YOUR MERE CLAIMS OF FEARMONGERING ARE YET TO BE PROVED. And Facts remain Facts.
I DON'T NEED TO. Did what **I** write qualify as fearmongering? Your mere claims about that are still worthless without evidence. Overfishing, for example, is a Fact. The Fact is presented to educate the ignorant, not to incite fear. Ignorance causes many folks to think there is nothing wrong with the world's overpopulation situation. Showing there IS something wrong merely means that there is a problem that needs to be resolved, not ignored, nothing more.
YOUR MERE CLAIM IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I asked you to specify something that I declared was a fact, which wasn't, and I'm still waiting.
TRUE. There was a typo. HERE.
ARE PARASITES INNOCENT? They don't understand what they do, but we still kill them relentlessly, entirely because of what they do. And unborn humans are totally guilty of acting WORSE than parasites. As described in the linked article above. (And it is still unwise to call unborn humans "babies" OR "children".)
UTTERLY FALSE. Only "persons" can be subjects of "murder", and unborn humans cannot possibly qualify as persons, neither according to Law nor according to scientific data.
FALSE. An entity must possess the power of choice before it can be deprived of choice. Killing a rat is not unconscionable entirely because it has an insignificant power of choice. The undeveloped brain of an unborn human doesn't even have that much --"kicking" in the womb is entirely an autonomic thing, related to strengthening bones in a reduce-gravity environment; most abortions are done long before a fetus begins to kick.
IT APPEARS I CAN BELIEVE BOTH.
Scientific American said:
SEE ABOVE. The 1000 species were large obvious species, not the overlooked species. There are so many many thousands of species of insects (and plants, too), often due to limited ranges, that deforesting an area means wiping out most species limited to that area. I can accept, though, that "30,000 per year" might be a zealous exaggeration. Is there an article specifically refuting it?
SEE ABOVE. Your worthless claims about "murdering others" are not improved by repeating them.
AND HERE IS ONE FOR YOU. When rock is cut, the age of the cut can be determined from the amount of weathering. The ages of the oldest Maori solidly disagree with your article. Humans were there plenty long enough to overpopulate the place, and suffer the consequences.
NO OBJECTION. So long as "spirit" is a nonphysical thing (cannot be affected by mass, energy, gravitation, etc.). The distinction allows the existence of God (and claims about God) to be consistent with the existence of the physical Universe.
YOU CAN CONVINCE ME WITH VALID FACTS AND LOGIC. So far, though, you have presented almost nothing along that line. Consider the rats that supposedly ate the tree-seeds of Easter Island --what kept the rat population under control on all those many-other tree-bearing islands the Polynesians settled?
EDUCATION IS NOT FEAR-MONGERING.
THAT IS A REAL THING, NOT FICTION.
THAT IS NOT AN IMPOSSIBILITY. It is speculation of the "if this goes on" variety. Kind of like, "If no winning lottery ticket is drawn, the prize will continue to rise." The more humans there are, the more food has to be available, to keep all those humans fed. Simple Logic! And the planet is not unlimited in its resources.
YOUR MERE CLAIM IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
FALSE. A single set of facts will always result in the same conclusions. You need to add facts, subtract facts, or change facts, to get different conclusions.
I DON'T SEE YOU POINTING OUT AN ERROR. Generic Denunciation is a typical tactic employed by abortion opponents, when they cannot refute the very valid data that destroys their anti-abortion arguments. And I'm not fazed by such denunciations at all. Nor is my data and the conclusions drawn from that data.
Continued cries of overpopulation and resource depletion are scare mongering... just like scaring people on nuclear power, just like the Alar scare, just like the DDT scare, just like the global freezing now global warming scares... Your side doesn't want to solve the problem of over-fishing, you want to reduce the population, murdering young innocents all the while. Solve for over-fishing by establishing more avenues for fish to be created, more food sources....not murdering innocent fellow humans.
IT DOESN"T MATTER. What matters is education. You seem to think that no matter how a certain piece of bad news is presented, it must automatically be scary. WRONG! Plus, folks have a right to know. Are you arguing that people should be kept ignorant (which is a standard tactic of control-freak governments like the Chinese)?
FALSE.
IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM! Since when is it inherently better to patch a problem (say, get a tooth filling) than to deal with the source of the problem (brush your teeth more often!)? Not to mention something that all abortion opponents totally ignore: Not one proposal to provide more resources for a very-large population has anything to do with discouraging the population from growing even more (and needing even more resources)! Which is why I linked that classic Asimov essay (did you read it?). Math does not lie, although it can be inaccurate (he used a growth rate that is larger than the current growth rate; the calculations need adjusting therefore).
STOP LYING. Abortion is in no sense "murder". You haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence to support your claim. Why should anyone believe you?
STOP LYING. I provided a corrected link, so you should have read the article explaining in detail how unborn humans are guilty of horrible assaults, four different ways. And no abortion opponent has ever offered the slightest bit of evidence to the contrary, about those guilty actions of unborn humans.
THAT DOESN'T STOP EVEN MORE MOUTHS-TO-FEED FROM GETTING BORN.
LYING AGAIN.
LYING AGAIN.
OUR ACTUAL FELLOWS ARE PERSONS, NOT MINDLESS ANIMALS.
FALSE. It is a Fact that cells can transform from one type to another. Introducing an fictional analogy for easier understanding does not-at-all affect the basic Facts.
A STUPID LIE. Because I did explain to you that if cells did not transform, you would not be you-as-you-are; you would be a mass of undifferentiated blastocyst cells.
FALSE. I understand the Scientific Method thoroughly. Things claimed to be Facts need to be verified, but anything that gets verified will remain a Fact. Certain aspects of the accuracy of a Fact might change (example: Newtonian Mechanics has remained a Fact for centuries, but it is not as accurate as Facts associated with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics). If you want to claim there is something wrong with the things I have indicated to be facts (like, say, the 30,000 species dying each year), then all you need is to present more-accurate and verified Facts. (The first publication of an article does not always means its claimed facts have been verified.)
A STUPID SUGGESTION. Humans stop acting worse than parasites at birth. THEN they start acting innocently. Later, some of them might become parasites of a different sort (criminals).
FALSE. An unborn human does not qualify as a "being". Try these phrases to see why: "intelligent being", "alien being", "extraterrestrial being", "frog being", "snail being", "fetus being". Beings are persons! Unborn humans don't qualify as persons, any more than do frogs or snails. They are simply "humans", not "human beings" (persons that happen to be human, instead of, say, persons that happen to be extraterrestrials).
TRUE. The average rat is also created through no fault of its own. So?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
A rat is only doing what nature programmed. A mosquito is only doing what nature programmed. So?
WHAT, NO MANICURES ALLOWED? Exposing such idiocy is exactly why The Cuticle Cell Argument was written. Human life is not inherently special. Period. PERSONS are special. That's why it would be murder to kill an extraterrestrial alien intelligent being. Barely-developed offspring, however, are entirely different from persons.
I WROTE IT. AND FACTS ARE FACTS.
THE NEXT TIME YOU SEE A CHILD WALKING AROUND, FEEL FREE TO CALL HIM OR HER A FETUS. You want to be Logically Consistent, don't you?
THAT YOU HAVE A TOTAL LACK OF ABILITY TO POINT OUT VALID FLAWS IN MY ARGUMENTS....
ANIMALS ARE ANIMALS. Why should one type be considered more important than lots of other types? Stupid Prejudice? Tsk, tsk!
WE ARE DOING THAT ALREADY. Or at least we are working on it. And this is what you would be depriving future generations.
MAYBE. BUT INDIVIDUALS AND ENTIRE SPECIES ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. It is Stupid to confuse them.
SO MIGHT MAKES RIGHT? Why is your choice to swat a mosquito superior to the mosquito's "choice" (genetically programmed biological-robotic drive) to suck your blood? Have you seen the movie "The Fifth Wave", and noticed the rationale presented for the actions of the aliens?
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS AND ENTIRE SPECIES. Ecologies depend on "keystone" species surviving, and we don't always know which species are the keystones.
I THOUGHT I WAS CLEAR. It was 1000 large species over 200k years. It is many thousands of small/overlooked species per year in the past several decades. 33,000 is not the number being bandied around by all those concerned sites. 30,000 is the number. But it might be exaggerated somewhat. If it was actually 10,000 per year (about one an hour), we would still be causing a Mass Extinction In The Biosphere. DO you have an article specifically refuting the number 30,000?
I'M ONLY ASKING FOR ONE KEY CLAIM TO BE REFUTED. Like the claim that cells can transform to become different types, for example. So far, you have failed.
FALSE. STOP LYING. Only persons can be "murdered", and unborn humans cannot possibly qualify as persons.
I DON'T DISPUTE THE NUMBER. Only the label is faulty and worthy of dispute. Assuming the number is Factual, then saying that over 55 million unwanted mindless human animal entities were killed since Roe v Wade is a perfectly OK statement, regardless of whether or not you like that Fact.
WHY DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT? Are you **that** Stupidly Prejudiced about human life?
THE GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR KILLING ANIMALS IS THAT IT BE DONE HUMANELY. Minimize pain and suffering. Other than that, the details don't matter much.
HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS NEED LARGE NUMBERS OF SPECIES. And we need interactions with other species for our own psychological health. Variety is more than just the spice of life! It would be Stupid to think that 99% of all species can be killed without repercussions.
THAT POINT IS NOT DISPUTED --except to the degree that different perspectives invoke different sets of Facts.
FALSE. You have yet to present verified evidence that my data is faulty. Even that number 30,000 might be correct!
I DO TAKE FACTS AND SPECULATE. But that doesn't change the foundation-Facts, not in the slightest.
YOUR ARTICLE HAS FLAWS. The ages of the statues prove Easter Islanders were there before the article claims they were there. And trees have survived on plenty other islands with rats.
FOR A STONE-AGE ISLAND? Affecting differently-located statues all across the island simultaneously? Name them!
THERE IS NO GUESS, EXCEPT FOR "WHEN". See that picture in the first segment of this three-part post? What is your Answer to its Question?
CORRECT DATA IS IMPORTANT!
A STUPID LIE, with respect to The Cuticle Cell Argument. Everything in it I claimed to be a fact is an actual fact.
ANOTHER STUPID LIE. You cannot quote me calling science fiction the truth.
YOU LOST THAT ARGUMENT. Here's 80 million results on Google, for you to argue about futilely.
NOT YET. But only an idiot would claim it can never, ever happen throughout all future giga-years.
REALLY? WHERE IS THE BIOMASS FOR THAT GOING TO COME FROM? Do you know what a "zero sum game" is? The Earth's biosphere has been mostly that for millions of years.
BUT NOT PLENTY OF BIOMASS.
MAGIC? Ever heard of The Law Of Conservation Of Mass? And no, we can't turn rocks into biomass at the rate needed (atom smashers can change a few atoms a day from silicon to radioactive carbon...).
I CAN MORE EASILY IMAGINE GOD PLAGUING HUMANITY WITH 40 YEARS OF ALL PREGNANCIES MISCARRYING. At least that wouldn't violate any Laws of Physics.
NOPE.
NOPE.
ABORTION DOES NOT TARGET BABIES. It targets mindless parasitic unborn human animals.[/quote]
A CUTICLE CELL CAN PROCESS ZYGOTE DNA. Both cell types have all the DNA of the other cell type. A descendant of a zygote cell naturally changes its focus, from processing zygote DNA code, to processing cuticle DNA code. It is quite possible for the focus of DNA-processing to change back.
ABORTION OPPONENTS ARGUE POTENTIAL MUST BE FULFILLED. A zygote is not an infant; it is a zygote. And since a cuticle cell has the potential to act like a zygote....
DESCRIBING A FACT NEGATIVELY DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT. I shall continue to present Facts and ignore your worthless blather about how Facts might scare a few people.
THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACTS, EITHER.
IT IS A FACT. Here's 20 million more Google results.
UTTERLY FALSE. You cannot quote a single case of me declaring that something I qualified-with-"if" is a fact.
WHEN WILL YOU ACCEPT FACTS?
YOUR MERE CLAIM IS **STILL** WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE!
EXISTENCE DOES NOT EQUAL CHEAP ACCESS. There is a difference upon Society, between producing something at ten cents a ton until it is gone, and producing the same thing from a new source at ten dollars an ounce. Some of the higher cost of raising children now, compared to 1950, is due to that type of difference in resource-accessibility.
You don't know what you are talking about, since abortion is a "retail" not "wholesale" thing, the result of individual choices, not Administrative Mandate. And there is still the Fact that just because unborn humans are "human life", that doesn't make them more special than worm life.
SHOW ME ANOTHER INHABITED POLYNESIAN ISLAND OF THAT ERA, WITH RATS AND NO TREES.
PROVE IT. Where is the opinion in stating "overpopulation causes aquifer depletion, deforestation, overfishing, ...", and including links?
IT IS A FACT; the consequences prove the Fact. Are you claiming aquifer depletion (and the rest) is not happening?
TRUE. NOW PROVE IT MUST BE DONE (birthing the "many more", not the feeding-them part).
WITH WINDOWLESS CELLS YOU CAN PACK THEM EVEN TIGHTER. Your notion won't be accepted because people like their space, and like access to wider spaces.
PROVE IT MUST BE DONE. Why do we need to GO anywhere "near that"?
FALSE. Your very next statement, that it is possible, proves that it is actually a FACT that we COULD do that. Consider the Fact we could build a star ship (slower-than-light multi-generation type). We cannot do it NOW, but "could" is not a time-limit.
AGREED.
FALSE; "COULD" IS NOT A TIME LIMIT.
"IT DOES NOT PAY A PROPHET TO BE TOO SPECIFIC". I was not too specific; you were.
YOU IMPLIED PRESENTATION ALONE COULD AFFECT THE LOGICAL RESULTS OF FACTS.
NOPE, there is always an extra (or removed or changed) factor. Assigning different weights to Facts, in different presentations, counts as adding a non-constant extra thing to the actual Facts.From Msg #75 said:
MY EXPLANATION WAS VALID ENOUGH. More below.
I BASICALLY INDICATED THAT POPULATION GREW FASTER THAN RESOURCE-PRODUCTION. I didn't say anything about the "members" of the economy. In 1950 the USA was the main member of its economy. But now we are part of a far-more-global economy, with populations all around the world using resources. The linking of our economy to others via largely-unrestricted international trade automatically counts as increasing the total population of the economy. Jobs go overseas because the greater the population involved in the economy, the more competition there is for jobs and the lower that wages can be.
IT IS TRUE
ONLY IN TERMS OF THE ICE AGE CYCLE, NO OBJECTION.
I ALREADY TALKED ABOUT BALANCING IT OUT. But the data indicates we have over-balanced it. Human population is rising far faster than the astronomical cycles that slowly initiate an Ice Age.
Fortunately you don't get to make those command decisions, just need a couple good supreme court justices having human feelings, understanding life. Your callousness to fellow humans is noted... discarded. A live comatose/brain dead 12 year old is still a human being. Just because you are temporarily, or even permanently, incapacitated does not rob you of your being, humanity nor person hood.
NOPE; Your mere say-so is worthless, as usual. IT IS A FACT that another asteroid or comet will someday impact the Earth, if we do nothing to prevent it. Are you scared? NO, because the probability is, we have plenty of time to prepare. So the first thing we've done is put effort into scanning space and plotting orbits, to find out more exactly how much time we have. So far, so good....
PROVE THEY ARE BEING RENEWED TEN TIMES AS FAST AS GLOBAL POPULATION IS GROWING. So long as the data indicates they are not, then the world is overpopulated.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING. Need to stop sooner instead of later.
ENTRENCHED INTERESTS WANT TO RESTRICT RESOURCES TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS. The oil companies should be investing their profits in nuclear fusion research, not in finding even more carbon to burn.
FALSE. GOT TO ALLOW VOLUNTARY ABORTIONS (which doesn't kill "kids"). Got to encourage more contraceptions. Got to invent better contraceptives.
FACTS ARE FACTS. See above about the need for bioresources in a 10:1 ratio.
THE WORLD IS ALREADY OVERPOPULATED; there is no "becoming", except in terms of "worse".
TRUE. "Fearmongering" is your worthless opinion.
TRUE.
UNBORN HUMANS ARE NOT "FOLKS".
TRUE.
ONLY IF THE THINGS THEY NEED ARE THERE. For example, fish need oxygen --but Global Warming causes oceans to get warmer, too, and guess what? Warm water holds less oxygen then cold water! There are other (and much more significant) bottlenecks, too; certain minerals have a low concentration in seawater, and thus limit the amount of biomass the oceans can produce. Meanwhile, we are pouring stuff into the oceans that food-animals don't need at all --and the more humans on Earth, the worse that that will be!
THAT WAS A FACT ARTICLE. The author wrote more nonfiction than fiction.
INCLUDING EVERYONE CLAIMING THE WORLD IS NOT OVERPOPULATED.
THE COMPOUND INTEREST FORMULA IS WIDELY USED AND FAR FROM WRONG. However, it is probably not the most-appropriate formula to use, these days, while it was very appropriate in the 1960s. That's because back then human population growth was measurably exponential, while for about the last 40 years that growth has simply been straight-line (about 80 million extra mouths-to-feed every year, quite reliably).
THE BLATHER YOU SPOUT? ABSOLUTELY! (because if you don't exactly specify what it is that I wrote that you call "lying stupidity", I shall assume you are talking about what you wrote)
TRUE. That does not make an unborn human more special than a squirrel.
SO DOES A HYDATIDIFORM MOLE. Human DNA does not make an unborn human more special than a squirrel.
YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE TALKING ABOUT A SQUIRREL. And you are lying when you imply that a zygote qualifies as a "being".
YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE TALKING ABOUT A SQUIRREL. "Need for assistance" does not equal "assistance is mandatory"!
STILL TALKING ABOUT YOUR OWN BLATHER, I SEE.
AN UNBORN HUMAN ACTIVELY CAUSES HARM. Which is why your use of the word "potential" is the "lying stupidity" you specified.
OH YES YOU CAN. We routinely and arbitrarily kill parasites for exactly the same reason we can arbitrarily kill unborn humans: Both are mere-animal entities committing horrid assaults!
MUST BE A PERSON TO HAVE THE RIGHT OF A TRIAL!
TRUE FOR PERSONS; NOT TRUE FOR PARASITIC MERE-ANIMAL ENTITIES.
I NEVER CLAIMED ANY SUCH THING. Something known as "postpartum depression" tends to affect every woman after the end of a pregnancy, no matter how the pregnancy ended (includes miscarriages and births and abortions). And THAT illness is partly a consequence of just one of the assaults committed by an unborn human, infusing addictive substances into her body during the pregnancy.
NOPE; IRRELEVENT; POST-PARTUM DEPRESSION IS INDEPENDENT OF POLITICS.
TOO LATE. Guess what is the biggest opposition is, to the space program? Paraphrasing: "We need to spend that money to solve problems here on Earth!" And guess what the cause is, of almost all problems we have here on Earth? Overpopulation!
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Repeating your worthless blather does not make it any less than worthless blather.
ALL HUMANS ARE ANIMALS! Or have you forgotten basic biology?
ENDANGERED-SPECIES ANIMALS. Humans are running neck-and-neck with rats as the second-most-populous mammal on Earth (mice are in first place). We could experience two consecutive True Malthusian Catastrophes, killing 99% of all humans each time, and still not be an endangered species! I'm not recommending any such thing; I'm simply presenting an accurate perspective regarding ONE reason why some animals are more worthy of being saved than others. All the abortions ever done have not-in-the-least kept humanity's population from growing. While other animal populations shrink (mostly due to humans invading their territory).
NOPE, BECAUSE AS USUAL, THE ABORTION OPPONENT DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS BLATHERING ABOUT. There is a very distinct difference between having something, and using it. People in comas do wake up often enough to prove that they never lost the abilities associated with personhood, the abilities that lets persons be distinguished from ordinary animals. Comatose people merely are unable to use those abilities. Meanwhile, unborn humans never had any personhood abilities in the first place. Which is exactly why they are not people!
TRUE SO FAR. But that doesn't change the Fact that either cell can be reprogrammed to process different DNA code (viruses normally cause that). We know of nothing to make it impossible for either cell to process the same DNA code that the other cell normally processes.
YOUR DESCRIPTION IS NOT QUITE ANALOGOUS ENOUGH. Since both cells (above) have the same capacity to process the other cell's code, both computers in your analogy need the same physical capacity to process each other's software. ALSO, since both cells have both sets of DNA code (because each has complete human DNA code!), both of your computers need to be loaded with both sets of software. The only real difference between them is some "interface" stuff, relatively trivial (like, the ATM machine has an ATM-card-reader, while the supercomputer probably doesn't) --and of course the fact that each is not processing the same subset of software as the other.
REALLY? Since your analogy was defective, your conclusion is also defective. The ATM computer IS a supercomputer in the more-accurate analogy.
NO DISTRACTION. It is a common theme of abortion opponents that "Potential must be fulfilled!" --even if they seldom say it that baldly. I simply described a particular potential that (1) they mostly didn't know about, and (2) turns that "slogan" into worthless blather. In other words, just because a particular potential exists (a cuticle cell processing zygote DNA code), it does not actually have to be fulfilled.
A ZYGOTE IS A POTENTIAL CUTICLE CELL. It could be told to convert itself into a cuticle cell (which is exactly what one of its descendants normally does). Suppose a zygote was told to do that thing. Would you have a problem with that? It would still be a living human cell, but it would no longer be acting in a way that could lead to the development of an entire human body.
FALSE. POTENTIALS ARE REAL THINGS. Ignoring them is like saying another giant asteroid or comet will never, ever, impact the Earth. Therefore potentials cannot be ignored, and must be considered.
FALSE. The discoveries of stem cell researchers are very real. While we don't yet know how to make a cuticle cell revert all the way back to the zygote stage, we are absolutely certain it can be done. And stem-cell researchers are going to keep looking, until they find out how to do it.
GENERIC DENUNCIATION. Worthless blather, therefore. **ACTUALLY**, when abortion opponents don't rally to save cuticle cells --human life!-- I get to ask them what makes one potential Objectively more important than some other potential. I'm confident that you cannot answer that question --you will only be able to offer Subjective excuses, not an Objective rationale.
YOU ARE WELCOME.
I DID. Your choice to not believe the accuracy of The Cuticle Cell Argument doesn't change the truths it contains, not in the slightest.
STUDY THE HOMEOBOX OR HOX GENES. They are responsible for the overall form of a multi-celled organism. They control when enough cells of a certain type have been produced, such that those cells don't need to make more copies of themselves (unless to repair an injury).
Is National Geographic agenda-driven? How about Scientific American? Or New Scientist? I note that those articles don't specifically mention 33,000 species going extinct each year, but they do say the current extinction rate is something like 1000 times the normal rate. Here's something about that normal extinction rate. Doing some math indicates that the number 33,000 could indeed be an exaggeration --870 might be a more accurate number (but that last article indicates it could become 8,700 in the not-distant future). SO, while I don't mind having a more-accurate number, YOU still haven't stated any reason why human life is more important than hundreds of other species, such that we need not be concerned with killing that many every single year! PLUS, you need to explain why it is OK to eliminate wilderness (via encroachment of increasing human population) when exposure to wilderness is psychologically beneficial!
TRUE. But that number 33,000 almost certainly wasn't created out of thin air. Somebody computed a number, possibly using SOME flawed data, and others popularized it, possibly exaggerating it. The fact remains, human population growth IS driving many other species to extinction EVERY YEAR.
PARTLY FALSE. Only the exact number was not a fact. What IS a fact is, human population growth is driving many other species to extinction every year.
WRONG DESCRIPTION. Your suggestion exhibited ignorance and/or low intelligence on your part, because it had nothing to do with the realities of born humans. That's why it was stupid.
WHAT PARASITIC ACTIONS ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF? Parasitic actions help define a parasite, right? So, if you want to accuse someone of qualifying as a parasite, you need to be able to specify the parasitic actions of that someone. Otherwise you are just spouting a stupid lie!
ONLY THOSE THAT QUALIFY, PER THEIR DEMONSTRABLE PARASITIC ACTIONS. Did you pay any attention to what I wrote in that other message, "Humans stop acting worse than parasites at birth."?
ANOTHER STUPID LIE ON YOUR PART. All the abortions ever done in no way qualifies as "much of the human species". It has not in the slightest stopped the global human population from continuing to increase as it has for most of the last 40 years, at a rate of about 80 million extra mouths-to-feed each year.
NOT FUNNY. As usual, the abortion opponent ignorantly fails to recognize the major difference between human persons and human animals. Abortion ONLY targets animals, not persons. PERIOD. Yet abortion opponents, NOT pro-choicers, continually blather about killing persons, instead! Tsk, tsk!
THERE ARE NO FACTS TO SUPPORT SUCH A CONSIDERATION. That's why!
ONLY ANIMALS MEASURABLY ACTING LIKE PARASITES HAVE BEEN LABELED AS EQUIVALENT TO PARASITES (or worse than parasites). If by "others" you refer to persons, almost NONE such have been labeled "parasitic" (except for criminals mentioned earlier).
MY CONSCIENCE IS CLEAR. Only mere-animal/parasitic entities are targeted by abortion. PERIOD.
I'M PRESENTING FACTS, NOT OPINIONS. If millions of people claim the Earth is flat --which they did some centuries ago-- does that make them right? So if millions of people call unborn humans "beings", does that make them right? NOPE! Not when they are inconsistent in one way (fail to call mosquitoes "mosquito beings" or snails "snail beings" for example) and consistent in another way (call extraterrestrials "alien beings", for example). Beings are persons, and since unborn humans absolutely fail to qualify as persons, they cannot deserve to be called "beings".
THE MORE EDUCATED THEY ARE ABOUT BIOLOGY AND INTELLIGENCE (including education about future True Artificial Intelligences, which will exist entirely independently of biology, and especially exist independently of Stupid Prejudice about human biology), the less likely those justices are to call unborn humans "beings".
YOUR WORTHLESS CLAIM OF CALLOUSNESS IS NOTED. Person rights are FAR more important than "human rights". Person rights means you are not allowed to be Stupidly Prejudiced against dolphins (to the extent they qualify as persons), or extraterrestrial beings, or True Artificial Intelligences. Your Stupidly Prejudiced focus on "human rights" is just an excuse to kill dolphins and enslave all other intelligent beings in the Universe. Tsk, tsk! ALSO: Unborn humans do not qualify as "fellows". They are mere-animal entities only! Actual fellow humans are all persons!
ENTIRELY BECAUSE YOU WANT TO EXHIBIT STUPID PREJUDICE. Tsk, tsk!
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Comatose is VERY different from brain death. The comatose always have a chance of waking up. The brain dead are DEAD, and a death certificate to that effect is routinely filled out.
WHEN ONLY COMATOSE, TRUE. When brain dead, the 12-year-old is just another corpse, and the still-alive status of the body (excluding the brain) is totally irrelevant.
TRUE WITH RESPECT TO INCAPACITATION; utterly false with respect to brain death. And with respect to the Overall Abortion Debate, unborn humans LACK the capabilities associated with personhood, exactly like most ordinary animals. An ordinary but comatose person still has[/p] the capabilities associated with personhood; the inability to access them is irrelevant. (In the brain dead, those abilities are destroyed; they no longer exist, which is why those humans are corpses and not human beings.) Unborn humans, meanwhile, simply have not yet developed the capabilities associated with personhood. That's why they are mere-animal entities, and not persons.
ARE YOU EXHIBITING STUPID PREJUDICE AGAIN? You talked about unborn humans beginning to exist through no fault of their own, and acting in accordance with their built-in Natural programming, and I pointed out that those same statements apply to rats and mosquitoes. Yet here you seem to be claiming that just because some life-form is human, it must automatically somehow be more special than other life-forms. THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF STUPID PREJUDICE. Especially when you have failed to specify WHY human-ness is better than rat-ness or mosquito-ness.
FALSE. I, unlike typically ignorant abortion opponents, fully understand that Too Much Of Any Good Thing Is Always A Bad Thing. This applies to humans, just as much as it applies to sunshine or rain or any other thing you might care to specify. Currently, It Is Measurable Fact that there are too many humans in the world for the original global/diverse ecosystem to thrive. There is nothing despicable IN GENERAL about human stuff. There is only the Bad Thing of TOO MUCH human stuff.
NOT WHAT I PROMOTE. I do not despise humanity.
AN IGNORANT LIE. It is not pro-choicers who want to end Welfare, and it is not pro-choicers who want to eliminate the Minimum Wage Law, and it is not pro-choicers who want to cut back on Social Security, and it is not pro-choicers who want to eliminate the Clean Air Act, and it is not pro-choicers who want to eliminate the Clean Water Act, and it is not pro-choicers who want to force defective unborn human bodies to get born, so that when they eventually develop minds those minds can suffer from those defects for a lifetime.
IRRELEVANT, unless that means your brain has rotted and can't learn anything new, per the adage "It ain't what you don't know that hurts so much as what you do know that ain't so."
WHAT? No biology, biochemstry, molecular biology, cellular biology, and other sciences actually about the facts of human existence, and thus far more relevant to the Overall Abortion Debate than the worthless arbitrary opinions spouted in those other disciplines?
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! I fully understand how all anti-abortion arguments in this day-and-age are based on ignorance and/or delusions and/or bad data and/or Stupid Prejudice and/or Stupid Hypocrisy and/or .... You have not got even ONE valid argument for banning abortion in this day-and-age.
FALSE; see above. I may also have the agenda of revealing the idiocy behind anti-abortion arguments, but then, idiotic arguments deserve to be exposed, right?
OH? Talking about abortion opponents shallowly wanting abortions prevented? HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! You deluded folks think that what YOU want is somehow more important than what other people want. Tsk, tsk! (The want's of the unborn don't matter, of course, since their "wants" are actually totally mindless biological drives entirely independent of intelligent thought and personhood, just like most ordinary animals.)
TRUE. MORE, it also can to be blamed for various actions. Like stealing biological nutrients from the body of another living thing, like a typical parasite of fictional vampire. Like dumping toxic biowastes into the body of another living thing, also like a typical parasite and worse than a fictional vampire. Like infusing an addictive substance (progesterone) into the body of another living thing, worse than a typical parasite. And like infusing a mind-altering substance (oxytocin) into the body of another living thing, also worse than a typical parasite.
TRUE. But why are you exhibiting Stupid Prejudice, focusing only on cause-of-death of humans by humans? What of humans causing deaths of fish and deer and cattle and hogs and various birds and lots of other animals, just for food? What of humans causing not only deaths of animals, but deaths of entire species of animals, just for living space? Killing almost always happens for a reason! Such as, you might CLAIM your selfish desire to stay alive is somehow more important than the selfish desires of all the living things you kill in the process, but can you provide Objective Proof of that claim? Killing, even of humans by humans, almost always happens for a some sort of human reason, even if it is a purely selfish and Objectively Invalid reason.
I DO ACCEPT THAT. But YOU don't accept that an Objectively Valid reason might exist, to kill an unborn human that isn't, say, causing a potentially fatal ectopic pregnancy. So, see again the assaults described above, that unborn humans commit against their hostesses. In almost every human culture, a woman has the right to refuse to tolerate being assaulted! It's just that some cultures are ignorant of assaults by unborn humans, and/or are ignorant of the fact that unborn humans are mindless animals entirely equivalent to lots of other animals routinely killed --those cultures need to become educated.
TRUE. And so also can a mad scientist creating life in his laboratory also destroy his creation.
UTTERLY FALSE. Only PERSONS cannot be property. Therefore you are not allowed to enslave an extraterrestrial alien being who politely knocks on your door. But since unborn humans are, provably, mere-animal entities and not persons, they most certainly can be owned.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE BLATHERING ABOUT. Typical for abortion opponents. Tsk, tsk!
YOUR LOSS. Knowledge is power, not the ignorance you and your ilk embrace.
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Your mere claim is worthless. I understand logic extremely well; I'm an expert computer programmer. And that is why I can show --and did show-- that what YOU claim to be a logical argument actually isn't. Mostly because of cherry-picked data, ignoring the Big Picture.
ANOTHER WORTHESS UNSUPPORTED CLAIM.
STUPID PREJUDICE is all I saw you blather above. More uttertly worthless argumentation that is.
THEY DO NOT **NOW** YIELD WHOLE HUMAN BODIES. They are actually already 100% human living organisms. You seem to be having a problem with the word "potential". A zygote is not a whole human body, any more than is a cuticle cell. BOTH HAVE THE POTENTIAL to yield whole human bodies, and NEITHER can accomplish it without Active External Help. The cuticle cell in fact has MORE potential to yield a whole human body, since about 2/3 of the time, a new-formed zygote is doomed to Naturally die from some genetic defect or other. But the cuticle cell has all the DNA of a zygote that DIDN'T have fatally flawed DNA; it is a direct descendant of that zygote.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST YOU BE TOLD TO THINK ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE, INSTEAD OF YOUR STUPIDLY PREJUDICED CHERRY-PICKED DATA? Opposing abortion is very equivalent to demanding "potential must be fulfilled" --and a cuticle cell provably has better potential than the average zygote!
IT ACKNOWLEDGES FACTS. Such as the **fact** that various calls can transform to become different cells. What Naturally triggers a stem cell to become a tooth cell or a white blood cell or a muscle cell or a nerve cell or a ....? The thing you blathered, that I just quoted, implies that Nature is wrong to do that! But since Nature doesn't care about your worthless blatherings, neither do I, and neither does any stem-cell researcher looking to find the Natural triggers that can tell a cell to change it specialization to any other type, including becoming the completely generalized type that is a totipotent stem cell like a zygote.