"We keep marrying other species and ethnics " - Fox News Host

ib1yysguy said:
They're tough questions for everybody. It's hugely disingenuous to come into an argument like this, as Dixie does, with a very simple answer to very complex questions and expect people to take him seriously. In Dixie's case, it's because he isn't capable of dealing with complex problems in complex ways. The more intelligent among us know enough to know we have to ask questions and consider the complexities of them before coming up with an answer that may or may not be a complete solution.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it....liberals don't deal with complex questions about when life starts......if liberals want to keep the child it's "oh, when is the baby due"and "let's have a baby shower" and "what color should we paint the nursery"......it only becomes a non-person when they want to kill it.....so don't give me any of this "consider the complexities" shit....it all boils down to one thing...."what do you want to do, keep it or kill it"........
 
apple0154 said:
.

According to DNA classification an egg is a chicken but we do not use DNA solely to classify what a chicken is.
Click to expand...

okay let's keep the biology honest....what is living inside the shell of a fertilized egg is a chicken....an egg is an egg, just like a human woman's egg is an egg and a sperm is a sperm......
 
Onceler said:
That's silly; it's just something pro-lifers repeat in the hopes that it's true.

In biology, it's actually called a zygote. Viability plays a large part in debates on "human-ness," and there is certainly plenty of gray area to debate, which is why any contention that anything in the debate is "beyond any shadow of doubt" is crazy...
Click to expand...

and let's get real about "zygotes"....zygotes are zygotes for about four days.....you want the right to abort during the first four days of pregnancy, fine......now, lets deal with the other eight months and 26 days, including 100% of the time that any woman knows she is pregnant......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm sorry, but I don't buy it....liberals don't deal with complex questions about when life starts......if liberals want to keep the child it's "oh, when is the baby due"and "let's have a baby shower" and "what color should we paint the nursery"......it only becomes a non-person when they want to kill it.....so don't give me any of this "consider the complexities" shit....it all boils down to one thing...."what do you want to do, keep it or kill it"........
Click to expand...

Nah; it's only you & yours that make this such a black & white, simplistic issue, which is ludicrous. This is not a simple issue.

No one can say with a straight face that a microscopic zygote = human being. It's as ludicrous as saying that a fetus in the 9th month is NOT that much closer to being human, and the moral ground that much more ambiguous. There is nothing BUT gray area in this debate.

What I always find really troublesome with your black & white side is the complete lack of consideration for the woman, and her rights. To essentially force a woman to carry a baby to term no matter what the circumstances...it speaks to a much greater ignorance.

But you're so sure of everything, and it's all very simple to you. Here's to the day when they can transplant fetuses into volunteer recipients of either sex; I'm sure you will be 1st in line...
 
Onceler said:
Is that supposed to be scientific?

Are you contending that we can extrapolate these #'s to the population at large?
Click to expand...

I had to wait five years before we had a placement for our first child, four more years for the second....I know people who have traveled to China and South America to adopt because there weren't children available in the US....I also know people who haven't adopted because they don't want to deal with the waiting time......placing children for adoption is simply not a problem.....
 
Dixie said:
A seed is a seed. A human being is a human being, not a seed.

Biological classification of when human life begins, tells us it happens at point of conception. Nothing further has to happen for a human being to exist. You may say the human being is in a certain state, 'classification', phase, or condition... but it IS what it IS. Biology has concluded this... it is conclusive... beyond any shadow of doubt... not up for debate... not an "argument" from my perspective... a biological FACT!
Click to expand...

And an acorn is an oak tree. And if you put a fertilized egg on the BBQ you'll have BBQ'd chicken.

Yes, a lot has to happen to that embryo/fetus including getting the necessary "building blocks" from the mother in the form of nutrients. It is fully dependent on the biological functioning of another human body.

Maybe KFC will start deep frying eggs. Who knows, huh?
 
Onceler said:
Nah; it's only you & yours that make this such a black & white, simplistic issue, which is ludicrous. This is not a simple issue.
Click to expand...

it is if you're honest with yourself.....liberals really don't care if it's a human being or not.....they want people to be able to kill them at will, so they pretend, if people want to kill them, that they are something that can be killed......if they don't want to kill them, they are precious and wonderful and the best thing that ever happened......if they want to kill them, they are a parasite, a lump of protoplasm, anything except a human being....I'm sorry, that's just the way liberals are....you can't honestly deny it....it's one of the reasons you suck.....

No one can say with a straight face that a microscopic zygote = human being.
Click to expand...
quite frankly I think you are a either a fool or a liar to deny it.....
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
And an acorn is an oak tree. And if you put a fertilized egg on the BBQ you'll have BBQ'd chicken.
Click to expand...
if you smash an acorn you kill a living thing, if you crack a fertilized egg you kill a living thing, if you cut the head off a fetus and suck it through a tube you kill a living thing.....
 
"liberals really don't care if it's a human being or not.....they want people to be able to kill them at will"

Christ - talk about a credibility nosedive.

My mistake; I thought I was trying to engage someone rational. You're a friggin' lunatic...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
(Apple0154) As I explained before the custom is if a woman's body is defective she has the right to terminate the pregnancy. If an embryo/fetus is a human being no one can possibly justify killing an innocent human being because another human being has a defective body.
Click to expand...

no, it's actually quite simple.....you permit abortions to save the life of the mother....it's the way they did it for a hundred years before Roe v Wade....why do you think it suddenly is complicated?....
Click to expand...

Because people now question absurd ideas like claiming an embryo/fetus is a human being but it's OK to kill it. It's called 'thinking it through' which anti-abortionists appear to have great difficulty doing.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

PostmodernProphet said:
sure we can....just give every embryo/fetus rights.....


no, it's actually quite simple.....you permit abortions to save the life of the mother....it's the way they did it for a hundred years before Roe v Wade....why do you think it suddenly is complicated?....


sure.....people like you enslaved blacks and killed Jews, pretending they weren't human beings either....



considering the fact your willing to kill innocent human beings who DON'T have a defective body, I consider your argument rather shallow....


???...you mean activities like birth?


it is an absurdity to deny it.....


good lord, kill the children, we may have to answer questions!!!
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and let's get real about "zygotes"....zygotes are zygotes for about four days.....you want the right to abort during the first four days of pregnancy, fine......now, lets deal with the other eight months and 26 days, including 100% of the time that any woman knows she is pregnant......
Click to expand...

Ahh, so now the first four days after conception there is no human being? Or do we just ignore those human beings the same way we ignore those other human beings who, unfortunately, end up in a defective woman's body?

So, correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you want to classify embryos/fetuses as human beings but it's OK to kill them every now and then. Interesting position you hold.
 
Onceler said:
Christ - talk about a credibility nosedive.

My mistake; I thought I was trying to engage someone rational. You're a friggin' lunatic...
Click to expand...

oh I'm sorry....did the truth bounce high enough to hit you in the face that time?....

liberal woman on the phone to her husband "Honey! Good news! The doctor's office just called with the lab results. We're gonna' have a parasite!"
 
apple0154 said:
Because people now question absurd ideas like claiming an embryo/fetus is a human being but it's OK to kill it. It's called 'thinking it through' which anti-abortionists appear to have great difficulty doing.
Click to expand...

get real.....for a hundred years before Roe v Wade we had no trouble understanding that the unborn children were human beings and that abortions could be performed to save the life of the mother....it isn't suddenly complicated now except for the fact that liberals are committed to the concept of freely killing them.....your position is the aberration and it is simply solved by eliminating the bad idea......
 
"oh I'm sorry....did the truth bounce high enough to hit you in the face that time?...."

What truth...that you're a friggin' lunatic who thinks all libbies just want to kill babies?

Yeah - that truth was pretty clear, lunatic...
 
apple0154 said:
Ahh, so now the first four days after conception there is no human being? Or do we just ignore those human beings the same way we ignore those other human beings who, unfortunately, end up in a defective woman's body?
Click to expand...

yes, I am callously ignoring them to deprive you of even a weak argument....it pains me to do it, but I am willing to make that sacrifice to save the lives of the 47 million children who have been aborted AFTER they were no longer zygotes....

So, correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you want to classify embryos/fetuses as human beings but it's OK to kill them every now and then. Interesting position you hold.
Click to expand...

I know, it sucks....but it is preferable to saying you can kill them all the time......which is the interesting position YOU want to hold.....besides, it isn't really that big a deal, since they have a great chance of surviving your efforts to kill them.....they will be past the zygote stage before you know they exist.....sort of like the Irish prayer...."may you be in heaven before the Devil knows you're dead".......

so let's make the deal....you'll have to on your toes if you want to keep up your quota of baby killings.....
 
Last edited:
Dixie: A seed is a seed. A human being is a human being, not a seed.

Biological classification of when human life begins, tells us it happens at point of conception. Nothing further has to happen for a human being to exist. You may say the human being is in a certain state, 'classification', phase, or condition... but it IS what it IS. Biology has concluded this... it is conclusive... beyond any shadow of doubt... not up for debate... not an "argument" from my perspective... a biological FACT!

Onceler said:
That's silly; it's just something pro-lifers repeat in the hopes that it's true.

In biology, it's actually called a zygote. Viability plays a large part in debates on "human-ness," and there is certainly plenty of gray area to debate, which is why any contention that anything in the debate is "beyond any shadow of doubt" is crazy...
Click to expand...

No, in biology it is actually called a living human organism in the zygote phase. It is physically a living human organism, or human life. The stage of development is just that, a stage... like "geriatric" stage. The living human organism can endure over a century, and undergoes NUMEROUS stages of development along the way. Certain aspects of this organism, literally NEVER stop developing, until the demise of the organism. This is why an abortion procedure is necessary, to terminate the living human organism, or human life.

There is no such word as "human-ness" and this is what I think is silly. Creating non-words to redefine a living human being, because you can't really accept what you are doing otherwise. Oh... YOU could personally accept it... no problems there, you don't give two shits about human life! But you know you would have a difficult time condoning it publicly, because then it would be seen as 'unethical' and wrong. So this is why you nitwits will continue to throw out the same inane arguments, use the same non-words, and concoct your bullshit 'classifications' for what is ACTUALLY being done.

Before we can begin to have a rational debate, pro-abortionists have to become honest about what we are talking about. Biology is on our side, you are the ones having to resort to the creation of 'redefining' terminology to support your view. It's because you are in complete denial. Until you face reality, and understand what the debate is about, we can't have meaningful debate. It's pointless, it gets us nowhere.

It all falls in the realm of debate over when it is ethical or moral to end human life. Obviously, the left thinks it's pretty much okay for human life like Terri Schiavo, and of course we know Bush thought it ethical and moral to kill Islamic terrorists in the middle east... we kill people everyday on death row. Hell, watch a damn Celebrex commercial! We kill people with "medicine" all the time! Poor Micheal Jackson... we probably killed the King of Pop! So we obviously have some threshold for where it is moral and ethical to kill human beings. With abortion, we can't have that debate until the pro-abortionists understand what we're actually debating. But the public outcry will not stop. We'll continue to make the same protest to the killing of innocent human life in the name of vanity and convenience. It's just wrong, and I think most of you know damn well it's wrong.
 
Onceler said:
What truth...that you're a friggin' lunatic who thinks all libbies just want to kill babies?

Yeah - that truth was pretty clear, lunatic...
Click to expand...

oh I wouldn't say all libbies want to kill their babies......you just want everyone to be ABLE to kill their babies....so, you pretend that all babies aren't babies....it's really time you admit that to yourselves....embrace your inner child murderer......
 
"we know Bush thought it ethical and moral to kill Islamic terrorists in the middle east"

As well as a few hundred thousand innocents, Dix - and you supported it too.

Of all people, you are the least credible to talk about actually caring about human life...
 
At least Dixie was the 1st one who actually tried to reference the woman involved, albeit in a vague way, with his mention of "vanity and convenience."

Just that characterization alone speaks volumes as to how out of touch with reality so many who argue against women's rights are. They're usually guys, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top