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

LadyT said:
LMAO. Dude, it was your retarded analogy.

Well, if you're trying to save face, I can understand that, but between you and me, if you really believe that you just presented some sort of brilliant analogy, you're just stupid - and I mean that in the nicest way possible.
Click to expand...

translation:

i can't answer yurt's question becuase i know i will look like a hypocritical ass if i do, so i will just insult it without debate and hope my followers (like your puppy dog maineman) will jump and down and proclaim i right despite i never addressed why

FAIL

seriously, if you want to say my point is wrong, why don't you explain how isntead of acting like a five year old
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....the only ones that can be adopted are those who are released for adoption......you have a couple of different types of situations.....you have 1) kids who's parents have placed them for adoption and 2) kids who have been taken away from their parents due to abuse or neglect.....

usually 1) are put into the system as infants and quickly.....since there is a waiting list years long these kids are usually placed as soon as the state finalizes the parental release (for example, in Michigan around three months)....ergo, an infant adoption.....

for 2) it depends on many things....first, the age of the child when taken away from the parent, which could be anything from infant to theoretically 18 years (though generally older kids are emancipated).....second, how much time the state gives the parent to try to rehabilitate and seek a return of the kids.....the child is not released for adoption until parental rights are terminated......this WILL take years unless the parent releases voluntarily....a child who goes into the system over age ten will likely never be released for adoption and will emancipate at 16 or 17 to get out of the system.....I can give as an example the situation of some friends in Illinois who volunteered as foster parents in hopes of getting an edge on the adoption process.....they took in an infant who was born addicted to cocaine....they filed a notice of intent to adopt.....at age five the state returned the child to her mother, even though she was still on probation for prostitution and drug use.....at age seven they got her back again after her mother tried to sell her to a pimp for drugs.....she was released for adoption and my friends adopted her at age 11......she has since graduated from college and teaches in Illinois.....
Click to expand...

Well, that was very honorable of your friends from Illinois (a blue state I might add). But there are still thousands upon thousands of children in the system that need adoptive parents. Whether or not they 2 or 10, I think conservatives would have a lot more credibility, if instead of maligning women and trying to control their bodies, they focused all their venom and hate spewing and tried to get these kids homes. The link I provided accounted for the different stages of being in the foster care, and I believe there were between 100 and 200k kids that are waiting to be adopted. Why not focus more of that energy on the children that are already here if they insist on taking options away from the woman?
 
apple0154 said:
The error you keep repeating is you discount time. We live in a world governed by time. What might be is not what is. That was the purpose of the analogy.
Click to expand...

It was a stupid and irrelevant analogy.

I don't know where anti-abortionists get the idea that DNA has miraculously answered the question. I'm sure from the earliest time human beings were aware woman didn't go from being virgins to being mothers overnight. Of course the embryo/fetus in a human being, should it continue, would become a human being just as a sheep embryo/fetus would result in a sheep assuming sufficient time and circumstance allowed.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect, and you continue to repeat it as if it has been established. You have not yet established a embryo/fetus as not being a human being yet. You keep saying "would become" as if something has to happen in order for the embryo/fetus to become a human being, and that is biologically inaccurate, and you have presented nothing to establish this invalid point. You can continue to repeat it as much as you like, you haven't supported it, and that is what will make it valid in this discussion. Until you've established validity to your point, it can not be assumed or allowed to stand, and further debate is impossible. Do you understand me? If not, I can repeat it another dozen times or however long we need to take to get it through your thick skull. An embryo/fetus inside a human female, is a human life, a living human organism which is in the earliest stages of development, but is indeed a human life. The fact that it exists in a state of being, means it is properly called a "human being" and nothing you have presented thus far, has disputed this fact.

Where the problem lies is you assume that because a human embryo/fetus never survived to become a sheep or horse or dog that means it must be a human being from the beginning but such is not the case. It can simply be an embryo/fetus and die and never become a human being.
Click to expand...

If it died, it had to be living. If it was living it was some kind of life. It it was inside of a female human and was her egg which was permeated my a human male's sperm, it is essentially scientifically positive it can only be a human life. Again, you have submitted nothing thus far to refute this, and the challenge remains yours to prove your point.

If you can't, you can't. :dunno:

Again, it's like the acorn/oak tree. An acorn will never become a magnolia tree or an apple tree but that does not mean an acorn is an oak tree. It is an acorn. It is not an oak tree.
Click to expand...

The only thing this argument proves, is that you understand an acorn will produce an oak tree life form, it can't produce anything else. Just as a female human egg will produce a human life form, if it becomes fertilized by a male human sperm, it can't produce anything else. If an acorn is planted in the ground and becomes a living thing, it can only be one thing. It is impossible for it to be anything else, it is impossible for it to not be what it is. You certainly seem to understand this, but you refuse to apply it. Biology doesn't lie, but you continue to insist it does. Why?
 
Dixie said:
I don't understand the point you are trying to make, a fetus is human life, unlike a child who is not yet a doctor. I realize how you can make such lame examples up, in your mind a fetus is not a human life, so you can easily find comparisons to things that aren't what they may become someday. But the fact is, a fetus is already a human being, it doesn't require anything else to become a human being, it is in an early stage of development, but it is indeed a living human organism in the state of being. A fetus isn't an adult, just as a little boy is not a man, but that doesn't change the fact that a fetus, like a little boy, is a human being.

You keep throwing up this stupid chicken egg example, but chickens are not humans, they have a completely different reproductive system. With a chicken, the "womb" is a shell, and the "fetus" is delivered outside of the mother's body, where it is then incubated until it hatches underneath the mother. If you remove the incubating egg from under the mother, it is not going to be anything other than an egg, just as if you remove an egg from the womb of a human, it will never be anything but an egg. In either case, once the egg has been fertilized a living organism begins to grow, in the case of a chicken, it is a chicken life form, in the case of a human, it is human life. If we destroy a chicken life form, it's not a big deal, we kill billions of chickens every year. We are discussing the killing of a human being. It's incredibly insulting and offensive for you to continue trying to draw a comparison between the two. Does your value of human life equate to your value of a chicken's life? If so, that would explain your view.
Click to expand...

First, as I mentioned before you keep discounting time.

Second, you wrote, "But the fact is, a fetus is already a human being, it doesn't require anything else to become a human being,...."

Yes, it does. It requires the use of another body (that of the woman). Repubs/Conservatives/Right Wingers are adamant about human beings being individuals, yet, when it comes to embryos/fetuses they are anything but individuals. It can not survive without the use of the body parts of another human being.

I'm not talking about a baby requiring feeding or an injured person requiring assistance. I'm talking about the use of another human being's organs and blood. I'm talking about living inside another human being's body. To say such an entity is a human being is taking the definition of "individual" and making a pretzel out of it.

Simply stated it requires building blocks that the mother provides through her blood and use of her organs. To claim an embryo/fetus is a human being and in turn deny a woman the right to remove it from her body is nothing short of the woman being a slave. Her body is owned by some one/thing other than her. The entire concept is repulsive. We may as well throw words like "individual" and "freedom" in the garbage can.

As for the chicken/egg example comparisons/examples are used by logical people in order to evaluate things. We compare. That's how logical people come to logical conclusions.

How do we know a house is a house? We know by comparing it to other things we call houses. How do we know a car is a car? We compare it to other things we classify as a car. How do we know an embryo/fetus is not a human being? We know it's not because we know an egg is not a chicken nor is an acorn an oak tree.
 
apple0154 said:
T
I don't know where anti-abortionists get the idea that DNA has miraculously answered the question.
Click to expand...
we know you don't get it....it astonishes us as much as it does you that you don't get it.....

Where the problem lies is you assume that because a human embryo/fetus never survived to become a sheep or horse or dog that means it must be a human being from the beginning but such is not the case.
Click to expand...

lol, so I should assume instead that it MIGHT become a sheep or a horse or a dog?....

Again, it's like the acorn/oak tree. An acorn will never become a magnolia tree or an apple tree but that does not mean an acorn is an oak tree. It is an acorn. It is not an oak tree.
Click to expand...

let's try it just one more time from a different angle....you mentioned stem cell research.....now, once a woman's egg has been fertilized and conception has occurred, there is something which exists which is different from the egg and different from the sperm.....a scientist can examine the DNA....what that scientist will tell you is this different thing is alive, it is human, it is something completely distinguishable from both the mother and the father.....if this were not true, there would BE no stem cell research, because they could simply use the sperm cell.....that thing is a living human individual.....granted, it is not a fully grown living human individual, thus it is not an "oak tree"....but "oak tree" does not equal "human being"...."oak tree" equals "human adult"....."oak" equals "human"....so when you kill that thing, you are killing a living human individual.....why are you killing living human individuals?......
 
LadyT said:
Well, that was very honorable of your friends from Illinois (a blue state I might add). But there are still thousands upon thousands of children in the system that need adoptive parents. Whether or not they 2 or 10, I think conservatives would have a lot more credibility, if instead of maligning women and trying to control their bodies, they focused all their venom and hate spewing and tried to get these kids homes. The link I provided accounted for the different stages of being in the foster care, and I believe there were between 100 and 200k kids that are waiting to be adopted. Why not focus more of that energy on the children that are already here if they insist on taking options away from the woman?
Click to expand...

again with the fail....

how do you republicans aren't doing anything? do you even realize that what you're saying is:

abortion is a good thing because then there would be less kids in fostercare....

WTF

no wonder you won't address my points and do nothing but insult
 
"no wonder you won't address my points and do nothing but insult "

LOL

That's a recurring theme with you as you're calling people morons & idiots.

And then, if people actually respond, they're stalking you, and are gay...
 
Onceler said:
"no wonder you won't address my points and do nothing but insult "

LOL

That's a recurring theme with you as you're calling people morons & idiots.

And then, if people actually respond, they're stalking you, and are gay...
Click to expand...

no dipstick....i address the issues and insult

moron and stalker....seriously, you had to follow me all around the board and make this post....

homosexual creep

:cof1:
 
Yurtie, everytime you call someone a hack, and stalker, and homosexual, it's basically a clinic in what is known around psychology circles as "projection."
 
LadyT said:
Illinois (a blue state I might add).
Click to expand...
I thought that was obvious from the fact they gave a five year old back to a drug addicted prostitute.....

But there are still thousands upon thousands of children in the system that need adoptive parents.
Click to expand...
who would already have been adopted if the state had terminated parental rights....don't blame those who want to adopt for the state's failure....

Whether or not they 2 or 10, I think conservatives would have a lot more credibility, if instead of maligning women and trying to control their bodies, they focused all their venom and hate spewing and tried to get these kids homes.
Click to expand...
should liberals not adopt?....or are they exempt because they are willing to kill?.......your false claims about the foster system are EPIC fail.....
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
Yurtie, everytime you call someone a hack, and stalker, and homosexual, it's basically a clinic in what is known around psychology circles as "projection."
Click to expand...

stop following me around like this....if you have something to say other than trying to psycho analyze me, then say it, i really don't care what you think about me

and seriously.....you're gay
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, it does. It requires the use of another body (that of the woman). Repubs/Conservatives/Right Wingers are adamant about human beings being individuals, yet, when it comes to embryos/fetuses they are anything but individuals. It can not survive without the use of the body parts of another human being.
Click to expand...

why don't you permit the murder of children who are born but unable to survive without life support?....


Simply stated it requires building blocks that the mother provides through her blood and use of her organs.
Click to expand...

lets not forget she volunteered for the job......the embryo did not force her to conceive a child.....
 
Dixie said:
Have to stop you again here apple... it's not a claim, it's a fact until you can offer us something to refute it. I'll ask you to tell us what kind of living organism is a human fetus, if not human? Or maybe you want to argue it's not alive, but then it wouldn't require termination, would it?

So before we go any further in the discussion, you need to present your evidence that a human fetus is not a human life form, or that it isn't living and in the state of being. Otherwise, we have to go with what science and biology tells us, that a fetus is indeed a human life.
Click to expand...

Please refer to my last post. We know an embryo/fetus is not a human being the same way we know an egg is not a chicken or an acorn an oak tree.

An egg has the same DNA as a chicken and science will tell you an acorn possesses the same makeup as an oak tree but an egg is not a chicken and an acorn is not an oak tree. Similarly, embryos/fetuses are not human beings.

Why do some folks insist on using DNA/scientific terms when discussing human beings and not when discussing other things? That's the question that needs answering.
 
apple0154 said:
First, as I mentioned before you keep discounting time.
Click to expand...

Time has nothing to do with what something IS! Time can measure the development of what something is, but it doesn't change what something already is. At point of conception, an egg stops being a clump of cells, a sperm stops being a blob of material, they concept human life. The process of human life begins at that point, and it continues until it is terminated or dies naturally. Time can measure the process of development, but it doesn't change what is.

Second, you wrote, "But the fact is, a fetus is already a human being, it doesn't require anything else to become a human being,...."

Yes, it does. It requires the use of another body (that of the woman). Repubs/Conservatives/Right Wingers are adamant about human beings being individuals, yet, when it comes to embryos/fetuses they are anything but individuals. It can not survive without the use of the body parts of another human being.

I'm not talking about a baby requiring feeding or an injured person requiring assistance. I'm talking about the use of another human being's organs and blood. I'm talking about living inside another human being's body. To say such an entity is a human being is taking the definition of "individual" and making a pretzel out of it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't require a human body to be a human being, it already IS a human being, it requires a human body to incubate it to another phase of development, but it is a human life, the mother's body doesn't make it that. Newborn infants require 24/7 care or they will die, how are they any different than a child in the womb?

Again, you point out that this "entity" is living, which I ask you again, what kind of living organism is it, if not human? As for individuality, it has its own DNA, it's own heartbeat, it's own genetic code, and it is precisely how every individual on this planet began life, so how is it not an individual? How can you continue to support an argument that it's NOT an individual, in every sense of the word?


Simply stated it requires building blocks that the mother provides through her blood and use of her organs. To claim an embryo/fetus is a human being and in turn deny a woman the right to remove it from her body is nothing short of the woman being a slave. Her body is owned by some one/thing other than her. The entire concept is repulsive. We may as well throw words like "individual" and "freedom" in the garbage can.
Click to expand...

Biology tells us it is a human being, it can't be any other form of living organism. It is not a "claim" it is a biological fact of the matter. You've presented NOTHING to refute this, and you can't. Indeed, it is currently legal for a woman to choose to terminate the life of the human being residing inside her body, it is done by the process of termination called abortion. The ethical question is not "ownership" of the woman's body, it is whether the woman has a moral obligation and responsibility to the human being she made the choice to create inside her body, or whether she can avoid responsibility by killing that human being.

As for the chicken/egg example comparisons/examples are used by logical people in order to evaluate things. We compare. That's how logical people come to logical conclusions.
Click to expand...

But you are comparing things that don't apply. A chicken egg is the same as a female egg. Women discard an egg every month during menstruation naturally. No one is opposing that, no one is questioning that. If we were discussing that, you chicken egg comparisons might be valid, but that isn't what we are discussing. Humans and chickens have different systems of reproduction, so any further comparisons are just not valid on any level, and the morality of daring to compare humans with chickens is fairly disgusting in itself, so we can dismiss your entire argument for being completely irrelevant.

How do we know a house is a house? We know by comparing it to other things we call houses. How do we know a car is a car? We compare it to other things we classify as a car. How do we know an embryo/fetus is not a human being? We know it's not because we know an egg is not a chicken nor is an acorn an oak tree.
Click to expand...

We know a human fetus or embryo is a human being because it can't be any other life form, and it is indeed some form of life. We don't have to 'classify' it as something, because it is human life, we already established that at point of conception, it is in an early developmental stage, but there is no disputing what kind of life form it is, or if it is living. You seem to want to think it isn't a human being because you can't see it... so is it okay to wrap someone in a blanket and shoot them in the head? Is it not murder if we do that? Did we not really kill a human being because we couldn't see them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top