The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

apple0154 said:
It's not the point of 6% justifying the other 94%. When it comes to the "right to life" argument just one exception disqualifies it. Either every zygote/fetus is a human being and entitled to life or their argument is hypocritical. That's the point. And that's the problem with their argument.

Logic, common sense and reality disqualifies their argument and there's nothing more absurd than the "right to life's" argument that's it's OK to kill an innocent human being so a defective one may live which is the case when the mother's life/health is in jeopardy.

A little less human. A little less important. History tells us we've been down that road before.
Click to expand...
if that is the case no human has a right to life and we should permit them all to be killed at will......
 
apple0154 said:
The analogy does not fail. It is your limited understanding that fails.

The raw material will dictate what processes take place. Lack of a certain vitamin and the DNA is unable to perform a certain process.

What is not clear?
Click to expand...

Yes the DNA perfoms the process. resources are crucial. But resources are crucial to ALL LIFE. Deny you the reources you need and you fail to perform a certain process. Are you therefore, unalive?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, String.....you have to follow the analogy to it's full extent.....you are giving the authority to kill......
Click to expand...

How about this lil' nugget of humor?

Originally Posted by RStringfield
*The process of growth is dependent on messages her body sends to the developing life. The fertilized egg would not be able to find its way without them. It would never attach to the uterine wall without them. It may attach to something else if they are distorted.
 
The people who claimed to be so enlightened and presume to seize control of families and reproduction are actually the most ignorant on the issue. Why is this?

Why do they spread ignorance?

Stringfield!

Apple!

Why do you spread ignorance? That is not nice or constructive for us and all our friends.
 
The culture war is the never ending drum beat of progress disguised as a war. There are those who want to hold culture still and keep it cemented in place, thats impossable. As generations die, progress is made and the fighting over it is pointless.

THe Bush era of discrimination against gays is over and progress is marching on. In a generation gay marriage will be the norm and the next issue will be pushing the envilope. Those who were against gay marriage will pretned they were not. Its the way it was with interracial marriage, acceptance of gay people, the civil rights movement, womans rights, ect. Time keeps marching on.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, String.....you have to follow the analogy to it's full extent.....you are giving the authority to kill......
Click to expand...

Why? On both of your assertions.

He does not have the right to commit murder. If his removal of me results in my death, e.g., I resist and he or a cop has to shoot me and drag me out or if I just die on the pallet after leaving, he is not guilty of murder. The level of force he may justly apply is proportional to my resistance or the threat I pose to him. Further, it is preferable to have a framework wherein a third party (the state) is called in to referee our competing rights. But he certainly has a right to kick me out.

You don't have to follow the analogy beyond it's context. For instance, I am capable of living on my own. I have full rights and responsibilities which come from my capacity to exercise them. The analogy does not answer all questions. It was not intended to.

But even when we do follow the context, he has no right to murder. He has a right to kick me out, possibly kill (killing vs murder not the same thing) and to defend his own rights. He has no obligation to support me.

Unfortunately, the fertilized egg is SO dependent (a fact you guys willfully ignore) on the mother that it is very difficult to remove the developing life without killing it or create a risk of killing the mother. That's not the case in the analogy.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So now it's the environmental change?

You're getting your propaganda campaigns confused again. Take a break. Have a smoke. SHoot up bleach. Whatever it is you do for fun.
Click to expand...

Apple believes that there's a baby fairy that appears, waves a wand the moment the cord is cut, and EUREKA, a baby is created out of nothing.
 
Ice Dancer said:
How about this lil' nugget of humor?

Originally Posted by RStringfield
*The process of growth is dependent on messages her body sends to the developing life. The fertilized egg would not be able to find its way without them. It would never attach to the uterine wall without them. It may attach to something else if they are distorted.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with it? If it is so humorously wrong, it should be easy to explain the error, yet you fail to do so?
 
RStringfield said:
Why? On both of your assertions.
Click to expand...

because of the way the argument unfolded.....it began with your statement...
String
I am going to show up at your house tomorrow, and if just "left alone" I should have every right to stay there. I'll eat from your plate, poop and piss in your mouth and sleep a lot. If just "left alone" i will continue my progress in this life. I am sure you will not mind.

Me
if we keep things locked it isn't likely you will show up in our houses......or were you going to argue the unborn child is guilty of B&E?........

String
Oh okay, then I will just do that to a friend that "let's me in." He deserves it.

Me
so, you enter the house that your friend let you into.....and you want to give him the authority to kill you over it?......

String
No. He only has the right to kick me out.

Me
sorry, String.....you have to follow the analogy to it's full extent.....you are giving the authority to kill......
Click to expand...

the reason we need to talk about giving your friend the authority to kill is called "consistency".......if we ignore it, it tends to make the entire debate meaningless.......
 
RStringfield said:
Unfortunately, the fertilized egg is SO dependent (a fact you guys willfully ignore) on the mother that it is very difficult to remove the developing life without killing it or create a risk of killing the mother. That's not the case in the analogy.
Click to expand...

but it's your analogy....if your trying so hard to show it doesn't apply why did you raise it in the first place?......
 
Ice Dancer said:
*This is really really funny~~~Please reference the science that supports this ridiculous claim!

Your stupid lumber anaolgy fails from start to end. The zygote already has all the blueprints as well as the self directed energy which unhampered will build its self...period.
Click to expand...

Unhampered from access to use of the mother's body.

Ice Dancer said:
The Placenta—an Unappreciated Organ
Of all the body’s organs, perhaps the one that best exemplifies selfless service is the placenta. Most people give little thought to the placenta, and few appreciate the marvelous complexity and profound importance of this organ that is discarded and forgotten after birth.

After the egg is fertilized, the placenta is the very first organ to develop. Recent studies show that when the fertilized egg divides to form the first two cells, one is already destined to form the placenta, while the other becomes the baby.

An Important Hormone-Producing Gland
As soon as three days after fertilization—weeks before the mother normally suspects she is pregnant—cells of the developing placenta, called trophoblasts, begin to produce hormones. These hormones ensure that the lining of the uterus—the endometrium—will be ready to receive the embryo’s implantation. Over the next few weeks, the developing placenta begins to make hormones that control the mother’s physiology in a way that ensures the proper supply of nutrients and oxygen, which are essential to the baby’s growth.

By about five days after fertilization the trophoblast cells, surrounding the developing embryo, begin to fuse together to form one giant cell with many nuclei (see Figure 1). This cell is called the syncytial trophoblast. One of the first functions of this placental giant cell is to invade the uterine wall of the mother in an amazing process called implantation (see Figure 2).

Prevents the Rejection of the Baby as a Foreign Graft
Although the developing placenta and baby implant within the thick nutrient-filled wall of the mother’s uterus, they are not actually part of the mother’s body. One of the placenta’s important roles is to protect the developing baby from an attack by the mother’s immune system, since the baby and the placenta are genetically unique and distinctly different from the mother.

It is still a mystery how the placenta prevents the mother from rejecting it and the baby as a foreign graft without shutting down her immune system.

After implantation, the placental giant cell “invades” the walls of several uterine arteries and veins, causing the mother’s blood to flow through channels within the cell (see Figure 3). When the baby develops its own blood and blood vessels, the mother’s blood and the blood of the developing baby come into close association, but they never mix or come into direct contact. The syncytial trophoblast forms a thin, seamless, and selective barrier between maternal blood and fetal blood. All the critically important nutrients, gases, hormones, electrolytes, and antibodies that pass from mother’s blood to the baby’s blood must travel across this seamless and selective filter. Waste products in the baby’s blood must, in turn, pass across this filter to the mother’s blood.

The Placenta Does It All!
In order to appreciate the marvelous work of the placenta, consider this: while the unborn baby’s vital organs are developing and maturing, they (with the exception of the heart) are essentially useless. The placenta serves the functions of these organs by working in association with the mother. With the help of the mother’s blood, the placenta must function as the baby’s lungs, kidneys, digestive system, liver, and immune system. The placenta does this so well that a baby can actually survive until birth even when one or more of these vital organs sadly fail to develop in its own body.

During the later part of pregnancy, the flow of maternal blood through the placenta reaches a rate of about one pint (.5 liter) per minute. To allow an adequate surface area for exchange between mother’s blood and baby’s blood, the interface between the two is folded and amplified in a complex way that resembles the trunks, branches, and twigs of trees (see Figure 4). There are typically about 20 of these tree-like structures (called cotyledons) in the mature placenta. The baby’s blood flows in vessels inside these cotyledons, whereas the mother’s blood flows all around the outside, like air blowing through a small grove of trees. The entire surface of all the tree-like cotyledons is covered by syncytial trophoblast, forming a seamless covering, which comprises a single cell with millions of nuclei (see Figure 5). This means that the entire surface of the placenta is covered by one giant cell, which has a surface area of over 100 square feet (9.3 square meters).

The Zygote:

This single cell is now either male or female. This human is unique, i.e., never before in the history of the world has this exact individual human existed. Never again in history will another exactly like this human exist.

This being is complete, i.e., nothing else — no bits or pieces — will be added from this time until the old man or woman dies — nothing but nutrition and oxygen. This being is programmed from within, moving for-ward in a self-controlled, ongoing process of growth, development, and replacement of his or her own dying cells.
Click to expand...

First, give me the source of this so that I can check for myself what you have willfully ignored. But it establishes that I am correct if one does not ignore the pieces of information that prove YOU wrong.

I don't pretend to know all the science here, but the fertilized egg has to have some method of identifying the uterine wall. It does not just randomly attach to whatever is convenient. It must respond to information available in the mother's body. The information is some sort of chemical or hormone released, I imagine.

If you would like to find a REAL scientist that is not influenced to form answers through reference to religion, to join the discussion, I am certain he will expose the fact that I am correct.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So I guess Stringfield is equating abortion to eviction? "Hit the road dead beat, you're money's no good here."
Click to expand...

No, I am comparing the obligations of the mother to the fertilized egg, to that of a homeowner to the squatter. The comparison is more about the mother and the homeowner. The homeowner made no contract with the squatter. A mother makes not contract with the fertilized egg. It is not implied by having sex.

The truth is, that this issue is largely about the social conservatives desire to punish the woman for having sex and deny her the right to control her own body.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but it's your analogy....if your trying so hard to show it doesn't apply why did you raise it in the first place?......
Click to expand...

It applies in the context it was presented. YOU guys, split hairs in order to evade the relevant facts and so that you can distort the analogy and the facts.

"Kicking out" a fertilized egg will very likely result in its death, but it is not murder.
 
RStringfield said:
It applies in the context it was presented. YOU guys, split hairs in order to evade the relevant facts and so that you can distort the analogy and the facts.

"Kicking out" a fertilized egg will very likely result in its death, but it is not murder.
Click to expand...

no one has used the word "murder" but you.....if the action taken against the unborn child results in its' death then the action take against the home breaker must result in its' death.....consistency......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no one has used the word "murder" but you.....if the action taken against the unborn child results in its' death then the action take against the home breaker must result in its' death.....consistency......
Click to expand...

Why? If they can extract the egg without it resulting in its death, it will not result in its death. Duh... The squatter can be easily extracted without causing him/her to die. If it resists and/or threatens the homeowner it can be killed without a resulting crime having taken place. If it dies later, the homeowner did not kill it. The squatter has no right to be "left alone" in its use of the homeowner's property and resources. That was the point of the analogy.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no one has used the word "murder" but you.....if the action taken against the unborn child results in its' death then the action take against the home breaker must result in its' death.....consistency......
Click to expand...

And another thing... then change your slogans to... abortion sometimes kills... instead of... abortion is murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top