. I have not see one person running around claiming that everyone should abort thier pregnancies, and goes around blowing up homes of pregnant women who don't.
I DO however, see your good christian people blowing up abortion clinics In the NAME OF JEEEEEEEEEESUS!! Thats sick, so don't even bring religion into this, because in my religion, Abortion, although not encouraged, is allowed, but you are asked to consult your Rabbi on a case by case basis.

 

[Stace]

Stace says “Death penalty.....if we kill someone that killed someone else, shouldn't the executioner also be killed? Eventually, we'd all have to die.”

Then lets just clear the books and do away with all laws to protect society. Then I can kill anyone I want for their views, even yours. You can kill me and I can kill you. Survival of the fittest.

Nice way to only pick and choose my words to suit your own needs. Doing away with the death penalty is NOT the same as letting every person currently in prison walk free. And isn't it funny that states that utilize the death penalty actually have a higher rate of homicide? Yeah, that ol' death penalty is a REALLY good deterrent, isn't it?

Anyway. Perhaps you could try reading ALL of the posts, in their entirety, that were made concerning the subject.

 

[DeeJayH]

Ummmm... No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, and No.

Okay, Im going to pass legislations that states every time a woman has her period, she is punishable by death because she is killing a potential life.

The argument of "potential" means nothing, prior to birth, it all has to do with value. If YOU value the "potential life" then you will have the child. If YOU do not value to "potential life" than its not murder, its having control over your own bodily resources.

The rest of your post was an emotional rant aimed at making others feel guilty about letting women have the right to choose. Nobody advocates abortion, unless they are being sarcastic. I have not see one person running around claiming that everyone should abort thier pregnancies, and goes around blowing up homes of pregnant women who don't.
I DO however, see your good christian people blowing up abortion clinics In the NAME OF JEEEEEEEEEESUS!! Thats sick, so don't even bring religion into this, because in my religion, Abortion, although not encouraged, is allowed, but you are asked to consult your Rabbi on a case by case basis.

Ummmm......................NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

just because you and other liberal pro-baby killing ilk chose to use a specific word to describe a life in its various stages does not make the value of that life any less important
you can create a name for every hour of every life and draw your line as to when it is a Life where ever , but it is just arbitrary BS for cold callous people who place no value on an innocent life

 

[steen]

Just because they killed someone else? Did I just hear that? JUST because they killed someone else?

Gahhh

Yes it makes their life less valuable.

So with you, it is not life that is holy and sacred, it is the judging?

 

[steen]

What? A child is different than human?

"human" is a species designation. The Child is human, but not all who fit the species designation are a child. What I was saying was that you could not use these terms interchangeably

But I still know what you mean. I disagree, but there is no use debating the subject, because it is a difference in opinion.

Rather, when we are making remarks about one term, then it is dishonest to extrapolate others remarks to cover more than the one specific term. If I make a remark relating to "human" then that remark was NOT made in reference to "person" or any other term, it was ONLY made in relation to the term "human."

Why do you keep saying "dishonest and an outright misrepresentation"? I am trying to find out what you actually mean, you are being quite vague. To me, "human" and the development stages of the human are all the same-they are part of being a human being. A child is a human being, a fetus is a human being, an embryo is a human being, a baby is a human being, etc etc.

And I strongly disageee. So if I make a remark about a fetus, and you then clim that I made that remark about a "baby" or "a human being," then you would be lying about my remark. because the remark was about a fetus, not about anything else.

Do you get what I am saying?

F.ex. "human" bu itself is a species designation. The ONLY thing it is equivalent to is "Homo sapiens sapiens." Attempting to extrapolate my remark about a species designation to anything else is a dishonest misrepresentation of my statement.

No, because I am not misrepresenting anything. Perhaps you aren't making yourself clear enough.

See above. If somebody ask me a question about a fetus, and they then claim that my answer applies to "a child" then they are outright lying about my answer.

How? Instead just saying I'm wrong, show me how the zygote doesn't meet the requirements.

It doesn't maintain independent homeostasis, it doesn't reproduce. That's just two requirements that it fails right there.

So the zygote's DNA is different than the sperm or egg's.

There is no zygotic DNA that comes from anywhere else than the sperm and egg.

You still didn't answer my question. What has to be present for YOU to consider it an individual?

Self-maintained homeostasis, no physiological dependence to another body, metabolizing its own nutrients and waste products.

Oh, oh well. I don't feel like looking to what I was supposed to, and I know you're too cocky to post it again, lol.

It was YOUR claim. If you don't know what you actually wrote and if you can't be bothered checking, rest assured that I can't be bothered at all.

It's also in the combinations and DNA structure. People with such disorders have a very similar DNA structure to people without the disorder. Eggs and sperm are not alive, again, because they can't grow or reproduce.

That just mean that they are not an individual lifeform. they assuredly are alive, as they maintain metabolic processes.

I'm trying my best, **** you. You don't seem to be contributing much or proving any argument one way or the other.

All you have done is spout opinions, none of which have to do with reality. If you can't even show so much respect as to actually check out the facts of what you are talking about, why should I put ANY effort into this? you have NOT shown a desire to actually figure out the facts, only in not wanting your argument disproved. To talk about wanting kbnowledge under such arguments is insulting.

Rather minimal? It turns to change 50% because the DNA is combined. I would find that to be rather significant.

The DNA from the sperm and egg shows up in the zygote. There is no new DNA anywhere.

No, it also shows that it depends on the DNA structure and combinations. And I have not excluded people with genetic disorders...They are similar in structure and combinations. Count is not the only thing that is looked at in DNA.

Correct. So when the claim is that the gametes don't matter because they only have "half the DNA," then such a claim is simply bogus.

sperm is not living.

It is a live cell maintaining motility and metabolism. It is NOT dead.

It's not JUST the basic amounts of DNA.

Fascinating. That was my argument that set off all this discussion. Glad we now agree.

What are you even doing on these forums, just to **** people off?

if you want my respect, it is your job to not insult by spewing absolutist falsehoods or trying to assign others opinions or beliefs that they don't hold. It is that simple.

 

[Hornburger]

Thank you for FINALLY answering some of my questions. I will work on doing some more biology research so I can see what the experts think, one way or the other. I didn't do this first because I wanted to know the pro-choice argument on why they don't think a fetus is an individual.

I'll get back to you.