Liberals Perverted Science

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

if you are allowed to make up your own axioms and postulates you can prove any theory

this is what dixie does

the problem is that reality intrudes...

Yeah, reality is a problem for you Don!

 

[apple0154]

I am having difficulty with the word "or" in the definition you posted. It seems you think "or" means something different than I do. I am also having trouble understanding how something can "not carry on the process of life" if it isn't alive to begin with. Perhaps you can explain? Didn't the 50% have to be living first, in order to die?

Finally an explanation for your warped point of view. Apparently, you do not even know what "or" means. God help us!

Again, I am having trouble understanding how something is growing, yet not alive. How "construction stops" if there isn't anything being constructed to start with. Can you resolve this illogical puzzle? It seems that what you are saying is, all 100% were growing and living, and 50% died. But if they were all growing, regardless of how many died, weren't they living?

Is your finger "alive". Is your finger a human being?

Uhm... Again, having trouble understanding what the "cell" is aborting from. How can it stop carrying on a process it hasn't yet obtained? You maintain it is not a living human organism, but then you indicate it was living and died. How can this be? The "cell" was either living or not living. If it was living, it has to be classified as some form of living organism,....

No, it does not have to be classified as some form of living organism. Is your finger alive? Is it an organism?

.....and if it is a "fertilized egg" from a female human, it can only be called a human. I honestly don't know what else you could call it, nothing else is added to make it "human" later on, we know all humans start from here, so what other possible kind of living organism do you think it could be? Please explain this to me, it is perplexing!

It can be called human tissue. Again, refer to your finger.

As far as "nothing else has to be added to make it human" that is not the problem. The problem is lacking something in the beginning. It may not have the necessary parts in the beginning to be a considered an organism.

WOW! Now "they" are alive! We HAVE made progress with you! But unlike other cells in your body that die, a human embryo is not a single cell. Once conception takes place, the "fertilized egg" becomes a unique living multi-cell organism called a human.

Not necessarily. We do not know if every fertilized cell has the necessary components. Considering over 50% do not conduct themselves as organisms it's logical to conclude some, if not all of the 50%+, are not organisms.

No idiot, what is absurd is that I am still having a conversation with your stupid ass. Go pick up any 7th grade science textbook, and I am sure you will find a chapter on how human life begins.

You are a stubborn one, aren't you? Do yourself a favor and consult a teacher. A grade school teacher will do. No professor needed. They will explain to you what I wrote about the "A"s and "B"s and the grocery store analogy. There is a glaring gap in your education.

Listen to this stupidity! Just fucking unbelievable! If it was living, that is EXACTLY what it means! It was a LIVING ORGANISM! What the fuck are you even talking about now? Do you even know???

Check previous replies. Do I have to give you the finger, again?

Man has determined through science, that human life begins with conception of a sperm cell and egg cell. It needs nothing else to become human life or a human being. Just like all other reproductive organisms, some human beings do not survive the life process very long.

Very long??? We're talking hours or days. You believe human beings come into existence and depart after a few hours? Or a day?

Yes, let's call those 24 hour clumps of human tissue human beings. Let's validate their "human being-ness" and interfere in the lives of human beings who have been here 20 or 30 years.

You're mad, Dixie. Truly insane.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

No, it doesn't. I posted the definition of "organism". Over 50% of fertilized cells do not fulfill the definition of organism which includes "carrying on the processes of life." They do not carry on the processes.

It may be possible some are organisms and something stops them from carrying on the processes, however, science has absolutely no idea what that "something " is or even if there is a "something" other than the cell(s) not being an organism.

Many women go through a number of miscarriages and then have a baby. They have no idea what they did differently and in many cases they didn't do anything differently.

Until proven otherwise the logical conclusion is the cell(s) were defective. In other words there was no human being. The "organism" was missing the parts necessary to carry on the processes of life.

A zygote is at no time non-human, or non living.

That is all.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Finally an explanation for your warped point of view. Apparently, you do not even know what "or" means. God help us!
....Is your finger "alive". Is your finger a human being? ....No, it does not have to be classified as some form of living organism. Is your finger alive? Is it an organism? ....It can be called human tissue. Again, refer to your finger....As far as "nothing else has to be added to make it human" that is not the problem. The problem is lacking something in the beginning. It may not have the necessary parts in the beginning to be a considered an organism....Not necessarily. We do not know if every fertilized cell has the necessary components. Considering over 50% do not conduct themselves as organisms it's logical to conclude some, if not all of the 50%+, are not organisms....You are a stubborn one, aren't you? Do yourself a favor and consult a teacher. A grade school teacher will do. No professor needed. They will explain to you what I wrote about the "A"s and "B"s and the grocery store analogy. There is a glaring gap in your education....Check previous replies. Do I have to give you the finger, again? ...Very long??? We're talking hours or days. You believe human beings come into existence and depart after a few hours? Or a day? ....Yes, let's call those 24 hour clumps of human tissue human beings. Let's validate their "human being-ness" and interfere in the lives of human beings who have been here 20 or 30 years.

You're mad, Dixie. Truly insane.

Apples, your "finger" is NOT an independent living organism. It is a part of your body, which IS a living organism called a human being. Anything living, is said to be a "living organism" and it is absolute sublime silliness to argue otherwise. Read your definition of an organism again, and understand, if it is alive and living, it is an organism, it can't be anything else.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let's validate their "human being-ness" and interfere in the lives of human beings who have been here 20 or 30 years.

So now, the criteria for human-ness is how long you've been a human? Where does it stop? Maybe we aren't human if we don't have blue eyes or blond hair? Maybe people with darker pigmentation aren't really human beings? Science hasn't concluded they are, has it? And if "human-ness" can be arbitrarily established based on your thresholds, criteria, and conditions, then we can apply thresholds to people already here, can't we? Maybe neanderthals who don't understand 7th grade science, are non-human-beings?

Let's be perfectly clear for one last time. You, nor anyone else, have offered one shred of evidence to refute the fact that HUMAN LIFE begins at conception. You can dance around with your silly little analogies, and made up words to mask what you are claiming, but you simply can not deny the primary facts of life.

 

[zappasguitar]

Finally an explanation for your warped point of view. Apparently, you do not even know what "or" means. God help us!



Is your finger "alive". Is your finger a human being?



No, it does not have to be classified as some form of living organism. Is your finger alive? Is it an organism?



It can be called human tissue. Again, refer to your finger.

As far as "nothing else has to be added to make it human" that is not the problem. The problem is lacking something in the beginning. It may not have the necessary parts in the beginning to be a considered an organism.



Not necessarily. We do not know if every fertilized cell has the necessary components. Considering over 50% do not conduct themselves as organisms it's logical to conclude some, if not all of the 50%+, are not organisms.



You are a stubborn one, aren't you? Do yourself a favor and consult a teacher. A grade school teacher will do. No professor needed. They will explain to you what I wrote about the "A"s and "B"s and the grocery store analogy. There is a glaring gap in your education.



Check previous replies. Do I have to give you the finger, again?



Very long??? We're talking hours or days. You believe human beings come into existence and depart after a few hours? Or a day?

Yes, let's call those 24 hour clumps of human tissue human beings. Let's validate their "human being-ness" and interfere in the lives of human beings who have been here 20 or 30 years.

You're mad, Dixie. Truly insane.

Yeah, his problem understanding the word "or"...20 bucks says Dix was one of the people who ridiculed Clinton for the whole "definition of the word 'is'" controversy.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Yeah, his problem understanding the word "or"...20 bucks says Dix was one of the people who ridiculed Clinton for the whole "definition of the word 'is'" controversy.

Clinton should have been ridiculed on that one. It doesn't get more stupider than that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yeah, his problem understanding the word "or"...20 bucks says Dix was one of the people who ridiculed Clinton for the whole "definition of the word 'is'" controversy.

I never said I didn't understand the word "or", I said we apparently have a different understanding. I know what "or" means, always have. Apparently, apple thinks it is not significant in the phrase he posted. I think it is very significant, because it makes my case and proves him wrong.

But again, we have an anti-science pinhead who wants to divert the topic of the thread, and focus on minutia of what Dixie said. Nice old school tactic, too bad it doesn't work anymore.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Very long??? We're talking hours or days. You believe human beings come into existence and depart after a few hours? Or a day?

I believe a human being can "come into existence" and expire in a few seconds. Biology doesn't change because of what I want to think in my mind. At the point of conception, human life begins... it may last 1 second, it may last 1 hour, it may last 9 months, it may last 100 years, but it never changes what it starts as, human life! You have not offered ANYTHING to refute that.

This might be a good time to point out, we haven't begun to discuss the issue of abortion. We are still stuck on defining human life. Until we can get past that, we can't have a debate on abortion, because you do not understand or comprehend the magnitude of what is being discussed. Therefore, it is pointless to try and have a debate with you on the subject. From your uneducated and ignorant unscientific perspective, abortion is like allowing women to have a wart removed from their tuti, it's her right and none of your biz. But this is because you have convinced yourself of a falsehood, that "life" begins some point after conception, after someone has "determined" the life started, or some arbitrary date and time it has to develop, before you will even admit it is a living human organism!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

To be a human being, you have to be capable of having thinking, having desires, and having feelings. End of story.

Did you just admit that you don't qualify as a human!!

 

[PostmodernProphet]

We don't know if all the necessary stuff is there. Again, over 50% do not pass that stage. "Construction" stops.

in other words, they die....

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Baby killers!

What a broken record. Science probably will catch up, because it will find a way to extract embyros and implant them into all of those volunteers who I'm sure will be clamoring for them on the pro-life side.

Grow up...

But by that time, we'll be able to place all those convicted murderers with Liberals that clamour for an end to the death penalty.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I'll try one more time. The fertilization may have been successful but sufficient "qualities" were missing resulting in the fertilized egg not continuing to grow.

This is not all that difficult to understand. Unless you believe nature never makes a mistake there is always the possibility a fertilized cell is not a human being. We know children have been born with no arms or no brain so is it not possible there are fertilized cells that, if continued to grow, would produce children with no head or no chest or no abdomen?

The point is we do no know but logic dictates it is very possible because we have witnessed babies born who were missing parts.



Again, we do not know. All we know is that every human being had to start life by a cell being fertilized. That does not mean every fertilized cell is a human being.

Every human being who is decapitated dies. That does not mean everyone who died was decapitated. Try to understand the difference. Educate yourself. A 10 year old can comprehend the difference.



We don't know what it is. We will know when it is born.

Whether one wants to look at the Bible and the "breath of life" or refer to the old expression "don't count your chickens before they're hatched" or simply stroll through a graveyard or look at any official document the birth of an individual is considered the start of their life.



It cheapens what it means to be a human being because we can not test the newly fertilized cell to determine if it has the necessary "ingredients" to consider it a human being. And we know many fertilized cells are missing "ingredients".

Some missing ingredients don't make a big difference. Some do make a big difference. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude there are others that make such a huge difference as to disqualify them as human beings.

Is that really so difficult to understand?

Then answer this, what is the accepted standard length (time) of a human pregnancy??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

"no, an acorn is not a tree. Neither is a child an adult"

You use "child" because it's emotionally charged. You know - or at least I hope you do - that it is disingenuous at best for the stage of development we are discussing.

Like I said, you're a zealot; you fail to see any reason on this topic.

And are you saying that you don't use the terms you use; because they support your argument and are therefore "emotionally charged", but just show an indefference.

 

[apple0154]

I never said I didn't understand the word "or", I said we apparently have a different understanding. I know what "or" means, always have. Apparently, apple thinks it is not significant in the phrase he posted. I think it is very significant, because it makes my case and proves him wrong.

But again, we have an anti-science pinhead who wants to divert the topic of the thread, and focus on minutia of what Dixie said. Nice old school tactic, too bad it doesn't work anymore.

Here is the sentence. Organism: "An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life."

The point is an organism has to have the ability to carry on the processes of life. It's that simple and over 50% of fertilized cells do not. Case closed.

 

[apple0154]

I believe a human being can "come into existence" and expire in a few seconds. Biology doesn't change because of what I want to think in my mind. At the point of conception, human life begins... it may last 1 second, it may last 1 hour, it may last 9 months, it may last 100 years, but it never changes what it starts as, human life! You have not offered ANYTHING to refute that.

This might be a good time to point out, we haven't begun to discuss the issue of abortion. We are still stuck on defining human life. Until we can get past that, we can't have a debate on abortion, because you do not understand or comprehend the magnitude of what is being discussed. Therefore, it is pointless to try and have a debate with you on the subject. From your uneducated and ignorant unscientific perspective, abortion is like allowing women to have a wart removed from their tuti, it's her right and none of your biz. But this is because you have convinced yourself of a falsehood, that "life" begins some point after conception, after someone has "determined" the life started, or some arbitrary date and time it has to develop, before you will even admit it is a living human organism!

You don't even understand what I am saying. I never said life, meaning a human being, begins at some point after conception. Life may very well begin at conception. My point is not all conceptions are human life, life being defined as a human being.

Anti-abortionists have jumped on this unique DNA idea like flies on poo. The truth is scientists do not know why over 50 % of fertilized cells spontaneously abort. They do not know if every fertilized cell has the proper genetic makeup/instructions to be classified as a human being.

Nature makes mistakes. We frequently witnessed that in the past before ultra sound and other tests could determine the condition of the fetus. Babies were born grossly malformed even though most usually self-aborted.

Until we can determine the condition of fertilized cells moments after fertilization it is reasonable to conclude the over 50% that self-abort or are absorbed by the woman do not contain sufficient material or the material is so damaged they can not be considered organisms, let alone human beings.

It's no wonder you can't understand or comprehend the magnitude of what is being discussed. You don't even understand what I'm saying and I've tried using analogies to help you.

Science/scientists do not know. In the scheme of things DNA is a relatively new discovery. Yes, every human being has unique DNA. However, DNA, alone, does not a human being make. That's why our fingers are not considered human beings.

Did I tell you about the case where DNA was used to "prove" a woman's biological children were not her own? Google the case. Maybe you'll learn something.

As for removing a wart from a woman's "tuti" some people always get the best jobs.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Here is the sentence. Organism: "An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life."

The point is an organism has to have the ability to carry on the processes of life. It's that simple and over 50% of fertilized cells do not. Case closed.

OMG, Dude! Listen to yourself!! There is NO argument that DEAD fertilized cells are human beings! NONE! I agree 100%, once the "cell" DIES it is NO LONGER ALIVE, NO LONGER A LIVING HUMAN! But let's clarify, we are not talking about organisms which have died, we are talking about living ones. It is silly and ridiculous to point to dead fertilized cells as proof the living ones weren't alive! Can you grasp that in your retarded little mind?

 

[apple0154]

Then answer this, what is the accepted standard length (time) of a human pregnancy??

Why do I feel like this is a trick question? :lol:

280 days or 40 weeks counting from the last menstrual period. So sayeth Google.

 

[apple0154]

OMG, Dude! Listen to yourself!! There is NO argument that DEAD fertilized cells are human beings! NONE! I agree 100%, once the "cell" DIES it is NO LONGER ALIVE, NO LONGER A LIVING HUMAN! But let's clarify, we are not talking about organisms which have died, we are talking about living ones. It is silly and ridiculous to point to dead fertilized cells as proof the living ones weren't alive! Can you grasp that in your retarded little mind?

Do you have a learning disability, Dixie? The reason I ask is you have difficulty understanding what I write.

I'll try again. Science does not know why over 50% of fertilized cells either abort or are absorbed by the woman. To the best of my knowledge they never had the chance to examine a fateful one.

So, going by what you said (organisms are human beings) and going by what the dictionary defines as an organism (the ability to carry on life processes) it's reasonable to conclude that over 50% of fertilized cells are not human beings as they are/were unable to carry on life processes.

What are you having difficulty with?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You don't even understand what I am saying. I never said life, meaning a human being, begins at some point after conception. Life may very well begin at conception. My point is not all conceptions are human life, life being defined as a human being.

Yes, I do understand what you are saying! It doesn't comport with science, it doesn't conform to reality! You keep repeating a falsehood, and insisting you are right and I don't know what I am talking about. Go pick up a 7th grade science book, seriously, it's in there! Life does very well begin at conception, and conception always begins every human life! They are interchangeable and you've offered NO EVIDENCE to the contrary. Either put up or shut up!

Anti-abortionists have jumped on this unique DNA idea like flies on poo. The truth is scientists do not know why over 50 % of fertilized cells spontaneously abort. They do not know if every fertilized cell has the proper genetic makeup/instructions to be classified as a human being.

Again, if the "fertilized cells" (which are no longer single cells) abort, they must be in the process of something to abort. If they aborted the process of life, they were already living organisms, if they were from a human sperm and egg, they were a living human organism. When they died, they stopped being a living organism of any kind. They don't have to meet a criteria to be "classified" they become unique living organisms with multiple cells the moment of conception, when the male sperm cell permeates the female egg cell... You are smart enough to know that 1+1=2... 1 Female Egg + 1 Sperm = 2 CELLS! NOT ONE! There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg cell" because once the "fertilization" happens, it is no longer a single egg cell, it is a multi-cell living organism. Can you at least start using the proper terminology, instead of insisting to be ignorant and calling it a "fertilized cell" (which is an oxymoron.)

Nature makes mistakes. We frequently witnessed that in the past before ultra sound and other tests could determine the condition of the fetus. Babies were born grossly malformed even though most usually self-aborted.

Until we can determine the condition of fertilized cells moments after fertilization it is reasonable to conclude the over 50% that self-abort or are absorbed by the woman do not contain sufficient material or the material is so damaged they can not be considered organisms, let alone human beings.

The condition of something has nothing at all to do with what it is! We do NOT have to "determine the condition" of ANYTHING, in order to determine what it is! What the fuck is wrong with you???? Why are you insisting something so outrageously absurd? You just keep on repeating nonsense, which has no basis in science or reality.

It's no wonder you can't understand or comprehend the magnitude of what is being discussed. You don't even understand what I'm saying and I've tried using analogies to help you.

Again, I understand what you are saying perfectly! It just doesn't comport with reality and isn't science based! It's mostly just absurd ignorant rambling, which you have to word carefully, so as to not get caught up in your own contradictions.

Science/scientists do not know. In the scheme of things DNA is a relatively new discovery. Yes, every human being has unique DNA. However, DNA, alone, does not a human being make. That's why our fingers are not considered human beings

.

Yes you stupid uneducated fucker, science does indeed know the very moment human life begins, and it's when the male sperm cell penetrates the wall of the female egg cell and conception happens! Nothing else has to happen to make it human life, it doesn't have to meet your approval, it doesn't have to be "considered" by others, or "deemed" to be human life, science is very clear and concise on when it becomes an independent living human organism.