Baby killers cause Komen to cave

[apple0154]

ROFLMAO... seriously, an average third grader is going to have a better grasp on genetics than you. You have to be the most ignorant poster on this topic. You have no fucking clue what genetics tells us. Do you honestly believe that it isn't human ten minutes before birth? You have proven in the above that you DO believe in the magic human fairy that comes and turns it human so that it can 'live outside of water'.

They say fools laugh a lot.

Go back to your third grade book. Do you not recall learning about fish and gills and how they breath under water? Do you not recall being warned about swimming and possibly drowning? Or maybe certain folks hoped you wouldn't know.

It appears you are the believer in a magic fairy or maybe you believe human beings are amphibians. (Excerpt)The amphibians belong to the class amphibian. Ectothermoc or cold blooded animals like frogs, toads, salamanders, newts, and caecilians metamorphose from a juvenile, water breathing form to an adult, air breathing form. Amphibians are four limbed animals. As by their ancestors "the fish" the amphibians lay eggs in the water. Amphibians are similar to the reptiles. (End)
http://www.animalsworlds.com/

"a juvenile, water breathing form to an adult, air breathing form" There we are. We're all Newts.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We, doctors, scientists or anyone else, do not know if fertilized cells have all the necessary components to carry on the processes of life and considering 50% don't carry on the processes of life the logical conclusion is they didn't have the necessary components.

There's two ways to look at this. One is that a lot of fertilized cells don't have the necessary components to become human beings or they are all human beings and half of all human beings die within hours of coming into existence. Logic tells me the first conclusion is the correct one.

Oh yes we do know, Apple... YOU don't know, because you are a hard-headed stubborn idiot who refuses science... but the rest of us KNOW that life begins at conception.

Again, if the fertilized cell split and replicated, it carried on the process of life. Inorganic material can't replicate.

If something DIES... it HAS to first be ALIVE! It is logically, physically, and mentally impossible for something to DIE without being alive first. Just can't fucking happen, Apple! Sorry!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

They say fools laugh a lot.

Go back to your third grade book. Do you not recall learning about fish and gills and how they breath under water? Do you not recall being warned about swimming and possibly drowning? Or maybe certain folks hoped you wouldn't know.

It appears you are the believer in a magic fairy or maybe you believe human beings are amphibians. (Excerpt)The amphibians belong to the class amphibian. Ectothermoc or cold blooded animals like frogs, toads, salamanders, newts, and caecilians metamorphose from a juvenile, water breathing form to an adult, air breathing form. Amphibians are four limbed animals. As by their ancestors "the fish" the amphibians lay eggs in the water. Amphibians are similar to the reptiles. (End)
http://www.animalsworlds.com/

"a juvenile, water breathing form to an adult, air breathing form" There we are. We're all Newts.

Wow... you truly are getting desperate now aren't you? The above is yet more nonsense from you. There is no magic baby fairy that comes and turns the child human. It is ALWAYS human you moron. ALWAYS.

 

[apple0154]

lol... tell us Apple... how can we tell what type of cell it is? If we took a liver cell and a fertilized egg cell and put them in petri dishes how does the scientist know which is which?

Let's keep on track here. I said DNA can determine what is human material. We're talking about genetic coding and the genetic code determines the material and not the specific place where the material came from. Don't try pulling another Repub.

That is where you are wrong. No matter how many times you state the above nonsense, we know. What you continue to ignore is that your very own site said that those 50% that spontaneously abort do so for reasons other than genetic defects. What part of that are you too ignorant to grasp?

What part of "they don't know if all the cells contained the necessary material" are you too ignorant to grasp? Do more research because this is getting boring.

No matter how many times you state the above nonsense, it won't change the facts of genetics. Just because the organism dies doesn't mean it was never an organism. That is yet another basic fact of biology that you can't seem to grasp. By your definition, nothing could be classified as an organism.

I'll try one more time. They do not know if ALL the spontaneously aborted cells contained the necessary material. They don't know what causes miscarriages so how the hell can they say it's not due to a genetic defect? Try using a little common sense. There is a cross-section of people who suffer spontaneous abortions. It does not affect one specific group and the logical conclusion is many are due to some genetic defect.

Now you are just tossing out crap and hoping something sticks. NONE of the above has been any part of my argument on genetics. NONE of the above has anything to do with GENETICS.

Oh, please. It has everything to do with the genetic discussion. Why do you think anti-abortionists run around saying DNA proves something is a human being? Why would DNA be discussed to the degree it is if anti-abortionists hadn't jumped on the DNA wagon and spewed all the nonsense.

DNA profiling/testing can not tell if something is a human being. It can only tell if it is composed of human material. In other words if one took a sample of material to be tested DNA can not tell if it's from a leg, an arm, a back or a foot so how the hell can it determine if something is a human being if it can't determine if something is a foot? Or an arm?

Anyway, on that note I'm going to start up my little car. It's been a few months and it needs a run. I'll be back later.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Let's keep on track here. I said DNA can determine what is human material. We're talking about genetic coding and the genetic code determines the material and not the specific place where the material came from. Don't try pulling another Repub.

Again Apple... WHAT is it that you think enables scientists to determine where the cell came from? I will give you a hint: It starts with DN... and ends with A.

If you disagree, then you will obviously share with us how it is you think they determine the origin of the cell.

What part of "they don't know if all the cells contained the necessary material" are you too ignorant to grasp? Do more research because this is getting boring.

Again moron, they DO KNOW. YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK STATED THAT THE MAJORITY DO NOT SPONTANEOUSLY ABORT DUE TO THE GENES. WHAT FUCKING PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?

I'll try one more time. They do not know if ALL the spontaneously aborted cells contained the necessary material. They don't know what causes miscarriages so how the hell can they say it's not due to a genetic defect? Try using a little common sense. There is a cross-section of people who suffer spontaneous abortions. It does not affect one specific group and the logical conclusion is many are due to some genetic defect.

1) the above is simply nonsense. Every fertilized egg contains the genetic mapping for a unique human life. Whether or not defects exist doesn't change the FACT that it is human. Period.

2) AGAIN, your own fucking site stated that the majority of spontaneous abortions are NOT DUE TO GENES. WHAT FUCKING PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Oh, please. It has everything to do with the genetic discussion. Why do you think anti-abortionists run around saying DNA proves something is a human being?

Because IT DOES PROVE IT IS A HUMAN BEING YOU FUCKING IMBECILE.

Why would DNA be discussed to the degree it is if anti-abortionists hadn't jumped on the DNA wagon and spewed all the nonsense.

Moron... it is the pro-abortionists that are spewing the nonsense. If you notice, the more rationale pro-choice people acknowledge the BASIC SCIENCE that proves that GENETICALLY it is a human being. It is only the die hard morons who wish to dehumanize the progeny that spew the nonsense. Though even most of them wouldn't make arguments as absurd as the ones you continue to spew forth.

DNA profiling/testing can not tell if something is a human being.

Wrong.

It can only tell if it is composed of human material.

Wrong.

In other words if one took a sample of material to be tested DNA can not tell if it's from a leg, an arm, a back or a foot so how the hell can it determine if something is a human being if it can't determine if something is a foot? Or an arm?

My lord you are quite fucking retarded.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'll try one more time. They do not know if ALL the spontaneously aborted cells contained the necessary material. They don't know what causes miscarriages so how the hell can they say it's not due to a genetic defect? Try using a little common sense. There is a cross-section of people who suffer spontaneous abortions. It does not affect one specific group and the logical conclusion is many are due to some genetic defect.

If the fertilized cell replicated, it became an organism, it met the criteria of carrying on the process of life by replicating itself. No matter how 'defective' it might be, genetically or otherwise, it doesn't change the fact that an organism existed. If an organism did not exist, there wouldn't be anything for the cell to spontaneously 'abort' from. Try using a little common sense, something can't die if it's not alive, something can't abort a process which hasn't begun. You are grasping at illogicality.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

We're talking about characteristics associated with things. That's the point. Fish live in a liquid environment. It would not be a fish if it lived on land and breathed in a gaseous atmosphere. Likewise, a bird wouldn't be a bird if it lived deep in the ocean. It follows that something which lives in a liquid environment is not a human being.

Another problem that arises when discussing abortion is the terms we apply to anything else and everything else are grossly distorted or simply not applied to human beings. From plants and animals to inanimate objects there is a past, present and future. There is a time line. There is a process. That's why we do not refer to acorns as oak trees or eggs as chickens or a foundation hole as a house. Language and concepts are distorted to the point where an understanding between opposing views becomes impossible because the ability to compare and relate to other things is removed.

Spin it all you want; but the fetus is a human baby that after approx. 9 months will be expeled from the mothers womb, into this world.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

ROFLMAO... seriously, an average third grader is going to have a better grasp on genetics than you. You have to be the most ignorant poster on this topic. You have no fucking clue what genetics tells us. Do you honestly believe that it isn't human ten minutes before birth? You have proven in the above that you DO believe in the magic human fairy that comes and turns it human so that it can 'live outside of water'.

But don't leave out the part, that this doesn't occur until the birth is registered.
No registration, no human being.
At least according to Apple.

 

[apple0154]

Again Apple... WHAT is it that you think enables scientists to determine where the cell came from? I will give you a hint: It starts with DN... and ends with A.

If you disagree, then you will obviously share with us how it is you think they determine the origin of the cell.



Again moron, they DO KNOW. YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK STATED THAT THE MAJORITY DO NOT SPONTANEOUSLY ABORT DUE TO THE GENES. WHAT FUCKING PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?



1) the above is simply nonsense. Every fertilized egg contains the genetic mapping for a unique human life. Whether or not defects exist doesn't change the FACT that it is human. Period.

2) AGAIN, your own fucking site stated that the majority of spontaneous abortions are NOT DUE TO GENES. WHAT FUCKING PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?





Because IT DOES PROVE IT IS A HUMAN BEING YOU FUCKING IMBECILE.



Moron... it is the pro-abortionists that are spewing the nonsense. If you notice, the more rationale pro-choice people acknowledge the BASIC SCIENCE that proves that GENETICALLY it is a human being. It is only the die hard morons who wish to dehumanize the progeny that spew the nonsense. Though even most of them wouldn't make arguments as absurd as the ones you continue to spew forth.



Wrong.



Wrong.



My lord you are quite fucking retarded.

In msg #281 you wrote, “What you continue to ignore is that your very own site said that those 50% that spontaneously abort do so for reasons other than genetic defects.”

Now you write (Msg #286), “YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK STATED THAT THE MAJORITY DO NOT SPONTANEOUSLY ABORT DUE TO THE GENES.”

So, stop pulling a Repub and state either one or the other because msg #281 implies ALL the 50% that spontaneously abort due so due to reasons other than genetic defects while msg #286 states “THE MAJORITY DO NOT SPONTANEOUSLY ABORT DUE TO THE GENES.” So, is it ALL or is it “THE MAJORITY” because if it’s the majority and not ALL then that means SOME of the fertilized cells do not contain the necessary components to carry on the processes of life.

So stop this bullshit of offering misleading, ambiguous crap.

As for being able to determine where a cell originated you are correct, however, that has nothing to do with this discussion. The point I wanted to make is DNA does not determine what is and what isn't a human being. If it determines what a liver cell is, fine. It's a liver cell and a liver is not a human being. If DNA determines a cell is a kidney cell, fine. A kidney is not a human being. As I stated from the very beginning DNA can only determine human material. It can not determine what is a human being.

When a DNA profile is requested a sample may be taken from inside the mouth, a blood draw, a skin cell, etc. Basic common sense should tell you if a DNA profile can be produced from any of those samples and all results are equally valid and knowing saliva and blood and a skin cell are not human beings then DNA can not determine what is a human being. It can only determine what is human material.

So, stop pulling a Repub by veering off track by trying to pull the conversation all over hell and produce something concrete. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if DNA can determine a liver cell or a kidney cell. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if the majority of fertilized cells abort due to reasons other than defects. The point is there are some fertilized cells so damaged they can not carry on the processes of life which means they are not organisms which means they are not human beings which means all fertilized cells are not the start of a human being's life which means the anti-abortionist argument is null and void.

The anti-abortionist argument that all fertilized cells are human beings is not true and that's the foundation of their argument. They have no proof and if you took the time to educate yourself and check other web sites you'll see there is no proof of such an absurd idea.

EDIT: I feel better now.

 

[apple0154]

If the fertilized cell replicated, it became an organism, it met the criteria of carrying on the process of life by replicating itself. No matter how 'defective' it might be, genetically or otherwise, it doesn't change the fact that an organism existed. If an organism did not exist, there wouldn't be anything for the cell to spontaneously 'abort' from. Try using a little common sense, something can't die if it's not alive, something can't abort a process which hasn't begun. You are grasping at illogicality.

The process was faulty which means there was no organism. A fertilized cell has to divide. The division has to be done correctly just as anything else has to be done correctly to say it has been done.

Again, it's this crazy twisting of language/logic that continually creeps into anti-abortionist arguments. In every day life if something is done so poorly it does not function we say it wasn't one. Whether it's a matter of being disingenuous or outright lies such nonsense does nothing to forward to anti-abortionist cause.

 

[apple0154]

Spin it all you want; but the fetus is a human baby that after approx. 9 months will be expeled from the mothers womb, into this world.

Maybe, maybe not. Miscarriages happen.

 

[apple0154]

But don't leave out the part, that this doesn't occur until the birth is registered.
No registration, no human being.
At least according to Apple.

Ah, yes. Pulling a Repub, I see.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The point is there are some fertilized cells so damaged they can not carry on the processes of life which means they are not organisms which means they are not human beings which means all fertilized cells are not the start of a human being's life which means the anti-abortionist argument is null and void.

The point is, you are just plain WRONG.

Let's take it really slow... There is a sperm cell and egg cell. Neither is an organism, because neither can carry on the process of life, they are 'alive' because they are produced by another organism which gives them life, the male or female human in this case. These cells may, at any time, expire or decay, and become non-functional, they are not organisms. The DNA of the sperm cell matches the DNA of the male, and the DNA of the egg matches the female. No one, to my knowledge, has any objection to discarding these cells, even while they are individually 'alive' and before they have decayed or become non-functional. Some religions do not believe in birth control, but that's about the only real objection anyone has with discarding 'alive' individual cells.

NOW... When the sperm cell penetrates the egg cell, an instant chemical reaction takes place, no other sperm cell can enter the egg. At this point in time, a process is beginning. We know that it is a process because chemical reactions are happening and things are changing. We have defined the process of what is currently happening, as "fertilization" or "conception." This is where it is extremely important for you to pay attention, if you expect to learn anything here. This process of fertilization/conception, can have two possible outcomes, it can be successful or unsuccessful. This is determined by what happens next. If the cell replicates into two cells, the fertilization is successful, and a new unique human organism comes into existence at that moment. If it fails to replicate, there is no conception or organism because replication didn't happen. The remains of the now expired sperm and egg cell, will eventually be discarded by the body, and again, I know of no one who is opposed to this.

Where you are failing in your understanding, is the actual biological requirement for something to be considered an organism. You are misinterpreting "able to carry on the process of life" and then mis-applying your misinterpretation. When the successful fertilization was confirmed, the egg cell stopped being a single cell, and replicated into two cells. Once the cell has replicated, it has carried on the process of life, no further requirement to continue it exists. It can die then, it can die a century later, it is forever a unique organism at that point, and this can be confirmed by its unique DNA as well.

 

[apple0154]

The point is, you are just plain WRONG.

Let's take it really slow... There is a sperm cell and egg cell. Neither is an organism, because neither can carry on the process of life, they are 'alive' because they are produced by another organism which gives them life, the male or female human in this case. These cells may, at any time, expire or decay, and become non-functional, they are not organisms. The DNA of the sperm cell matches the DNA of the male, and the DNA of the egg matches the female. No one, to my knowledge, has any objection to discarding these cells, even while they are individually 'alive' and before they have decayed or become non-functional. Some religions do not believe in birth control, but that's about the only real objection anyone has with discarding 'alive' individual cells.

NOW... When the sperm cell penetrates the egg cell, an instant chemical reaction takes place, no other sperm cell can enter the egg. At this point in time, a process is beginning. We know that it is a process because chemical reactions are happening and things are changing. We have defined the process of what is currently happening, as "fertilization" or "conception." This is where it is extremely important for you to pay attention, if you expect to learn anything here. This process of fertilization/conception, can have two possible outcomes, it can be successful or unsuccessful. This is determined by what happens next. If the cell replicates into two cells, the fertilization is successful, and a new unique human organism comes into existence at that moment. If it fails to replicate, there is no conception or organism because replication didn't happen. The remains of the now expired sperm and egg cell, will eventually be discarded by the body, and again, I know of no one who is opposed to this.

Where you are failing in your understanding, is the actual biological requirement for something to be considered an organism. You are misinterpreting "able to carry on the process of life" and then mis-applying your misinterpretation. When the successful fertilization was confirmed, the egg cell stopped being a single cell, and replicated into two cells. Once the cell has replicated, it has carried on the process of life, no further requirement to continue it exists. It can die then, it can die a century later, it is forever a unique organism at that point, and this can be confirmed by its unique DNA as well.

When was there a human being? Was the single cell a human being before it divided or were the two cells that formed the first time a human being was present?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Maybe, maybe not. Miscarriages happen.

But I wasn't speaking of such, I was discussing the fact that an unborn baby is still a human.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Ah, yes. Pulling a Repub, I see.

I'm glad that you're finally acknowledging your behavior; but since it is you, it probably should be referred to as "Burying your head".

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

When was there a human being? Was the single cell a human being before it divided or were the two cells that formed the first time a human being was present?

There was an organism as soon as a single cell replicated itself into two cells, Apple. Inorganic material can't do that. A sperm, egg, skin, or kidney cell, can't replicate itself, it's not able to carry on the process of life. It is when the cell replicates, the cell becomes two cells, and has met the criteria for an organism.

So now we are sure, because of replication, that it is a living organism. There is no other possible classification we can give it. It replicated itself, so it can't be inorganic material. Because we know, in this case, that the sperm and egg are human, there is no possibility it can be anything other than a human organism. The organism exists in a state of being. Therefore, it is a human being... albeit, at the earliest possible stage of development. From here, you are more than welcome to have any number of opinions and arguments on when the human being is 'valid' or 'legitimate' or 'sentient' or whatever... that's fine... but you can't argue that it is not a human organism after conception, because that is exactly what it is.

 

[apple0154]

There was an organism as soon as a single cell replicated itself into two cells, Apple. Inorganic material can't do that. A sperm, egg, skin, or kidney cell, can't replicate itself, it's not able to carry on the process of life. It is when the cell replicates, the cell becomes two cells, and has met the criteria for an organism.

So now we are sure, because of replication, that it is a living organism. There is no other possible classification we can give it. It replicated itself, so it can't be inorganic material. Because we know, in this case, that the sperm and egg are human, there is no possibility it can be anything other than a human organism. The organism exists in a state of being. Therefore, it is a human being... albeit, at the earliest possible stage of development. From here, you are more than welcome to have any number of opinions and arguments on when the human being is 'valid' or 'legitimate' or 'sentient' or whatever... that's fine... but you can't argue that it is not a human organism after conception, because that is exactly what it is.

So when a cancer cell divides and grows is it a human being?

 

[apple0154]

But I wasn't speaking of such, I was discussing the fact that an unborn baby is still a human.

Composed of human material. Not necessarily a human being.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So when a cancer cell divides and grows is it a human being?

Cancer cells do not divide and grow on their own, they are produced, like skin and kidney cells, by the human organism. Cancer is not an organism itself, it can't carry on the process of life. If cancer were an organism, curing it would be easy, just "abort" the cancer from the body... but cancer isn't an organism, it is a disease.