Ode to the Climate Science-Denier

[apple0154]

No, a corpse is not living and an unmarried person is not a husband. An unborn fetus is a living human being, regardless of what you want to tell yourself.

Riiiiight. Just like an apple seed is a apple and a pile of lumber in the yard is an unbuilt house.

Try to be sensible. If your local grocer went to the country and purchased a dozen fertilized chicken eggs and then advertised them as chickens for $2.00 each what would be your reaction?

 

[apple0154]

And I'm supposed to be responsible for this...because

1...the women decided to not get tested
or
2...the women decided to have the baby..

You are one of the most elitist, arrogant and illogical assholes on this site...
and that is quite a feat considering some of the clowns and morons here.

Why don't you just kill the llittle fucks and put them out of their misery on your next visit...you obviously have kind of sicko God complex anyway....
Who the fuck did those women think they were to decide for themselves what they wanted to do....right?

You could use some serious psychological help.

"Who the fuck did those women think they were to decide for themselves what they wanted to do....right?"

Good point. Perhaps you should be directing that to the anti-abortionists who enjoy nothing more than sticking their nose in other people's pants.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Riiiiight. Just like an apple seed is a apple and a pile of lumber in the yard is an unbuilt house.

Try to be sensible. If your local grocer went to the country and purchased a dozen fertilized chicken eggs and then advertised them as chickens for $2.00 each what would be your reaction?

This same stupid argument again? Not sure why this is on a thread mocking global warming fear mongers, but hey....

again... calling a fertilized chicken egg a chicken would be like calling a baby and adult. Obviously one is fully developed, the other is not.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Riiiiight. Just like an apple seed is a apple and a pile of lumber in the yard is an unbuilt house.

Try to be sensible. If your local grocer went to the country and purchased a dozen fertilized chicken eggs and then advertised them as chickens for $2.00 each what would be your reaction?

Let's use a more accurate analogy. An apple on a tree is an apple, we know this for a fact. If we pick the apple off the tree, does it stop being an apple? Of course it doesn't, the condition of the apple has changed, it is now a 'picked' apple, but it is still an apple, just as it was before it was picked, there is absolutely no difference in what it is. You are trying to claim it is not an apple until it is picked, and before then, it is a meaningless clump of cells.

 

[Topspin]

love the conservatives shitting on thier new found momentum. Abortion rights are not being overturned. What is going to happen if you retards don't shut your pie holes is the independents and moderates will run from you Rand Paulian batshit crazy cons.

 

[Good Luck]

Riiiiight. Just like an apple seed is a apple and a pile of lumber in the yard is an unbuilt house.

You parade your profound ignorance of basic biology like a badge of honor. Or is it, as many suspect, deliberate willful ignorance because you cannot stomach the truth while still supporting killing unborn children.

Try to be sensible. If your local grocer went to the country and purchased a dozen fertilized chicken eggs and then advertised them as chickens for $2.00 each what would be your reaction?

You are comparing reproduction in plants and birds to reproduction in mammals, and you want US to "be sensible"? Talk about your brain dead.

But to answer your question, I would ask the grocer why he was charging $20,000/lb. for chicken.

In a fertilized chicken egg, that little speck attached to the yolk (or big speck depending on how old the egg is....) is, indeed, a tiny, unborn chicken. Just because you are too fucking boneheaded selfishly ignorant to acknowledge scientific fact when it gets in the way of your political agenda does not mean the facts aren't there.

 

[apple0154]

This same stupid argument again? Not sure why this is on a thread mocking global warming fear mongers, but hey....

You can thank Ice Dancer for bringing up the topic. Post #203: "Science has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the human embryo in its mother's womb is a live human being...still, liberals kill 'em by the millions even though they can prevent it~~~go figure."

again... calling a fertilized chicken egg a chicken would be like calling a baby and adult. Obviously one is fully developed, the other is not.

A young chicken is called a chick, pullet (young hen), or cockerel (young rooster). (Wiki.com)

The point being an egg is is not a chicken, young or old. An egg is an egg. If you're implying a chicken is a fully developed egg, which seems like a rather strange definition, fine. However, we're right back where we started. A "thing" has to develop into something before it is some "thing".

That's why we have different words to describe things. A tomato seed is not a tomato. An egg is not a chicken. A zygote or embryo or fetus is not a baby.

Why do some folks insist on talking nonsense when discussing the latter?

 

[apple0154]

Let's use a more accurate analogy. An apple on a tree is an apple, we know this for a fact. If we pick the apple off the tree, does it stop being an apple? Of course it doesn't, the condition of the apple has changed, it is now a 'picked' apple, but it is still an apple, just as it was before it was picked, there is absolutely no difference in what it is. You are trying to claim it is not an apple until it is picked, and before then, it is a meaningless clump of cells.

No, I'm saying an apple seed is not an apple. An apple blossom is not an apple and an apple tree is not an apple. Even though a seed and a blossom may develop into an apple they are not apples.

The problem is using DNA solely to classify something. For example, when someone uses DNA as an argument to say a human fertilized cell is a human being that would be like my saying I have an oak tree in my living room because the coffee table is oak.

It doesn't make sense to classify something solely by it's genetic makeup. If I buy a wool sweater I do not say I'm wearing a sheep. If I have a glass of milk I do not say I'm drinking cow.

 

[apple0154]

You parade your profound ignorance of basic biology like a badge of honor. Or is it, as many suspect, deliberate willful ignorance because you cannot stomach the truth while still supporting killing unborn children.

You are comparing reproduction in plants and birds to reproduction in mammals, and you want US to "be sensible"? Talk about your brain dead.

But to answer your question, I would ask the grocer why he was charging $20,000/lb. for chicken.

In a fertilized chicken egg, that little speck attached to the yolk (or big speck depending on how old the egg is....) is, indeed, a tiny, unborn chicken. Just because you are too fucking boneheaded selfishly ignorant to acknowledge scientific fact when it gets in the way of your political agenda does not mean the facts aren't there.

Perhaps I should be politically correct or is that scientifically correct? I have an oak tree in my living room and when it gets cool I put on a sheep and there's nothing like a warm glass of cow before bed. Is that sensible enough for you?

 

[Good Luck]

Perhaps I should be politically correct or is that scientifically correct? I have an oak tree in my living room and when it gets cool I put on a sheep and there's nothing like a warm glass of cow before bed. Is that sensible enough for you?

Continuing to compare ridiculous and unrelated items does nothing for your argument. Wood from a dead tree is just that: wood from a dead (killed) tree. Wool cut from a living sheep is just that: wool from a living sheep. (or maybbe you killed it, too, for supper?) Milk is milk: it what sets mammals aprat from other animals. Your attempts to ridicule the position of anti-abortionists only show you to be a narrow minded lying twit. Either that or too fucking stupid to walk upright.

In converse to your inanely stupid examples, a human zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/child/adolescent/adult are all COMPLETE and LIVING organisms of the species Homo sapiens. DNA is the measure because it is our DNA that MAKES us Homo sapiens and not some other mammal. The zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/child/adolescent/adult also happen to be at different stages of development - but just as the difference between adolescent andd adult do not make one or the other less human, neither do the stages of zygote or fetus. That is just a convenient label to make child killers feel comfortable with themselves. (Not functionally different from when certain people used dehumanizing labels to make it OK to kill NAtive Americans, Blacks, Jews, etc. etc. etc.)

And, in anticipation of more of your stupid lying liberal child-killing bull shit, PRIOR to fertilization, a gamete is NOT a complete living organism, nor are individual differentiated cells taken from a developed organism. This holds true whether the organism is human or not. It is basic biological fact. And THAT is where you utterly fail. BIOLOGY is fully and completely against you when it comes to defining living organism, and that includes defining a human unborn child as a living human being. You need to ignore and deny science to support you political idiotology. Which was the point of the post that first mentioned this side topic: liberals ONLY pay attention to science when it fits their political agenda.

LEARN the science you ignorance fucking twit. You can LIE to yourself all fucking day long, but in the end, SCIENCE says you are wrong.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, I'm saying an apple seed is not an apple. [neither is a sperm seed] An apple blossom is not an apple [neither is a female egg cell] and an apple tree is not an apple [and a fetus is not a teenager].. Even though a seed and a blossom may develop into an apple they are not apples. [even though a sperm and egg may conceive, they are not humans.]

The problem is using DNA solely to classify something. For example, when someone uses DNA as an argument to say a human fertilized cell is a human being that would be like my saying I have an oak tree in my living room because the coffee table is oak.

No, if you had a small oak sapling growing in your living room, you could say you had an oak tree in your living room. If you had baby guts and brains splattered all over your walls, you couldn't say you had a baby in your home.

It doesn't make sense to classify something solely by it's genetic makeup. If I buy a wool sweater I do not say I'm wearing a sheep. If I have a glass of milk I do not say I'm drinking cow.

It only makes sense to classify living organisms by their genetic makeup, there is no other way to classify them, unless we do like you and completely deny reality of what they are, which seems a bit on the IGNORANT side to me.

 

[apple0154]

Continuing to compare ridiculous and unrelated items does nothing for your argument. Wood from a dead tree is just that: wood from a dead (killed) tree. Wool cut from a living sheep is just that: wool from a living sheep. (or maybbe you killed it, too, for supper?) Milk is milk: it what sets mammals aprat from other animals. Your attempts to ridicule the position of anti-abortionists only show you to be a narrow minded lying twit. Either that or too fucking stupid to walk upright.

In converse to your inanely stupid examples, a human zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/child/adolescent/adult are all COMPLETE and LIVING organisms of the species Homo sapiens. DNA is the measure because it is our DNA that MAKES us Homo sapiens and not some other mammal. The zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/child/adolescent/adult also happen to be at different stages of development - but just as the difference between adolescent andd adult do not make one or the other less human, neither do the stages of zygote or fetus. That is just a convenient label to make child killers feel comfortable with themselves. (Not functionally different from when certain people used dehumanizing labels to make it OK to kill NAtive Americans, Blacks, Jews, etc. etc. etc.)

And, in anticipation of more of your stupid lying liberal child-killing bull shit, PRIOR to fertilization, a gamete is NOT a complete living organism, nor are individual differentiated cells taken from a developed organism. This holds true whether the organism is human or not. It is basic biological fact. And THAT is where you utterly fail. BIOLOGY is fully and completely against you when it comes to defining living organism, and that includes defining a human unborn child as a living human being. You need to ignore and deny science to support you political idiotology. Which was the point of the post that first mentioned this side topic: liberals ONLY pay attention to science when it fits their political agenda.

LEARN the science you ignorance fucking twit. You can LIE to yourself all fucking day long, but in the end, SCIENCE says you are wrong.

Science does not say I am wrong. All science says it that a fetus has the same DNA as a human being. Narrow minded is using DNA solely to classify something. We don't do that for anything else. An apple seed has the same DNA as an apple but it is not an apple.

Your logic is convoluted. A fertilized chicken egg is an egg, not a chicken, regardless of them having the same DNA. It's unfortunate you and others have to resort to utter nonsense in order to defend your position.

But what else is new? Anti-abortionists have been pulling the same stunt all through history......God said it's wrong. Male fetuses acquire the "spirit" before female fetuses. Quickening is when a fetus becomes a person.....the list goes on. Now DNA is the "in thing" except, of course, it doesn't work too well when we use DNA solely to classify other things.

God, the Pope, emperors/tyrants and, now, DNA.

Oh, well. It doesn't really matter. Abortion is legal and it's staying legal regardless of all the twisting and dancing around you do. The majority of civilized countries have settled the issue. I suggest you live with it.

 

[Good Luck]

Science does not say I am wrong. All science says it that a fetus has the same DNA as a human being. Narrow minded is using DNA solely to classify something. We don't do that for anything else. An apple seed has the same DNA as an apple but it is not an apple.

Your logic is convoluted. A fertilized chicken egg is an egg, not a chicken, regardless of them having the same DNA. It's unfortunate you and others have to resort to utter nonsense in order to defend your position.

But what else is new? Anti-abortionists have been pulling the same stunt all through history......God said it's wrong. Male fetuses acquire the "spirit" before female fetuses. Quickening is when a fetus becomes a person.....the list goes on. Now DNA is the "in thing" except, of course, it doesn't work too well when we use DNA solely to classify other things.

God, the Pope, emperors/tyrants and, now, DNA.

Oh, well. It doesn't really matter. Abortion is legal and it's staying legal regardless of all the twisting and dancing around you do. The majority of civilized countries have settled the issue. I suggest you live with it.

Yes, and there was a time slavery was legal. Bet you would have defended that, too. "Niggers ain't REAL people, ya know."

Was a time when marching out into the unsettled west and taking over the lands inhabited by native tribes was not only legal, but actively encouraged. If a native gets in your way, kill him. If a bunch get riled up, call in the army. Commit biological warfare against them. Annihilate them, because they aren't REALLY human - they're SAVAGES. Bet you would be supporting that philosophy were it occurring during your life time. Legal makes it right, after all. Right? Denying the humanity of others for ones own gain is damned easy, and right up the alley of modern liberalism.

You use false science to defend the most despicable practice since the Inca sacrificed fattened children to their volcano gods. (That was legal, too, so guess it was OK.)

The apple analogy is pure bullshit. A human at any stage of development is not at any time comparable to a seed, nor an apple, nor a tree. But it is significant that you must revert to completely different types of propagation to find an analogy that supports your lies. The means of propagation are entirely different, and pretending that an unborn human is not human because an apple seed is not an apple,k or an egg is not a chicken is sheer stupidity. It simply shows you haven't a clue about the science of biology, and that you fully intend to remain in your deliberate state of pitiful ignorance.

Read a book on biology. (But you won't because the truth would upset your idiotology.) The science is well defined and proven. Science DOES say you are wrong, and all you can do is lie and bring in completely different means of propagation to support you despicable, inhuman lies.

Science says a hell of a lot more than an unborn human child has a complete set of human DNA. Science also says the unborn child is ALIVE AND HUMAN. Science defines him/her as a living organism. The science of biology is all about defining what makes something alive, what comprises life, what comprises an organism as opposed to mere living matter, and contrary to your claims, the science of biology defines the unborn - at ALL levels of development - as a living ORGANISM, not mere living matter.

Science has a very great deal to say about the life cycle of mammals, with a huge amount of definitions and proven data describing all levels and types of mammalian propagation. Where the DNA factor comes in is DNA defines the specific species and variety the organism. Whe the DNA is human, then the scientific fact is the described is a HUMAN living organism. If it has the DNA of a cow, it is a cow. If it has the DNA of a chimpanzee, it is a chimpanzee. That is the science of it. And the science of it is that by having the DNA of a human being, and also being a living individual organism, it is scientifically defines as a living human being.

But you do not have to take my word for it. Go to your library and check out any general text you care to choose on the science of biology, and look up the sections that define life, define living organism, and describe mammalian propagation. If you dare. (But we all know you won't.)