Baby killers cause Komen to cave

apple0154 said:
No, the question of what it is has not been settled because we do not know if the fertilized cell has all the necessary "ingredients". It has to be able to carry on the processes of life in order to be classified as an organism and considering 50% do not carry on the processes of life it's both reasonable and logical to conclude they do not have the necessary ingredients.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, the question has been answered. We've had a 20 page thread about it, Apple. Are you going to ignorantly re-post the same debunked idiocy you posted last time? The process BEGAN... you fucking admitted a process began when you made the point about 50% of the "cells" aborting... they weren't "cells" though, what aborted was the two cells, possibly more, which was the result of conception. When it was a single cell, it was either a sperm cell or an egg cell.

I have already acknowledged, once the organism is no longer carrying on the process of life, it is no longer living.
 
JD Kramer said:
No, the Komen charity is proven now to be run by a politically motivated agenda; from the right.

Planned Parenthood does far more work providing inexpensive cancer screenings to poor women than the 3% referrals for abortions. It is now being funded by donations because unlike the politically motivated religious right, MOST Christians believe you should help the poor. IT's legal to have an abortion in this nation under the Roe v Wade laws. Unlike those who think the right has changed anything, they have only made it harder to GET an abortion because they MURDER abortion doctors. But the law is still on the books.
Click to expand...

It's idiotic to say that SGK "caved in to baby killers". What they're doing is protecting the brand, after that ham-handed decision to cut off funding to PP. Anybody who thinks their decision wasn't based on money just doesn't get it.
 
apple0154 said:
Ran away? :lol:

Just to set the record straight the birth is the demarkation point. Of course, some people like to take it to the absurd and ask if that means the exact moment the head appeared or the moment it completely left the woman's body or the exact second the umbilical cord was cut refusing to understand that birth, like pregnancy, is a process.

Let's say someone asks what time you arrived at a store. Do you tell them the time you first entered the parking lot? The moment you entered the mall? Or the exact second you entered a particular store? If someone asks what time you had dinner do you say the time you started or the time you finished or give an answer somewhere between the two?

I occasionally wonder how anti-abortionists function on a day-to-day basis. Whether it's "eggs are chickens" or nitpicking about the exact second something occurred it must be a most unusual life.
Click to expand...

I see you've added plate spinning to your skills of backpedaling and juggling. :D
 
christiefan915 said:
It's idiotic to say that SGK "caved in to baby killers". What they're doing is protecting the brand, after that ham-handed decision to cut off funding to PP. Anybody who thinks their decision wasn't based on money just doesn't get it.
Click to expand...

Well if it's about money, I think you are going to find there are a lot of pocketbooks and wallets which will not open for an organization who funds abortion. It's a matter of principle, and those people just won't donate to Komen anymore. Now maybe the 40% pro abortion activist libs can fund PP as well as SGK... but it just seems to me Komen shot themselves in the foot for no good reason here.
 
Darla said:
Karen Handel is out on her ass - she should be kept as far away from women's health as possible. Let her get back into politics. Politicians are good for no one's health.

I was glad to see it.
Click to expand...

(Excerpt) Over the weekend, Komen said George W. Bush's former White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, is working for the charity as a communications consultant. Jane Abraham, general chair of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, also serves as a board director for Komen's advocacy arm. (End)
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46295...ens-karen-handel-quits-after-funding-dispute/

Ari Fleischer, Jane Abraham and, of course, Handel who ran for the Republican Party in Georgia and that charity is supposed to be a bipartisan? Yep, and I'm a staunch anti-abortionist, Republican Conservative.
 
Dixie said:
cells spontaneously abort

spontaneously abort

cells abort

Abort? Abort WHAT????

(Hint: It's a process!)
Click to expand...

Abort what? Abort a cell or cells that did not contain the necessary ingredients to become a human being.

But you know that, didn't you?
 
apple0154 said:
Abort what? Abort a cell or cells that did not contain the necessary ingredients to become a human being.

But you know that, didn't you?
Click to expand...

In order to "abort" something has to be occurring first. In this case, it is the process of life. The sperm and egg cell contain the necessary ingredients, there is no other ingredient needed or required, or added at a later time. Conception occurs, the life process begins, and sometimes (for millions of different reasons) the process ends (or in other words, aborts.)
 
apple0154 said:
Backpedaling and juggling. Accusations without any supporting data. Same old, same old.
Click to expand...

It's not an accusation, it's an assessment.
All anyone has to do is review your posts; where after you've painted yourself into a corner, you change the subject to divert attention from your insanity. :)
 
Dixie said:
In order to "abort" something has to be occurring first. In this case, it is the process of life. The sperm and egg cell contain the necessary ingredients, there is no other ingredient needed or required, or added at a later time. Conception occurs, the life process begins, and sometimes (for millions of different reasons) the process ends (or in other words, aborts.)
Click to expand...

Ah, in the simple world of Dixie. Did you watch this video?

You think science knows all there is to know about DNA and genes and what constitutes a human being. I have news for you. They don't. They're just learning.

Remember the case where they "proved" a biological child was not a biological child because they didn't know a human being can contain two sets of DNA?

Science has no idea why 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort but you expect people to accept the idea every fertilized cell is a human being. Over-reach? Speculation? Or just plain old nutty?
 
Dixie said:
Well if it's about money, I think you are going to find there are a lot of pocketbooks and wallets which will not open for an organization who funds abortion. It's a matter of principle, and those people just won't donate to Komen anymore. Now maybe the 40% pro abortion activist libs can fund PP as well as SGK... but it just seems to me Komen shot themselves in the foot for no good reason here.
Click to expand...

PP has already received the money from an anonymous donor.

Whatever the outcome regarding Komen, look on the bright side. They tossed the VP who came with a political agenda. And this bears on what I've been saying about charities. Those who believe charities can replace government programs now see why they can not do so. They pick and choose who to help while government programs are standardized.
 
apple0154 said:
Ah, in the simple world of Dixie. Did you watch this video? [no]
You think science knows all there is to know about DNA and genes and what constitutes a human being. I have news for you. They don't. They're just learning.

Remember the case where they "proved" a biological child was not a biological child because they didn't know a human being can contain two sets of DNA?

Science has no idea why 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort but you expect people to accept the idea every fertilized cell is a human being. Over-reach? Speculation? Or just plain old nutty?
Click to expand...

Science is clear on when the life process begins, it has not been in question for decades. It does not matter what secrets DNA holds, biologists determined the life process begins at conception before DNA was discovered.

I expect any thinking, non-retarded person, to conclude that if something is aborted, it had to be happening first... and in this case, what was happening was the process of life. I expect there to be no question as to when this process began, and that a fertilized cell which has begun this process, is indeed a living human organism.... unless you are a retarded person, incapable of understanding biological facts. Once the life process has begun, it simply doesn't matter what the odds are for it to reach a certain level or stage, it is living until that point, and if it should die, has no bearing on the fact that it did live, and if it hadn't lived, couldn't have died.
 
Dixie said:
Science is clear on when the life process begins, it has not been in question for decades. It does not matter what secrets DNA holds, biologists determined the life process begins at conception before DNA was discovered.

I expect any thinking, non-retarded person, to conclude that if something is aborted, it had to be happening first... and in this case, what was happening was the process of life. I expect there to be no question as to when this process began, and that a fertilized cell which has begun this process, is indeed a living human organism.... unless you are a retarded person, incapable of understanding biological facts. Once the life process has begun, it simply doesn't matter what the odds are for it to reach a certain level or stage, it is living until that point, and if it should die, has no bearing on the fact that it did live, and if it hadn't lived, couldn't have died.
Click to expand...

I haven't lost hope in you, Dixie.

Maybe I can explain it this way. The idea a cell fertilizes and divides does not mean it has the necessary ingredients to continue dividing and growing.

Did you ever read about cloning? In the begining a cell would divide but wouldn't keep dividing. There was something wrong with the cell due to the procedure being used. The cell was damaged. We also know nature makes mistakes, as well. Damaged cells. There have been conjoined twins. Babies born with two heads. Babies born without a brain. Does one have to have a brain to be classified as a human being? (Don't bother with the silly remarks.)

It's logical to conclude other mistakes are made, mistakes that result in spontaneous abortion. Mistakes that result in a fertilized cell not having the required components to become a human being.

The point being we don't know but there are people actively trying to strip half the population of one of the most basic human rights, reproduction. Take a moment to think about it. It's quite disgusting. It's obscene.
 
apple0154 said:
I haven't lost hope in you, Dixie.

Maybe I can explain it this way. The idea a cell fertilizes and divides does not mean it has the necessary ingredients to continue dividing and growing.
Click to expand...

This is true, but if the fertilized cell divided, it began the process of replication. (aka: living) I have no argument for cells which did not replicate and died, I humbly surrender these cells are not living organisms. I disagree with your "necessary ingredients" premise, because all necessary ingredients are found in the sperm cell and egg cell, there is no other place where ingredients can come from or be obtained. Perhaps a component of the ingredients is defective? If this is the case, the organism may fail to form, in which case, it is never a living organism. I have no problem with aborting non-living organisms from the body, as most of us do this daily.

Did you ever read about cloning? In the begining a cell would divide but wouldn't keep dividing. There was something wrong with the cell due to the procedure being used. The cell was damaged. We also know nature makes mistakes, as well. Damaged cells. There have been conjoined twins. Babies born with two heads. Babies born without a brain. Does one have to have a brain to be classified as a human being? (Don't bother with the silly remarks.)
Click to expand...

If a baby is born without a brain, is it not still a living human organism? How about conjoined twins? Are they human beings? Or does their species change if they are not "perfect" by your criteria, Professor Apple?

It's logical to conclude other mistakes are made, mistakes that result in spontaneous abortion. Mistakes that result in a fertilized cell not having the required components to become a human being.
Click to expand...

What is logical to conclude is you're a fucking idiot who doesn't comprehend basic biology.
 
Dixie said:
This is true, but if the fertilized cell divided, it began the process of replication. (aka: living) I have no argument for cells which did not replicate and died, I humbly surrender these cells are not living organisms. I disagree with your "necessary ingredients" premise, because all necessary ingredients are found in the sperm cell and egg cell, there is no other place where ingredients can come from or be obtained. Perhaps a component of the ingredients is defective? If this is the case, the organism may fail to form, in which case, it is never a living organism. I have no problem with aborting non-living organisms from the body, as most of us do this daily.
Click to expand...


"the organism may fail to form, in which case, it is never a living organism." That is precisely my point. The cell may fertilize but not contain the necessary components, thus, such a cell is not and never was a human being. Therefore, all fertilized cells are not human beings and all fertilized cells are not the start of a human being's life and according to scientific findings there is a 50/50 chance that is the case.

If a baby is born without a brain, is it not still a living human organism? How about conjoined twins? Are they human beings? Or does their species change if they are not "perfect" by your criteria, Professor Apple?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point, Dixie. I mentioned those things as examples. If a fertilized cell can result in such abnormalities it's reasonable to conclude there are other abnormalities that may occur to the point where there is no human being. Such cells do not fully develop to the point of a birth so we do not know. Again, it's reasonable to conclude that happens considering 50% do not develop to the point of birth leading to only one logical conclusion which is all fertilized cells are not human beings.

What is logical to conclude is you're a fucking idiot who doesn't comprehend basic biology.
Click to expand...

Basic biology? I'm asking you to comprehend basic common sense. If a fertilized cell can result in such gross abnormalities it's logical to conclude a fertilized cell can possess abnormalities to such a degree it is not nor ever will develop into a human being. That means not all fertilized cells are human beings even if one assumes any fertilized cell constitutes a human being.

So, a fertilized cell is not necessarily the start of a human being's life. And, again, with 50% spontaneously aborting it's logical to conclude a lot of fertilized cells are not the start of any human being's life.

Are you not able to follow the basic logic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top