A question for anti-choicers

Onceler said:
That's why I was very clear & made a point of saying A human, twice. I would not argue that the zygote isn't a human zygote, or that it isn't human.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you continue equating the TREE to HUMAN. That is incorrect. The TREE is an OAK. As is the acorn.

The embryo/zygote is HUMAN as is the ADULT.

I am simply talking genetics here. The acorn is oak. The zygote is human.

That is what the GENETICS tell us. Neither are fully developed... which is the point I think you are trying to make.
 
Yurt said:
nice try...i asked you first and i'm not going to let you play hostage taker over a simple request

if you can't provide the link, then just say so, don't play this stupid game

you get one more shot, if you don't provide the link or links, then there is nothing further for you and i to discuss on this matter
Click to expand...

life
  /laɪf/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahyf] Show IPA noun, plural lives  /laɪvz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahyvz] Show IPA , adjective
Use life in a Sentence
See web results for life
See images of life
–noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
Click to expand...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life

hu⋅man
  /ˈhyumən or, often, ˈyu‑/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hyoo-muhn or, often, yoo‑] Show IPA
Use human in a Sentence
See web results for human
See images of human
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty.
2. consisting of people: the human race.
3. of or pertaining to the social aspect of people: human affairs.
4. sympathetic; humane: a warmly human understanding.
–noun
5. a human being.
Click to expand...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Sexual_Reproduction.html#Pregnancy

Now....

CAN something that is growing and developing be DEAD? Yes or No?

CAN the combination of a human sperm cell and human egg cell produce anything other than a human offspring? Yes or No?
 
Superfreak said:
Again, incorrect.

"being" means to exist. The child still exists prior to birth.

It may not meet the legal definitions of "person", but it is still a human being from the moment of conception.
Click to expand...

"Being" means "to be" and one can't "be" until he/she has completed the gestation process.

All the ingredients for a cake to be a cake are there when it goes into the oven, but it isn't a cake until it comes out of the oven.
 
Superfreak said:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Sexual_Reproduction.html#Pregnancy

Now....

CAN something that is growing and developing be DEAD? Yes or No?

CAN the combination of a human sperm cell and human egg cell produce anything other than a human offspring? Yes or No?
Click to expand...

thanks for the obvious captain....but that does not address at all your "fact" that you stated earlier....have you already forgotten?

Superfreak said:
First and foremost, it is NOT a 'belief'... it is a scientific FACT that life begins at conception.

That said, the argument for when that life should be provided with basic human rights protection is up for debate.
Click to expand...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
"Being" means "to be" and one can't "be" until he/she has completed the gestation process.

All the ingredients for a cake to be a cake are there when it goes into the oven, but it isn't a cake until it comes out of the oven.
Click to expand...

Wrong. To "be" means to "exist"... it doesn't mean something has gone through certain developmental cycles.

To go to Lorax's acorn analogy... the acorn still EXISTS. It is still there. The fact that it hasn't gestated and developed into a fully grown oak tree doesn't change its level of existence.

As for your cake... it is still a cake... it simply is not fully developed. When a person puts all those ingredients in the oven... and someone asks what is in there, it smells good? what does the baker say?

Oh 'that is just a bunch of eggs and flour and other ingredients that I hope will soon become a cake'?
 
Yurt said:
thanks for the obvious captain....but that does not address at all your "fact" that you stated earlier....have you already forgotten?
Click to expand...

Again... which are you stating is incorrect yurt? Since you continue to refuse to answer the questions like a fucking coward.... how am I to address the part you have a problem with?

Which is it?

Do you think it isn't human?

Or do you think it isn't alive?

You have the definitions right there for the two words.... which one do you not comprehend Yurt?

Do you need to hear it from a geneticist.... here you go yurt... please tell me what you think is incorrect with this... quit running away yurt....

http://www.e-forensicmedicine.net/code.htm
 
Superfreak said:
Wrong. To "be" means to "exist"... it doesn't mean something has gone through certain developmental cycles.

To go to Lorax's acorn analogy... the acorn still EXISTS. It is still there. The fact that it hasn't gestated and developed into a fully grown oak tree doesn't change its level of existence.

As for your cake... it is still a cake... it simply is not fully developed. When a person puts all those ingredients in the oven... and someone asks what is in there, it smells good? what does the baker say?

Oh 'that is just a bunch of eggs and flour and other ingredients that I hope will soon become a cake'?
Click to expand...

If you serve the "cake" 5 minutes after putting it in the oven, whoever is eating it won't say it's cake. They'll say, "hey...this is just dough!"

As it moves along in the process, that will become a much less definitive statement. For instance, after the first 30 minutes, they might simply say "this is undercooked" or "could have used a few more minutes," but they'll identify it as cake.
 
Onceler said:
If you serve the "cake" 5 minutes after putting it in the oven, whoever is eating it won't say it's cake. They'll say, "hey...this is just dough!"

As it moves along in the process, that will become a much less definitive statement. For instance, after the first 30 minutes, they might simply say "this is undercooked" or "could have used a few more minutes," but they'll identify it as cake.
Click to expand...

Their inability to tell what it is does not change what it is. It is not suddenly going to bake into a pie.
 
Superfreak said:
Wrong. To "be" means to "exist"... it doesn't mean something has gone through certain developmental cycles.

To go to Lorax's acorn analogy... the acorn still EXISTS. It is still there. The fact that it hasn't gestated and developed into a fully grown oak tree doesn't change its level of existence.

As for your cake... it is still a cake... it simply is not fully developed. When a person puts all those ingredients in the oven... and someone asks what is in there, it smells good? what does the baker say?

Oh 'that is just a bunch of eggs and flour and other ingredients that I hope will soon become a cake'?
Click to expand...


Semantics.

If an acorn is an oak tree waiting to develop, then why don't we call it an oak tree instead of an acorn?

The acorn exists, as does the zygote. But WITHOUT the proper gestation period, it won't mature to the point of BEing a tree or a human.

As to the cake question? The baker would probably answer: "I am baking a cake, it will BE ready in about ________."
 
Superfreak said:
First and foremost, it is NOT a 'belief'... it is a scientific FACT that life begins at conception.

That said, the argument for when that life should be provided with basic human rights protection is up for debate.
Click to expand...

Superfreak said:
Again... which are you stating is incorrect yurt? Since you continue to refuse to answer the questions like a fucking coward.... how am I to address the part you have a problem with?

Which is it?

Do you think it isn't human?

Or do you think it isn't alive?

You have the definitions right there for the two words.... which one do you not comprehend Yurt?

Do you need to hear it from a geneticist.... here you go yurt... please tell me what you think is incorrect with this... quit running away yurt....

http://www.e-forensicmedicine.net/code.htm
Click to expand...

stop being obtuse....you have yet to provide a link to back this up:

Superfreak said:
First and foremost, it is NOT a 'belief'... it is a scientific FACT that life begins at conception.
That said, the argument for when that life should be provided with basic human rights protection is up for debate.
Click to expand...

all you did was give me definitions of life and human....are you really this stupid, i don't think you, so stop playing this stupid game and give me the link for the bolded part or we're done....while i appreciate your effort to give me a link to something, you failed to link to anything that proves the bolded....

i don't think you can, hence your pussyfooting aroudn
 
Onceler said:
And if someone pulls it out of the oven a few minutes into the cooking, it will never be a cake, either.
Click to expand...

wrong... it may be undeveloped, but it is still a cake.

you can make all the food analogies you like, but it will not change the fact that genetically the zygote is human. If that zygote is alive, it exists and thus is a being. I know you want to make it more complex and that you complain it isn't black and white... but it IS that black and white.

Whether the child is entitled to basic human rights or not... that is up for debate and currently the arbitrary line in the sand tends to be within the first trimester (unless the mothers health is at risk).

As science progresses in technology and we are able to understand more and maybe even one day be able to save the life of the child in the first trimester outside of the uterus, then perhaps we can end the silliness of pretending genetics suddenly appear.
 
No one looks at a clump of dough and says "that's a cake." No one.

And it's not black and white because you say it is. You rely on a very, VERY narrow definition for your argument, and always have. The fact that you fail to acknowledge the other considerations & the complexities of the argument does not mean that these do not exist.

Quite the contrary.
 
Yurt said:
stop being obtuse....you have yet to provide a link to back this up:



all you did was give me definitions of life and human....are you really this stupid, i don't think you, so stop playing this stupid game and give me the link for the bolded part or we're done....while i appreciate your effort to give me a link to something, you failed to link to anything that proves the bolded....

i don't think you can, hence your pussyfooting aroudn
Click to expand...

the eforensics site shows you the genetics behind my statement you twit.

http://www.e-forensicmedicine.net/code.htm

The only one pussyfooting around is YOU.

YOU are to much of a coward to answer those two simple questions. Because you know the answers to both and you know that when you answer them it will show that there is no other conclusion that what I stated as FACT.

It is a FACT that the zygote is human.

It is a FACT that it is alive.

Therefore it is moronic to pretend it is not a human life.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
No one looks at a clump of dough and says "that's a cake." No one.

And it's not black and white because you say it is. You rely on a very, VERY narrow definition for your argument, and always have. The fact that you fail to acknowledge the other considerations & the complexities of the argument does not mean that these do not exist.

Quite the contrary.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge the arbitrary portions of the discussion.

If you think the genetics is wrong, show me where it is WRONG.

The only 'complexities' you have introduced are the arbitrary portions. There is NOTHING to dispute with what I stated with regards to it being human and alive. Nothing.... unless you care to show me how it is possible for it to be anything other than human.

Your hang up is that you have this "person" definition stuck in your head and continue to want to equate the arbitrary nature of ITS definition with that of the word 'human'.

If I recall correctly, that is precisely why the Supremes stated that the unborn child was not a "person" (in Roe vs. Wade) and thus not entitled to the basic human rights protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Note: I am not positive on this, but that is the best of my recollection.
 
Superfreak said:
the eforensics site shows you the genetics behind my statement you twit.

http://www.e-forensicmedicine.net/code.htm

The only one pussyfooting around is YOU.

YOU are to much of a coward to answer those two simple questions. Because you know the answers to both and you know that when you answer them it will show that there is no other conclusion that what I stated as FACT.

It is a FACT that the zygote is human.

It is a FACT that it is alive.

Therefore it is moronic to pretend it is not a human life.
Click to expand...

nice try...you did not give this link in post 102....you gave the definition for life and human....not this link....

your dishonesty is underwhelming....and furthermore, the link above, while good, clearly states that the issue is STILL CONTROVERSIAL....only in his opinion it should not be

thus, all scientists have not concluded it as fact.....i'm glad you finally stopped pussyfooting around and gave an actual link on what you claimed...
 
Yurt said:
nice try...you did not give this link in post 102....you gave the definition for life and human....not this link....

your dishonesty is underwhelming....and furthermore, the link above, while good, clearly states that the issue is STILL CONTROVERSIAL....only in his opinion it should not be

thus, all scientists have not concluded it as fact.....i'm glad you finally stopped pussyfooting around and gave an actual link on what you claimed...
Click to expand...

I did not state which post it was in you twit... but given that you quoted the link in one of your posts, I assumed you had missed it.

You obviously are continuing to be a fucking pussy and refusing to answer the two simple questions.... WHY is that yurt? Does the yellow down your spine start glowing when you run away so often?

As for the site... you clearly did not read it. Do try to actually read the links you beg for so much.
 
Superfreak said:
I did not state which post it was in you twit... but given that you quoted the link in one of your posts, I assumed you had missed it.

You obviously are continuing to be a fucking pussy and refusing to answer the two simple questions.... WHY is that yurt? Does the yellow down your spine start glowing when you run away so often?

As for the site... you clearly did not read it. Do try to actually read the links you beg for so much.
Click to expand...

nice try...you specifically respond to my request for a link without the above link...if you put the link in some other post without stating it was in response to my request, that is your fault, not mine

i did read your link, you didn't....he states there is a controversy, however, there shouldn't be....

and btw...it took you multiple requests, demands for you to give a link, so according to your logic, you're fucking pussy....lmao...and again, according to your logic, why are begging me to answer your questions? guess what, beg some more becuase you still haven't given me anything but opinion as to what is a fact and what isn't.....

as the issue is still controversial, you cannot declare it as "scientific fact."

you apparently have no fucking clue what a scientific fact is, so you might want to recant your statement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top