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

PostmodernProphet said:
lol, so I should assume instead that it MIGHT become a sheep or a horse or a dog?....
Click to expand...

The operative word there is "MIGHT". It might become a human being. Then, again, it might not.

let's try it just one more time from a different angle....you mentioned stem cell research.....now, once a woman's egg has been fertilized and conception has occurred, there is something which exists which is different from the egg and different from the sperm.....a scientist can examine the DNA....what that scientist will tell you is this different thing is alive, it is human, it is something completely distinguishable from both the mother and the father.....if this were not true, there would BE no stem cell research, because they could simply use the sperm cell.....that thing is a living human individual.....granted, it is not a fully grown living human individual, thus it is not an "oak tree"....but "oak tree" does not equal "human being"...."oak tree" equals "human adult"....."oak" equals "human"....so when you kill that thing, you are killing a living human individual.....why are you killing living human individuals?......
Click to expand...

Again, it is human material. It is not a human being.

BTW, I mentioned previously about a person having two sets of DNA. In one notable legal case science "proved" a woman's biological children were not her own. Obviously, science made a error.

DNA and the corresponding science is relatively new. Science does not know if the individual thing that is alive will become a human being. That is why over 50% of those living things spontaneously abort.

We have no way of knowing, at this time, which of those living things will develop into a human being. Science can't even tell if one of those living things is one living thing or if it will become two living things (twins). Or three living things (triplets). All science can tell us is it's human material and it's living. That's all. Unless you have info to the contrary?

On that note I have to leave the discussion there.. Back in a week or so.
 
apple0154 said:
Please refer to my last post. We know an embryo/fetus is not a human being the same way we know an egg is not a chicken or an acorn an oak tree.

An egg has the same DNA as a chicken and science will tell you an acorn possesses the same makeup as an oak tree but an egg is not a chicken and an acorn is not an oak tree. Similarly, embryos/fetuses are not human beings.

Why do some folks insist on using DNA/scientific terms when discussing human beings and not when discussing other things? That's the question that needs answering.
Click to expand...

Sorry, again you are incorrect and haven't show any proof for your argument. This makes the seventh time you've done this and I've corrected you, how many more times do we have to repeat the same posts? 10? 20? 30? 100? I'm game! C'mon... repeat yourself again without backing up what you're saying, idiot! I can play this fucking game from now on!

Chicken eggs and acorns are not embryos and fetuses. An embryo or fetus is the product of conception, when a female human egg is fertilized by a male sperm and begins the process of human life. This is how YOU began life! Are YOU a human being? If so, you were a human being as a fetus or embryo, because that is how we all began life.
 
Southern Man said:
Why not- they are dependent on someone else for existence, same as a fetus. You're not being consistent.
Click to expand...

embryo.gif
≠
terri-schiavo2.jpg
 
Southern Man said:
Why not- they are dependent on someone else for existence, same as a fetus. You're not being consistent.
Click to expand...

A) I never said all fetuses should be terminated.
B) My point was that there is extremely low consideration for the body of the woman involved in the equation, throughout this entire discussion.

Seriously, your "point" is exceedingly brain dead. I worry, in a big way, about the current state of conservatism in America.
 
Onceler said:
A) I never said all fetuses should be terminated.
B) My point was that there is extremely low consideration for the body of the woman involved in the equation, throughout this entire discussion.

Seriously, your "point" is exceedingly brain dead. I worry, in a big way, about the current state of conservatism in America.
Click to expand...

Are you worried about the gal getting stretch marks or what? I sense a major straw man here. Let's here it. Don't make me guess.
 
Uh oh! Onceler is dodging Yurt again!

I'm either a gay stalker, or dodging your "great" points.

By some definitions of life, the fetus definitely qualifies. However, I find that people on the extremes of this issue try to distill everything down to simple, black & white terms. Questions such as viability, consciousness and other aspects regarding the stages of development are all points of discussion. The main point, for me, is that I don't think anyone can force a woman to carry a fetus to term. The fetus relies on the woman for its development, and that is something that is the differentiating factor here; as opposed to SM's contention that I want to kill everyone on life support, as well.

That's my opinion on the matter, and it happens to be national law, and has been for decades. This is a good thing, which hopefully will not change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top