41% of Births end in Abortion...100%

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
…I do think that property rights are absolute, [/quote]

Unless they belong to a clump of cells, no?[/quote]

I ignore them, just like I ignore the property rights of rocks, daisies and livestock.[/quote]

You sure know how to stretch the definition of the word “absolute.”

[/quote]

Really?

I must subscribe to some sort of pantheism or shintoistic animism or else I am wavering?

People have property rights.

The mere possibility of a person does not.

362

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
As soon as a zygote can survive outside a womb without aid, then it’s become autonomous.[/quote]

So when a kid hit about 3 years old, it’s no longer a zygote?

The ‘zygote’ it a separate living entity from the host, like a parasite. It is not the same as the host. Just because it require a host, doesn’t mean it’s the same living organism.
If a tape worm crawls up your ass, are you and the tape worm one and the same?[/quote]

Every cell in your body is replaced during a seven year cycle. So no, the three year old is no longer the zygote.

I know you think you have the rational approach here, and i understand why you maintain the position. But this discussion will have no resolution because i do not acknowledge the rights of a zygote as equal to that of a adult human being.

[/quote]

I am not advocating give the child the right to vote or drive, but simply not killing it is the least we can do. Calling it a Zygote doesn’t make it less human. Why don’t you just admit it’s human and that you think it’s ok to kill humans depending on the state of their development. And yes I am being rational. The said clump is either human or it’s not, there is no kinda, sorta, maybe. It’s not any less human because mom is poor or because she for got to use a rubber that night, or her feelings tell her she shouldn’t be a mom yet.[/quote]

You redefine what life is in order to give a clump of cells rights so you can deny a woman’s choice what to do with her body.

No matter how you justify that, that in and of itself relegates women to a second tier.

I think that’s malicious and wrong.

[/quote]

Strawman. Is it killing a person or not? The zygote is not a part of the woman’s body. It is a separate living organism dependent on a host. This is basic scientific fact, E. There is nothing to argue. I am saying it is a human organism. You are saying it is either not a human organism and therefore it is ok to kill it, or it is a human organism, but it’s really small and doesn’t look much like a human and therefore it is ok to kill it.

This is about killing or not killing. That’s it, nothing more. Nothing else is germane to the argument until this has been solidly established.

363

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
…I do think that property rights are absolute, [/quote]

Unless they belong to a clump of cells, no?[/quote]

I ignore them, just like I ignore the property rights of rocks, daisies and livestock.[/quote]

You sure know how to stretch the definition of the word “absolute.”

[/quote]

Really?

I must subscribe to some sort of pantheism or shintoistic animism or else I am wavering?

People have property rights.

The mere possibility of a person does not. [/quote]

What exactly is the ‘possibility of a person’?

364

No, it’s not killing a person.

365

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So have we determined what makes someone a person yet? Is it as simple as being alive with human dna, irrespective of how long?[/quote]

Yes. We’ve moved on to discussing if it’s ok to take completely innocent human lives, deliberately. And if that’s our inalienable right.[/quote]

Sounds like ephrem and Orion don’t agree on this definition.

The question I’m struggling with is whether or not a certain level of development must first be reached before we can properly call it human.

For example, when I first put my cake batter in the oven, it isn’t a cake yet. It’s just batter with the potential to become a cake. All of the necessary ingredients are present, but it hasn’t developed to the point where I can properly call it a cake.

I don’t think there is an absolute answer here, but am open to arguments either way.

366

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So have we determined what makes someone a person yet? Is it as simple as being alive with human dna, irrespective of how long?[/quote]

Yes. We’ve moved on to discussing if it’s ok to take completely innocent human lives, deliberately. And if that’s our inalienable right.[/quote]

Sounds like ephrem and Orion don’t agree on this definition.

[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if they don’t agree. Those of us who understand that an organism is necessarily living, have left them behind.

367

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[
The right to liberty and property entails the right to give AND to receive voluntarily…[/quote]

A one month old…

Edit: Forget it, too far off topic. [/quote]

You don’t need to exercise a right to possess it.
I don’t understand the distinction you’re making.

[/quote]

Too much of a side debate, atm.

368

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So have we determined what makes someone a person yet? Is it as simple as being alive with human dna, irrespective of how long?[/quote]

Yes. We’ve moved on to discussing if it’s ok to take completely innocent human lives, deliberately. And if that’s our inalienable right.[/quote]

Sounds like ephrem and Orion don’t agree on this definition.

[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if they don’t agree. Those of us who understand that an organism is necessarily living, have left them behind.[/quote]

I thought the question wasn’t whether it was living, but whether it was a person?

What is your take on the cake analogy?

369

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

She is detaining it having brought it onto her her property with the knowledge of it not having the mobility to free itself. [/quote]

Not relevant. The infant had no objection to it’s being born on the property. It’s never expressed a desire to leave, nor seemingly attempted to. In fact, it’s probably pretty, pretty, safe to say it can’t do any of those things. Much less, participate in ‘voluntary exchange.’ We are talking about a 1 month old infant here. So, any statement otherwise, must necessarily be the bald-faced projections of outside observers. We are again talking about a 1 month old. It hasn’t been forcibly chained to a radiator in a basement, having expressed a desire to go to the mall and participate in some voluntary exchange at the GAP, after all.

[/quote]

You can say the same for a person drugged and kidnapped.

“well, they never expressed any desire to leave or even not be taken in the first place.”[/quote]

DD, come on.[/quote]

Me?

It was your poorly reasoned argument that lead to that conclusion.

I know it was ridiculous. It was meant to be. It followed your reasoning.

maybe you should be saying “self, come on.”

I was only pointing out a massive hole in your argument.

370

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So have we determined what makes someone a person yet? Is it as simple as being alive with human dna, irrespective of how long?[/quote]

Yes. We’ve moved on to discussing if it’s ok to take completely innocent human lives, deliberately. And if that’s our inalienable right.[/quote]

Sounds like ephrem and Orion don’t agree on this definition.

[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if they don’t agree. Those of us who understand that an organism is necessarily living, have left them behind.[/quote]

I thought the question wasn’t whether it was living, but whether it was a person?

What is your take on the cake analogy?[/quote]

If there’s no question that it’s living, any analogy is pointless. It’s a human organism = it’s a human life. So, we’re back to the real argument as I (and a number of others) have presented it.

371

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

She is detaining it having brought it onto her her property with the knowledge of it not having the mobility to free itself. [/quote]

Not relevant. The infant had no objection to it’s being born on the property. It’s never expressed a desire to leave, nor seemingly attempted to. In fact, it’s probably pretty, pretty, safe to say it can’t do any of those things. Much less, participate in ‘voluntary exchange.’ We are talking about a 1 month old infant here. So, any statement otherwise, must necessarily be the bald-faced projections of outside observers. We are again talking about a 1 month old. It hasn’t been forcibly chained to a radiator in a basement, having expressed a desire to go to the mall and participate in some voluntary exchange at the GAP, after all.

[/quote]

You can say the same for a person drugged and kidnapped.

“well, they never expressed any desire to leave or even not be taken in the first place.”[/quote]

DD, come on.[/quote]

Me?

It was your poorly reasoned argument that lead to that conclusion.

I know it was ridiculous. It was meant to be. It followed your reasoning.

maybe you should be saying “self, come on.”

I was only pointing out a massive hole in your argument.[/quote]

Personally, I’m not going through an argument about drugged and kidnapped individuals when it has absolutely zero do with the scenario as I presented it. I"m not taking the time to explain why, either. That’s just the way it is.

372

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So have we determined what makes someone a person yet? Is it as simple as being alive with human dna, irrespective of how long?[/quote]

Yes. We’ve moved on to discussing if it’s ok to take completely innocent human lives, deliberately. And if that’s our inalienable right.[/quote]

Sounds like ephrem and Orion don’t agree on this definition.

[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if they don’t agree. Those of us who understand that an organism is necessarily living, have left them behind.[/quote]

I thought the question wasn’t whether it was living, but whether it was a person?

What is your take on the cake analogy?[/quote]

If there’s no question that it’s living, any analogy is pointless. It’s a human organism = it’s a human life. So, we’re back to the real argument as I (and a number of others) have presented it.[/quote]

It’s a living organism, but is it properly called a human? That’s the question posed by the cake analogy.

373

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

She is detaining it having brought it onto her her property with the knowledge of it not having the mobility to free itself. [/quote]

Not relevant. The infant had no objection to it’s being born on the property. It’s never expressed a desire to leave, nor seemingly attempted to. In fact, it’s probably pretty, pretty, safe to say it can’t do any of those things. Much less, participate in ‘voluntary exchange.’ We are talking about a 1 month old infant here. So, any statement otherwise, must necessarily be the bald-faced projections of outside observers. We are again talking about a 1 month old. It hasn’t been forcibly chained to a radiator in a basement, having expressed a desire to go to the mall and participate in some voluntary exchange at the GAP, after all.

[/quote]

You can say the same for a person drugged and kidnapped.

“well, they never expressed any desire to leave or even not be taken in the first place.”[/quote]

DD, come on.[/quote]

Me?

It was your poorly reasoned argument that lead to that conclusion.

I know it was ridiculous. It was meant to be. It followed your reasoning.

maybe you should be saying “self, come on.”

I was only pointing out a massive hole in your argument.[/quote]

Personally, I’m not going through an argument about drugged and kidnapped individuals when it has absolutely zero do with the scenario as I presented it. I"m not taking the time to explain why, either. That’s just the way it is.
[/quote]

No, it fits perfectly into your scenario. A person does not have to verbalize, request, protest, or even to realize whatâ??s going on to have certain rights or for people to violate those rights.

For the record, I donâ??t exactly agree with too human. But I do think it is a reasonable argument to counter people who think of a human embryo as a parasite.

374

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So have we determined what makes someone a person yet? Is it as simple as being alive with human dna, irrespective of how long?[/quote]

Yes. We’ve moved on to discussing if it’s ok to take completely innocent human lives, deliberately. And if that’s our inalienable right.[/quote]

Sounds like ephrem and Orion don’t agree on this definition.

[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if they don’t agree. Those of us who understand that an organism is necessarily living, have left them behind.[/quote]

I thought the question wasn’t whether it was living, but whether it was a person?

What is your take on the cake analogy?[/quote]

If there’s no question that it’s living, any analogy is pointless. It’s a human organism = it’s a human life. So, we’re back to the real argument as I (and a number of others) have presented it.[/quote]

It’s a living organism, but is it properly called a human? That’s the question posed by the cake analogy.[/quote]

it’s human as a scientific fact.

375

[quote]forlife wrote:

It’s a living organism, but is it properly called a human? That’s the question posed by the cake analogy.[/quote]

Are you implying we can’t answer this with a bio 101 understanding of DNA and testing? You’re not suggesting it’s an entirely different individual organism, say a dog, that “POOF” turns into an organism with humanity’s ID tag written all over it, are you? I mean, you can’t really believe you replaced some foreign placeholder organism at some point, do you? You’re still within the same life cycle of that same organism, no? You are that organism, no?

376

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So have we determined what makes someone a person yet? Is it as simple as being alive with human dna, irrespective of how long?[/quote]

Yes. We’ve moved on to discussing if it’s ok to take completely innocent human lives, deliberately. And if that’s our inalienable right.[/quote]

Sounds like ephrem and Orion don’t agree on this definition.

[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if they don’t agree. Those of us who understand that an organism is necessarily living, have left them behind.[/quote]

I thought the question wasn’t whether it was living, but whether it was a person?

What is your take on the cake analogy?[/quote]

If there’s no question that it’s living, any analogy is pointless. It’s a human organism = it’s a human life. So, we’re back to the real argument as I (and a number of others) have presented it.[/quote]

It’s a living organism, but is it properly called a human? That’s the question posed by the cake analogy.[/quote]

it’s human as a scientific fact.[/quote]

Is my cake batter a cake, by virtue of its ingredients?

377

we live in a society where women sleep around much more than in years past. women go to bars, have sex with different guys every weekend. get pregnant, have an abortion and are right back to their same slutty ways. 100 years ago, this sort of behavior was unheard of.

378

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

It’s a living organism, but is it properly called a human? That’s the question posed by the cake analogy.[/quote]

Are you implying we can’t answer this with a bio 101 understanding of DNA and testing? You’re not suggesting it’s an entirely different individual organism, say a dog, that “POOF” turns into an organism with humanity’s ID tag written all over it, are you? I mean, you can’t really believe you replaced some foreign placeholder organism at some point, do you? You’re still within the same life cycle of that same organism, no? You are that organism, no?[/quote]

I’m suggesting that some things can become other things by virtue of maturation, despite having the same ingredients. Cake batter is not a cake. A zygote is not a human…or is it?

I don’t know, but it’s a question worth exploring.

379

[quote]forlife wrote:
A zygote is not a human…or is it?
[/quote]

Is it a frog? Is there something confusing about it’s human DNA?

380

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

It’s a living organism, but is it properly called a human? That’s the question posed by the cake analogy.[/quote]

Are you implying we can’t answer this with a bio 101 understanding of DNA and testing? You’re not suggesting it’s an entirely different individual organism, say a dog, that “POOF” turns into an organism with humanity’s ID tag written all over it, are you? I mean, you can’t really believe you replaced some foreign placeholder organism at some point, do you? You’re still within the same life cycle of that same organism, no? You are that organism, no?[/quote]

I’m suggesting that some things can become other things by virtue of maturation, despite having the same ingredients. Cake batter is not a cake. A zygote is not a human…or is it?

I don’t know, but it’s a question worth exploring.[/quote]
It’s not an ingredient. DNA is digital information. The very definition of species means two humans can only produce another human organism.