Baby killers cause Komen to cave

USFREEDOM911 said:
There was no misunderstanding.
It was your words and you're the one who posted them.

You've been looking silly for so long; that it while it would be refreshing, your system probably couldn't handle the shock of logic. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I did, to explain to you the importance of birth. It is a government registered event. Now, mind you, I can definitely understand an event leading to conception can be, shall we say, earth-shattering but usually only to those immediately involved. :D
 
Dixie said:
If it replicated, an organism had to be formed, because inorganic material doesn't replicate. Whether it continued to carry on the process of life, is academic. If it had the ability to replicate, it met the requirement, however brief the moment. You again admit that "it quickly expired" but how can something "expire" that isn't alive? If something "can start dying" it has to be alive, it is impossible for something to die that isn't alive. When something organic becomes no longer able to sustain life, it is dead, and I have not argued that point... still, that point does not mean that something which died was never alive.
Click to expand...

Bump!
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, I did, to explain to you the importance of birth. It is a government registered event. Now, mind you, I can definitely understand an event leading to conception can be, shall we say, earth-shattering but usually only to those immediately involved. :D
Click to expand...

LMAO... who gives a crap if it is a 'government registered event'??? What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING we are discussing?
 
Dixie said:
If it replicated, an organism had to be formed, because inorganic material doesn't replicate. Whether it continued to carry on the process of life, is academic. If it had the ability to replicate, it met the requirement, however brief the moment. You again admit that "it quickly expired" but how can something "expire" that isn't alive? If something "can start dying" it has to be alive, it is impossible for something to die that isn't alive. When something organic becomes no longer able to sustain life, it is dead, and I have not argued that point... still, that point does not mean that something which died was never alive.
Click to expand...

Yes, the egg was alive. So was the sperm. You confuse "life" with "human being". Whether we talk about a liver or a rose they're both "alive" but neither one is a human being.

As for "If it replicated, an organism had to be formed" is where you're mistaken. An organism does not necessarily form because......you know the answer.....it is defective. Defective, as in not being able to carry on the processes of life, meaning it's not an organism.
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, the egg was alive. So was the sperm. You confuse "life" with "human being". Whether we talk about a liver or a rose they're both "alive" but neither one is a human being.

As for "If it replicated, an organism had to be formed" is where you're mistaken. An organism does not necessarily form because......you know the answer.....it is defective. Defective, as in not being able to carry on the processes of life, meaning it's not an organism.
Click to expand...

If it replicated, it carried on the process. You are confusing "living organism" with "living cells" here. A sperm and an egg, are individual cells, not living organisms. They are 'alive' temporarily and can not carry on the process of life. By 'alive' it might be said they are 'active' instead, to more adequately illustrate this to you. They are not "living" but are germane, for a short period of time, and as a direct result of the host. If their purpose is met, the two cells merge and fertilization takes place. If fertilization is successful, an organism is produced, and that organism continues to grow and replicate until it dies. There is no case where fertilization is successful and no organism is produced, if nothing is produced, there is no successful fertilization. If any replication takes place, even just one cell... it is a living human organism for that moment, regardless of what happens to it after that. If it is defective, it may not continue to be a living organism, but that doesn't change what it is before it dies.
 
Superfreak said:
Seriously, you are truly embarrassing yourself. Having a defect that causes death does not change whether or not it is human. It simply doesn't. It can be nothing other than human. Some people with defects are born. Many are not. ALL are human. As long as they are alive, they are a human being.
Click to expand...

As I noted in msg #205 it has to be able to carry on the processes of life. If the cell that replicated resulted in producing something that could not carry on the processes of life that means an organism was not formed. It's not "as long as it's alive". Many things which are alive are not human beings. Maybe try looking up the definition.

The stupidity in the above has gone beyond the 1/3 discussions stupidity. All fertilized cells are not human beings. All human ovum that are fertilized by human sperm ARE human beings. Just because something is defective doesn't change what it is. Using your car analogy: If one car comes off the assembly line with a defect that causes it to not work... is it still a car? Think long and hard on that moron.
Click to expand...

Is a car a human being? Please, stop being a jackass.

Anti-abortionists want to jump on the scientific bandwagon. Fine. Let's all jump on it and we'll see the scientific bandwagon says a human being has to qualify as an organism and an organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life. That's it in a nut shell or fertilized egg, if you prefer. Unless and until something can carry on the processes of life it is not a human being. That is the scientific definition.

Now, anti-abortionists say all fertilized cells are human beings. However, if a particular fertilized cell can not divide properly that is proof it is not capable of carrying on the processes of life. There is absolutely no proof those cells contain all the necessary ingredients in order to qualify as an organism so it's patently absurd to assume 50% of human beings die within hours of creation when one doesn't have a shred of proof regarding the make-up of those cells.

In NO way have you falsified my argument. You have simply proven to the board beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have NO understanding of genetics.
Click to expand...

I have shown you have no understanding of what constitutes an organism. Neither you nor anyone else has any idea why 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort. Neither you nor anyone else knows if those cells contained the necessary components to be classified as an organism, yet, you and your ilk insist on sticking your respective noses in every woman's pants by insisting they are/were organisms when no one has any proof, whatsoever. It's really rather disgusting.

ROFLMAO...

1) Can we or can we not tie DNA to a SPECIFIC human being?
Click to expand...

Most times. It appears you forgot the case where "experts" swore on the Bible a woman's biological child was not her biological child. They didn't know a person can have two sets of DNA.

Gee, who would have thought scientists could make a mistake.

2) With genetic mapping, we CAN determine who is more susceptible to certain diseases.
Click to expand...

Who is more susceptible? Oh, please. Obviously, you never watched the video I posted.

You talk about embarrassing oneself. Barely a decade after genome mapping and you think we know it all. We know sh!t as far as genes go. We don't even know how many there are, for gawd's sake. We know, maybe, a handful and we have no idea how that handful interacts with each other. We're just starting to discover a defective gene reacts differently depending on from which parent it was received and we have clowns such as yourself wanting to restrict the rights of half the population based on nothing but ignorance.

ROFLMAO, indeed! I'm betting it will be shown anti-abortionists are the descendants of court jesters.
images
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... who gives a crap if it is a 'government registered event'??? What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING we are discussing?
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it because some smart ass asked for the exact instant a birth took place and I explained it was a process. It is expelled from the body. The umbilical cord is cut. The birth is registered so people know a birth took place.
 
Dixie said:
If it replicated, it carried on the process. You are confusing "living organism" with "living cells" here. A sperm and an egg, are individual cells, not living organisms. They are 'alive' temporarily and can not carry on the process of life. By 'alive' it might be said they are 'active' instead, to more adequately illustrate this to you. They are not "living" but are germane, for a short period of time, and as a direct result of the host. If their purpose is met, the two cells merge and fertilization takes place. If fertilization is successful, an organism is produced, and that organism continues to grow and replicate until it dies. There is no case where fertilization is successful and no organism is produced, if nothing is produced, there is no successful fertilization. If any replication takes place, even just one cell... it is a living human organism for that moment, regardless of what happens to it after that. If it is defective, it may not continue to be a living organism, but that doesn't change what it is before it dies.
Click to expand...

There is a period of time between the cell being fertilized and the division occurring. It has to be fertilized first. Now, the cell may be fertilized but can not divide properly because.....again, you know the answer....it's defective. How defective? We don't know but for one to say a fertilized cell is a human being is reaching into the next galaxy.

It's the same as you wrote about sperm and eggs. "They are 'alive' temporarily and can not carry on the process of life." It's reasonable to conclude that, at the very least, some of the 50% that spontaneously abort fall into that category which means not all fertilized cells are human beings.
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, the egg was alive. So was the sperm. You confuse "life" with "human being". Whether we talk about a liver or a rose they're both "alive" but neither one is a human being.
Click to expand...

The egg and the sperm are both cells. The liver cell is just that. When taken from humans they are all human cells. When the egg cell and the sperm cell COMBINE, they form a unique human life. Period. Your complete lack of knowledge on genetics is pathetic. A third grader knows more than you. Which is why you are so ignorant when continually comparing the egg, sperm, liver to a fertilized egg cell. You are not intelligent enough to grasp even this most basic of FACTS.

As for "If it replicated, an organism had to be formed" is where you're mistaken. An organism does not necessarily form because......you know the answer.....it is defective. Defective, as in not being able to carry on the processes of life, meaning it's not an organism.
Click to expand...

The above is pure nonsense. You are simply grasping at straws. Something having defects doesn't change the fact of what it is. Period.
 
apple0154 said:
As I noted in msg #205 it has to be able to carry on the processes of life. If the cell that replicated resulted in producing something that could not carry on the processes of life that means an organism was not formed. It's not "as long as it's alive". Many things which are alive are not human beings. Maybe try looking up the definition.
Click to expand...

As I noted many times, being defective does not change the genetic coding. Dying doesn't negate what something was.

Is a car a human being? Please, stop being a jackass.
Click to expand...

YOU are the one that used the car analogy to begin with JACKASS. But you realize just how fucking retarded you are when it was thrown back in your face. A defect in a car doesn't mean it isn't a car. A defect in a human doesn't mean it isn't human.

Anti-abortionists want to jump on the scientific bandwagon. Fine. Let's all jump on it and we'll see the scientific bandwagon says a human being has to qualify as an organism and an organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life. That's it in a nut shell or fertilized egg, if you prefer. Unless and until something can carry on the processes of life it is not a human being. That is the scientific definition.
Click to expand...

Moron... it DOES carry on the process of life up until the point that it dies. JUST AS ALL LIVING THINGS DO.

Now, anti-abortionists say all fertilized cells are human beings. However, if a particular fertilized cell can not divide properly that is proof it is not capable of carrying on the processes of life. There is absolutely no proof those cells contain all the necessary ingredients in order to qualify as an organism so it's patently absurd to assume 50% of human beings die within hours of creation when one doesn't have a shred of proof regarding the make-up of those cells.
Click to expand...

Again, you are simply making shit up. Saying we can't determine the make up of the fertilized egg is 100% FALSE. We can. We have that technology. you keep rambling about 'necessary ingredients as if this was some sort of cake batter. The very site YOU used to proclaim 50% spontaneously abort stated that it is normally NOT the genes that cause this to happen. But you ignore that little FACT. Why is that moron?

I have shown you have no understanding of what constitutes an organism. Neither you nor anyone else has any idea why 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort. Neither you nor anyone else knows if those cells contained the necessary components to be classified as an organism, yet, you and your ilk insist on sticking your respective noses in every woman's pants by insisting they are/were organisms when no one has any proof, whatsoever. It's really rather disgusting.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, you have shown that it is you that has no clue what an organism is and that you also have no clue what genetic mapping has enabled us to do. We do know what many of the causes are of spontaneous abortions. They were listed on YOUR LINK, the one you apparently read very selectively. You keep rambling about proof... the proof IS there moron. It is in the GENES. Something that feeble little mind of yours cannot grasp.

Most times. It appears you forgot the case where "experts" swore on the Bible a woman's biological child was not her biological child. They didn't know a person can have two sets of DNA.

Gee, who would have thought scientists could make a mistake.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you rambling about now? You just keep throwing one extreme after another onto the table hoping that one of them sticks to the plate so you can call it meat.

You talk about embarrassing oneself. Barely a decade after genome mapping and you think we know it all.
Click to expand...

See, the above shows that you are quite incapable of reading without your selective glasses. I stated clearly that there is much we still have to learn. So you are either trying to create a pathetic straw man or you are lying. Which is it?

We know sh!t as far as genes go. We don't even know how many there are, for gawd's sake. We know, maybe, a handful and we have no idea how that handful interacts with each other. We're just starting to discover a defective gene reacts differently depending on from which parent it was received and we have clowns such as yourself wanting to restrict the rights of half the population based on nothing but ignorance.
Click to expand...

What morons such as yourself continue to fail to grasp is that 'not knowing everything' is not equal to 'not knowing anything'

What we do know:
1) How to tell the species via the genes
2) How to tell which specific human the DNA belongs to.

Do you deny either of the above moron?
 
apple0154 said:
It has everything to do with it because some smart ass asked for the exact instant a birth took place and I explained it was a process. It is expelled from the body. The umbilical cord is cut. The birth is registered so people know a birth took place.
Click to expand...

Even without the registration, people would still know the birth took place. What people are asking morons like you is when do you think it is that the magic baby fairy comes and turns it human?
 
apple0154 said:
As I noted in msg #205 it has to be able to carry on the processes of life. If the cell that replicated resulted in producing something that could not carry on the processes of life...
Click to expand...

Stop right there... IF IT REPLICATED, IT CARRIED ON THE PROCESS OF LIFE. IF IT PRODUCED ANYTHING, IT WAS AN ORGANISM, BECAUSE INORGANIC MATERIAL CAN NOT REPLICATE OR PRODUCE ANYTHING.
 
apple0154 said:
There is a period of time between the cell being fertilized and the division occurring. It has to be fertilized first. Now, the cell may be fertilized but can not divide properly because.....again, you know the answer....it's defective. How defective? We don't know but for one to say a fertilized cell is a human being is reaching into the next galaxy.

It's the same as you wrote about sperm and eggs. "They are 'alive' temporarily and can not carry on the process of life." It's reasonable to conclude that, at the very least, some of the 50% that spontaneously abort fall into that category which means not all fertilized cells are human beings.
Click to expand...

No, the successful fertilization results in cell division, otherwise it is unsuccessful. Nothing can spontaneously abort if no process has began, there is nothing to abort from. If the sperm penetrates the egg and fails at fertilization, the egg and sperm cells decay and cease to function, and are expelled by the body, in this case, no organism was produced. If the fertilization is successful, there is a division of cells, once that event occurs, the two cells have crossed the threshold of becoming a living organism. It does not matter how long the organism sustains life, it is irrelevant to the fact that it is an organism in state of existence at that moment. Future events do not erase that fact of biology.
 
Superfreak said:
The egg and the sperm are both cells. The liver cell is just that. When taken from humans they are all human cells. When the egg cell and the sperm cell COMBINE, they form a unique human life. Period. Your complete lack of knowledge on genetics is pathetic. A third grader knows more than you. Which is why you are so ignorant when continually comparing the egg, sperm, liver to a fertilized egg cell. You are not intelligent enough to grasp even this most basic of FACTS.
Click to expand...

And DNA can not tell the difference between a liver cell and a COMBINED egg and sperm cell meaning, once again, that the only thing DNA can prove is something is human material. DNA does not and can not prove something is a human being and that is the point of this entire discussion. The anti-abortionist's argument that DNA proves something is a human being is not correct. It is made up lie.

The above is pure nonsense. You are simply grasping at straws. Something having defects doesn't change the fact of what it is. Period.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. A defective group of cells not able to carry on the processes of life is not an organism. Sorry, but that's the scientific definition. An organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life in order to be classified as an organism.

All you have to do to educate yourself is type "organism" into Google. I bet a second grader could do that. Give it a try.
 
A defective group of cells not able to carry on the processes of life is not an organism.
Click to expand...

If the defective group of cells replicated from an original egg and sperm cell, they already met the criteria for a living organism. They are not required to continue to carry on the process of life to be so defined. Again, only living organisms can replicate cells, inorganic materials can't. Until you give us some valid scientific or biological evidence to contradict this, it stands as a fact of life.

Balls in your court.
 
apple0154 said:
You keep forgetting an adult had been born. Birth. Quite the event.
Click to expand...

But in your previous comments, you continually refer to it being necessary for the ability to carry on the process of life without outside intervention.
The inclusion of "without outside intervention", is my conclusion of what you have implied in any number of your posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top