Baby killers cause Komen to cave

Superfreak said:
You are a fucking idiot. Where did I say there is no difference?

The two are completely separate stages of development. Just as toddlers and teens are different, yet BOTH are still human. Both are still the child of their parents. Aren't they moron?
Click to expand...


Your whole argument rests on the equivocation between fertilized eggs and children because you think it gives emotional force to your weak argument.
 
Superfreak said:
That isn't an argument supported by anything other than your personal emotions. The stupidity of that comment is astounding.
Click to expand...


The stupidity is your lack of understanding that not all fertilized eggs have the necessary components to become human beings as I explained in msg 119. It's not really that difficult to grasp. Therefore, considering not all fertilized eggs are human beings determining the point when they become human beings is arbitrary making birth as good a point as any considering it's been used for thousands of years.

Science has just scratched the surface of DNA and genes. DNA can not tell what is or isn't a human being. All it can do is determine what is human material. In other words it can not determine what is or isn't an organism which is vital prior to determining what is a human being.

Did you watch the video I posted or do you prefer revelling in your ignorance?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Your whole argument rests on the equivocation between fertilized eggs and children because you think it gives emotional force to your weak argument.
Click to expand...

LMAO... my entire argument is based on GENETICS. Yours is the one that is based on nothing more than emotion. Which is why you continue trying to create straw men rather than answering simple questions. You pretend I am saying that a toddler is the same as a fertilized egg. Why do you come up with such stupid straw men Dung?

Like I said, the term child bothers you because you prefer to dehumanize the child in order to feel better about ramming a metal spike in its head. If you prefer, I can use the term progeny. Or does that get you all emotional too?
 
Superfreak said:
Who are YOU to decide the child doesn't deserve a chance?
Click to expand...

A chance at misery? It is up to the potential mother to decide. Should YOU decide a child deserves a life of poverty and/or neglect and/or being shifted from foster home to foster home and/or spending years in an institution and/or enduring painful operations and other medical procedures all because of some twisted belief?
 
Superfreak said:
We have had this conversation many times... by your standard, we should go over to Africa/India/South America and kill off all the starving children and 'save' them a life of misery. See a homeless person? Put those bastards out of their misery, kill em off. Sorry, you are poor? Well, let me kill you and 'save' you a life of misery. What? You want a chance to fight for your life? Silly poor person, we know what is best for you. Death is way better for you. Trust us.
Click to expand...

To quote another poster, "Reductio ad absurdum."
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... my entire argument is based on GENETICS. Yours is the one that is based on nothing more than emotion. Which is why you continue trying to create straw men rather than answering simple questions. You pretend I am saying that a toddler is the same as a fertilized egg. Why do you come up with such stupid straw men Dung?

Like I said, the term child bothers you because you prefer to dehumanize the child in order to feel better about ramming a metal spike in its head. If you prefer, I can use the term progeny. Or does that get you all emotional too?
Click to expand...


The term child bothers me because it isn't accurate. You use it to give emotional force to your argument. A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg. If you ask a couple who in trying to have a child through in vitro fertilization how many children they have, they aren't going to say they have abut a dozen. Progeny is no more accurate.
 
apple0154 said:
The stupidity is your lack of understanding that not all fertilized eggs have the necessary components to become human beings as I explained in msg 119. It's not really that difficult to grasp. Therefore, considering not all fertilized eggs are human beings determining the point when they become human beings is arbitrary making birth as good a point as any considering it's been used for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

Again, please provide evidence to suggest they lack the genetic coding. Since it is not difficult to grasp, surely you have the data you are using to support your beliefs.

Again, just because it DIES, does not change the FACT that it is human. Having defects does not dehumanize the child. It means they have defects. Many survive birth with defects. Many as you stated, do not. It doesn't change the fact they are human.

Science has just scratched the surface of DNA and genes. DNA can not tell what is or isn't a human being. All it can do is determine what is human material. In other words it can not determine what is or isn't an organism which is vital prior to determining what is a human being.

Did you watch the video I posted or do you prefer revelling in your ignorance?
Click to expand...

LMAO... you are truly devoted in your dehumanization effort. As for the video... they are blocked now at work. So no, I have not seen it.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
The term child bothers me because it isn't accurate. You use it to give emotional force to your argument. A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg. If you ask a couple who in trying to have a child through in vitro fertilization how many children they have, they aren't going to say they have abut a dozen. Progeny is no more accurate.
Click to expand...

child/CHīld/
Noun:

A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority.
A son or daughter of any age.

Synonyms:
kid - baby - infant - bairn - offspring - babe - son

Funny, because by definition it fits BOTH of the above.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
The term child bothers me because it isn't accurate. You use it to give emotional force to your argument. A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg. If you ask a couple who in trying to have a child through in vitro fertilization how many children they have, they aren't going to say they have abut a dozen. Progeny is no more accurate.
Click to expand...

prog·e·ny/ˈpräjənē/
Noun:
A descendant or the descendants of a person, animal, or plant; offspring: "the progeny of mixed marriages".
Synonyms:
offspring - posterity - issue - seed - brood

Yep... that fits as well.

Perhaps you need a new dictionary? One that isn't devoted to dehumanization?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
The term child bothers me because it isn't accurate. You use it to give emotional force to your argument. A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg. If you ask a couple who in trying to have a child through in vitro fertilization how many children they have, they aren't going to say they have abut a dozen. Progeny is no more accurate.
Click to expand...

So again dear little Dung, the only one trying to inject emotion into the argument is YOU. By definition, by genetics, I am correct. You just don't want to believe it because you prefer to dehumanize them in order to justify their murder.
 
Superfreak said:
child/CHīld/
Noun:

A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority.
A son or daughter of any age.

Synonyms:
kid - baby - infant - bairn - offspring - babe - son

Funny, because by definition it fits BOTH of the above.
Click to expand...


What's the definition of "human being?"
 
Superfreak said:
prog·e·ny/ˈpräjənē/
Noun:
A descendant or the descendants of a person, animal, or plant; offspring: "the progeny of mixed marriages".
Synonyms:
offspring - posterity - issue - seed - brood

Yep... that fits as well.

Perhaps you need a new dictionary? One that isn't devoted to dehumanization?
Click to expand...


What's the definition of descendant?
 
Superfreak said:
How many times are you going to spout off the same stupidity?

Just because 50% (I would love to see where you get that stat)....
Click to expand...

Glad you asked. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm There are numerous other sites documenting the same thing.

......die and thus abort does not change the fact that they were human beings. Part of the process of life is the inevitable DEATH. For some it comes earlier than others. That doesn't change the SCIENCE. No matter how many stupid fucking analogies you try and post, NOTHING is going to change the actual genetics of the human life. If it is living, it will continue to grow. If it DIES, it is DEAD. Death doesn't change what it was when it was alive you moron. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?
Click to expand...

As I noted in msg 119,
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.
Click to expand...


Do you understand the first sentence? Considering the abnormalities we witness it's reasonable to conclude an egg that lacks the necessary ingredients with which to form a human being can be fertilized. That does not mean it is a human being or will ever become a human being. Science can not even tell us why 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, yet, you ramble on about science proving they're human beings.

Watch the video I posted and try to learn. The knowledge of DNA and genes is extremely limited. All science can determine is if something is composed of human material. It has absolutely no idea if a fertilized cell has the necessary components to develop into a human being so to assert science can prove something is a human being is sheer nonsense.

If you insist on putting your trust in science at least understand what science can and can not do.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
What's the definition of "human being?"
Click to expand...

Human:

hu·man/ˈ(h)yo͞omən/
Adjective:
Of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beings.
Noun:
A human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

Being:

be·ing/ˈbēiNG/
Noun:

Existence: "the railroad brought many towns into being".
Living; being alive.

Are you able to put the two together or do you need some help?
 
Superfreak said:
Human:

hu·man/ˈ(h)yo͞omən/
Adjective:
Of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beings.
Noun:
A human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

Being:

be·ing/ˈbēiNG/
Noun:

Existence: "the railroad brought many towns into being".
Living; being alive.

Are you able to put the two together or do you need some help?
Click to expand...


What's the definition of person?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top