"We keep marrying other species and ethnics " - Fox News Host

maineman said:
Dixie... do you think that a zygote has a soul?
Click to expand...

I don't have any idea. I do know that it is a human being. The zygote phase is relatively short, and I believe the word is often used by abortion proponents who just want to remain in denial of the biological facts. You see, as long as they can call it something besides "human", they can justify killing it.
 
Dixie said:
I don't have any idea. I do know that it is a human being. The zygote phase is relatively short, and I believe the word is often used by abortion proponents who just want to remain in denial of the biological facts. You see, as long as they can call it something besides "human", they can justify killing it.
Click to expand...

do you think that a soul is what distinguishes humans from other life forms?
 
maineman said:
do you think that a soul is what distinguishes humans from other life forms?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that other life forms don't have souls, I don't know... why does that matter with regard to whether something is a human life? You are asking me questions regarding my personal spiritual viewpoint, and that is not relevant to the question of whether an unborn fetus is human or not.
 
maineman said:
tough questions for the "zygotes are my equals" crowd:clink:
Click to expand...

They're tough questions for everybody. It's hugely disingenuous to come into an argument like this, as Dixie does, with a very simple answer to very complex questions and expect people to take him seriously. In Dixie's case, it's because he isn't capable of dealing with complex problems in complex ways. The more intelligent among us know enough to know we have to ask questions and consider the complexities of them before coming up with an answer that may or may not be a complete solution.
 
Socrtease said:
A child born with out a brain is genetically human. But is it a person and what makes us persons?
Click to expand...

"personhood" seems to be a "criteria" some people have set on human beings or human life. I think it is highly subjective, and totally irrelevant to whether something is or isn't human life. In 1830, black people were not considered "persons" by our government. So this whole canard about "personhood" is nothing more than an attempt to dodge the obvious.

Before we can have a rational dialogue in America about abortion, we have to face the truth and be honest about what we are doing. It's easy to throw up excuses and caveats, or 'define' things as something they are not, to avoid admitting what is being done.
 
Dixie said:
I'm not sure that other life forms don't have souls, I don't know... why does that matter with regard to whether something is a human life? You are asking me questions regarding my personal spiritual viewpoint, and that is not relevant to the question of whether an unborn fetus is human or not.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think that a soul is what makes us truly "human" and not just a pile of coordinated cells.... and makes us something worth protecting moreso than say, a deer or a trout.
 
Dixie said:
Sorry, but after conception, nothing else has to happen for you to be human life. You are a unique human life in the state of being, therefore, a "human being" at point of conception. You can say you are a human being at "zygote" phase, but you are what you are, that doesn't change. It's not insult to humankind to admit what biology says, it's called being honest. What you are doing, is propping up a lie and misrepresentation. You want to claim a human being is something else, when that contradicts biological fact.
Click to expand...

Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. When the grocery store advertises tomatoes at 10 for a dollar and the grocer gives you a package of tomato seeds what would you say/do? Or the local nursery advertises a special on fruit trees at $2.00/each and gives you a seed? Or your local pet store advertises fish for your aquarium and offers to sell you fish eggs? Or the supermarket advertises a super special on fresh chickens at two for a dollar and the guy hands you two fertilized eggs.

Biologically speaking, if DNA was the only criteria to classification, all those people would be correct, however, they would probably be fined for false advertising. Why? Why, because there is more to a classification than DNA.

According to DNA classification an egg is a chicken but we do not use DNA solely to classify what a chicken is. We consider other things.

Why, when it comes to human beings, do some people throw logic and common sense out the window? To make their argument they discount all norms and protocols that's used to classify everything else. Why do they have to do that? If anyone else used the DNA argument as the sole means of classification people would consider the person to be nuts. A crackpot. Loony. Dishonest.
 
ib1yysguy said:
They're tough questions for everybody. It's hugely disingenuous to come into an argument like this, as Dixie does, with a very simple answer to very complex questions and expect people to take him seriously. In Dixie's case, it's because he isn't capable of dealing with complex problems in complex ways. The more intelligent among us know enough to know we have to ask questions and consider the complexities of them before coming up with an answer that may or may not be a complete solution.
Click to expand...

Apparently the "more intelligent" of you, don't comprehend the most basic of biological facts. Because you keep calling human life by other names, making absurd distinctions about the phase or condition of human life, as if that somehow magically changes biology and renders it meaningless. If anyone else attempted to refute biological fact that way, you'd call them a 'knuckledragger" ...but you people are SMART, so you can't be one of those, can you?
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. When the grocery store advertises tomatoes at 10 for a dollar and the grocer gives you a package of tomato seeds what would you say/do? Or the local nursery advertises a special on fruit trees at $2.00/each and gives you a seed? Or your local pet store advertises fish for your aquarium and offers to sell you fish eggs? Or the supermarket advertises a super special on fresh chickens at two for a dollar and the guy hands you two fertilized eggs.

Biologically speaking, if DNA was the only criteria to classification, all those people would be correct, however, they would probably be fined for false advertising. Why? Why, because there is more to a classification than DNA.

According to DNA classification an egg is a chicken but we do not use DNA solely to classify what a chicken is. We consider other things.

Why, when it comes to human beings, do some people throw logic and common sense out the window? To make their argument they discount all norms and protocols that's used to classify everything else. Why do they have to do that? If anyone else used the DNA argument as the sole means of classification people would consider the person to be nuts. A crackpot. Loony. Dishonest.
Click to expand...

A seed is a seed. A human being is a human being, not a seed.

Biological classification of when human life begins, tells us it happens at point of conception. Nothing further has to happen for a human being to exist. You may say the human being is in a certain state, 'classification', phase, or condition... but it IS what it IS. Biology has concluded this... it is conclusive... beyond any shadow of doubt... not up for debate... not an "argument" from my perspective... a biological FACT!
 
Dixie said:
A seed is a seed. A human being is a human being, not a seed.

Biological classification of when human life begins, tells us it happens at point of conception. Nothing further has to happen for a human being to exist. You may say the human being is in a certain state, 'classification', phase, or condition... but it IS what it IS. Biology has concluded this... it is conclusive... beyond any shadow of doubt... not up for debate... not an "argument" from my perspective... a biological FACT!
Click to expand...

That's silly; it's just something pro-lifers repeat in the hopes that it's true.

In biology, it's actually called a zygote. Viability plays a large part in debates on "human-ness," and there is certainly plenty of gray area to debate, which is why any contention that anything in the debate is "beyond any shadow of doubt" is crazy...
 
LadyT said:
No. The overwhelming majority of anti-choicers still don't adopt children.

But you personally get one or two cool points. Two if the kids are completely unrelated to you.
Click to expand...

/shrugs....I attend a church with around 150 families.....there are 32 adopted children in 18 families....what kind of percentage are you looking for?......there aren't enough kids to go around for the majority of "anti-choicers" to adopt the kids of "pro-baby-killers"......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs....I attend a church with around 150 families.....there are 32 adopted children in 18 families....what kind of percentage are you looking for?......there aren't enough kids to go around for the majority of "anti-choicers" to adopt the kids of "pro-baby-killers"......
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be scientific?

Are you contending that we can extrapolate these #'s to the population at large?
 
apple0154 said:
As a society we not only need a defining "moment" at which time we can classify something as a human being but we have to be able to apply standard rules and regulations and grant standard rights to whatever it is. We can not do that with an embryo/fetus.
Click to expand...
sure we can....just give every embryo/fetus rights.....

As I explained before the custom is if a woman's body is defective she has the right to terminate the pregnancy. If an embryo/fetus is a human being no one can possibly justify killing an innocent human being because another human being has a defective body.
Click to expand...
no, it's actually quite simple.....you permit abortions to save the life of the mother....it's the way they did it for a hundred years before Roe v Wade....why do you think it suddenly is complicated?....

As I also mentioned before society dealt with that concerning the blacks and Jews.
Click to expand...
sure.....people like you enslaved blacks and killed Jews, pretending they weren't human beings either....

There are certain standards that apply to all human beings and surely one of those standards is an innocent human being can not be killed by another human being because that one has a defective body.
Click to expand...

considering the fact your willing to kill innocent human beings who DON'T have a defective body, I consider your argument rather shallow....

There are activities we can not allow a child to participate in due to injury.
Click to expand...
???...you mean activities like birth?

The point is people realize the absurdity of classifying an embryo/fetus a human being.
Click to expand...
it is an absurdity to deny it.....

They realize the questions that will inevitably arise.
Click to expand...
good lord, kill the children, we may have to answer questions!!!
 
Watermark said:
A small fraction of the material that would become me (and really isn't even in me anymore) coalesced into a primitive zygote over several days after the sperm hit the egg. You do a grievous insult to humankind to call that a human person.
Click to expand...

you denigrate humanity by denying it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top