90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
641

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
These are claims you are just making. Prove to me that sperm or blood cells have the same characteristics as a human embryo.

[quote]orion wrote:
As I said, sperm are alive.

Blood cells are too, they have a metabolism, they react to outside stimuli, they obviously must be maintaining some sort of homeostasis…[/quote]
[/quote]

Well, being alive and having the same characteristics as a human embryo is not quite the same, dont you think?[/quote]

Well no, we know the human embryo is alive, it’s an organism. And it’s an individual organism in it’s own life cycle.

642

[quote]orion wrote:

And of course on the a priori assumption that while the lines are fuzzy, a fertilized egg is not even comparable to a fully developed human being.

[/quote]

Well, of course not, it hasn’t been allowed to develop. But it is the same life. The same individual organism traveling the same life cycle. Your life entered reality at conception.

643

orion - Your side of the debate is to take action when purposefully killing an embryo. Just like many other situations, justify your actions.

A human zygote is the exact same as a human walking the world today save four traits - SLED. Do I need to write the acronym again? Size, Level of development, Environment and Degree of dependency - together these traits can be used to describe the difference between the unborn and myself. Those exact same traits can be used to define the difference between you and I.

The human sperm is NOT alive and your point has been addressed by me and another poster. Do I need to prove you wrong, again?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
My apologies, not sure how I missed this post. Again, please accept my apologies.

Because we are having a ‘discussion’ about the definition of human life. Please prove to me the human sperm is alive, like a person is alive. Either one walking the world or even the embryo you claim is impossible to define.

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Source for above definition ^ Koshland Jr, Daniel E. (March 22, 2002). “The Seven Pillars of Life”. Science 295 (5563): 2215Ã??Ã?¢??2216. doi:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. Retrieved 2009-05-25

[quote]orion wrote:
According to whom?

I am sure that I can find a definition of “alive” that fits.

edit: and I would be very careful with that, because if you answer that sperm cannot survive on their own you leave a gap open I could drive a truck through, with room to spare. [/quote]
[/quote]

Why do I have to prove anything?

Prove to me that a “zygote is alive like a human being is alive.” You are making the claim, you back it up.

I say that human sperm is alive and that it is appealing that so much of it is shot out into an uncaring universe. If one equates human life with human being that is.

edit: Did I really write appealing? Should have been appalling. Anyhow I will let it stand as it is… O_O[/quote]

644

The “book was based on a course of public lectures delivered by Schrödinger in February 1943” and his understanding of biology was far off in what we now know about life. Find current evidence to prove the unborn are not alive, NOT science in a different field from over sixty five years ago.

[quote]orion wrote:
This might be interesting for some:

Seen that way, life is something that wrestles order from entropy. [/quote]

645

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
These are claims you are just making. Prove to me that sperm or blood cells have the same characteristics as a human embryo.

[quote]orion wrote:
As I said, sperm are alive.

Blood cells are too, they have a metabolism, they react to outside stimuli, they obviously must be maintaining some sort of homeostasis…[/quote]
[/quote]

Well, being alive and having the same characteristics as a human embryo is not quite the same, dont you think?[/quote]

Well no, we know the human embryo is alive, it’s an organism. And it’s an individual organism in it’s own life cycle.
[/quote]

So is a wombat, a rye stalk and a regulan bloodworm.

646

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
These are claims you are just making. Prove to me that sperm or blood cells have the same characteristics as a human embryo.

[quote]orion wrote:
As I said, sperm are alive.

Blood cells are too, they have a metabolism, they react to outside stimuli, they obviously must be maintaining some sort of homeostasis…[/quote]
[/quote]

Well, being alive and having the same characteristics as a human embryo is not quite the same, dont you think?[/quote]

Well no, we know the human embryo is alive, it’s an organism. And it’s an individual organism in it’s own life cycle.
[/quote]

So is a wombat, a rye stalk and a regulan bloodworm. [/quote]

We’re talking about human life.

647

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

And of course on the a priori assumption that while the lines are fuzzy, a fertilized egg is not even comparable to a fully developed human being.

[/quote]

Well, of course not, it hasn’t been allowed to develop. But it is the same life. The same individual organism traveling the same life cycle. Your life entered reality at conception.
[/quote]

No, my life entered reality when I was born, before that I was a potential human being at best.

Almost did not make it either, apparently I opted to strangle myself with the umbilical cord.

I can only deduce from this that I was wise beyond my, um, months?, and that I tried to use the resources available as best as I could.

648

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
orion - Your side of the debate is to take action when purposefully killing an embryo. Just like many other situations, justify your actions.

A human zygote is the exact same as a human walking the world today save four traits - SLED. Do I need to write the acronym again? Size, Level of development, Environment and Degree of dependency - together these traits can be used to describe the difference between the unborn and myself. Those exact same traits can be used to define the difference between you and I.

The human sperm is NOT alive and your point has been addressed by me and another poster. Do I need to prove you wrong, again?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
My apologies, not sure how I missed this post. Again, please accept my apologies.

Because we are having a ‘discussion’ about the definition of human life. Please prove to me the human sperm is alive, like a person is alive. Either one walking the world or even the embryo you claim is impossible to define.

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Source for above definition ^ Koshland Jr, Daniel E. (March 22, 2002). “The Seven Pillars of Life”. Science 295 (5563): 2215Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??2216. doi:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. Retrieved 2009-05-25

[quote]orion wrote:
According to whom?

I am sure that I can find a definition of “alive” that fits.

edit: and I would be very careful with that, because if you answer that sperm cannot survive on their own you leave a gap open I could drive a truck through, with room to spare. [/quote]
[/quote]

Why do I have to prove anything?

Prove to me that a “zygote is alive like a human being is alive.” You are making the claim, you back it up.

I say that human sperm is alive and that it is appealing that so much of it is shot out into an uncaring universe. If one equates human life with human being that is.

edit: Did I really write appealing? Should have been appalling. Anyhow I will let it stand as it is… O_O[/quote]
[/quote]

Did you, even once?

Also, I find it interesting that you claim that a zygote is a human being except for FOUR reasons, no less.

No apparent disconnect there?

None at all?

649

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
These are claims you are just making. Prove to me that sperm or blood cells have the same characteristics as a human embryo.

[quote]orion wrote:
As I said, sperm are alive.

Blood cells are too, they have a metabolism, they react to outside stimuli, they obviously must be maintaining some sort of homeostasis…[/quote]
[/quote]

Well, being alive and having the same characteristics as a human embryo is not quite the same, dont you think?[/quote]

Well no, we know the human embryo is alive, it’s an organism. And it’s an individual organism in it’s own life cycle.
[/quote]

So is a wombat, a rye stalk and a regulan bloodworm. [/quote]

We’re talking about human life.
[/quote]

How very anthropocentric of you.

Any other arbitrary distinctions you want to include.

In a totally non-mystical fashion of course.

650

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The “book was based on a course of public lectures delivered by SchrÃ?¶dinger in February 1943” and his understanding of biology was far off in what we now know about life. Find current evidence to prove the unborn are not alive, NOT science in a different field from over sixty five years ago.

[quote]orion wrote:
This might be interesting for some:

Seen that way, life is something that wrestles order from entropy. [/quote]
[/quote]

I hope that you find no worthwhile considerations in the bible, I just hope that you dont…

The alternative would be unthinkable…

Come to think of it, if you did not, that would not be too flattering either.

Oh well…

651

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Science is and necessarily must be, silent on this matter. [/quote]

So the pro-choicer relies on the unknown ‘when’ of an unfalsifiable ‘human being soul’ being imparted to a human life in order to continue support for the premeditated taking of innocent individual human lives. Mysticism. [/quote]

The pro choicer does no such thing, he just wishes that the religious pro lifer would make up his mind.

652

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
My apologies, not sure how I missed this post. Again, please accept my apologies.

Because we are having a ‘discussion’ about the definition of human life. Please prove to me the human sperm is alive, like a person is alive. Either one walking the world or even the embryo you claim is impossible to define.

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Source for above definition ^ Koshland Jr, Daniel E. (March 22, 2002). “The Seven Pillars of Life”. Science 295 (5563): 2215â??2216. doi:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. Retrieved 2009-05-25

[quote]orion wrote:
According to whom?

I am sure that I can find a definition of “alive” that fits.

edit: and I would be very careful with that, because if you answer that sperm cannot survive on their own you leave a gap open I could drive a truck through, with room to spare. [/quote]
[/quote]

Alright, blood and sperm is alive then.

I am glad that this is settled-

653

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Science is and necessarily must be, silent on this matter. [/quote]

So the pro-choicer relies on the unknown ‘when’ of an unfalsifiable ‘human being soul’ being imparted to a human life in order to continue support for the premeditated taking of innocent individual human lives. Mysticism. [/quote]

The pro choicer does no such thing, he just wishes that the religious pro lifer would make up his mind. [/quote]

The pro choicer does. When given the option of protecting the right to life, an individual and innocent human life, from premeditated murder he reaches for some human being essence/soul.

654

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
My apologies, not sure how I missed this post. Again, please accept my apologies.

Because we are having a ‘discussion’ about the definition of human life. Please prove to me the human sperm is alive, like a person is alive. Either one walking the world or even the embryo you claim is impossible to define.

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Source for above definition ^ Koshland Jr, Daniel E. (March 22, 2002). “The Seven Pillars of Life”. Science 295 (5563): 2215Ã?¢??2216. doi:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. Retrieved 2009-05-25

[quote]orion wrote:
According to whom?

I am sure that I can find a definition of “alive” that fits.

edit: and I would be very careful with that, because if you answer that sperm cannot survive on their own you leave a gap open I could drive a truck through, with room to spare. [/quote]
[/quote]

Alright, blood and sperm is alive then.

I am glad that this is settled-[/quote]

Yet, they are not individual human lives, traversing the human life cycle. You keep getting smacked down point, by point, by point. When you run out of points to get smacked down over, you then completely restart the same points from the beginning. Keep this together; individual human organism (life). You are the individual organism from the womb. Deal with this honestly, or let the more honest pro-choicers take a crack at it, why don’t you?

655

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Science is and necessarily must be, silent on this matter. [/quote]

So the pro-choicer relies on the unknown ‘when’ of an unfalsifiable ‘human being soul’ being imparted to a human life in order to continue support for the premeditated taking of innocent individual human lives. Mysticism. [/quote]

The pro choicer does no such thing, he just wishes that the religious pro lifer would make up his mind. [/quote]

The pro choicer does. When given the option of protecting the right to life, an individual and innocent human life, from premeditated murder he reaches for some human being essence/soul.[/quote]

He most certainly does not!

He feels that it is kind of awkward how a cell that most likely will end up in the drain anyway is somehow the equivalent of a human being and is expected to be treated as such.

He, if he was me, would reach for it if he wanted to bombard someone else with questions regarding the recyclability of souls and the nature of souls of twins if the zygote comes “ensouled” so to speak, but given the nature of the topic he might try to reign himself in.

But then, he might be easily tempted to go there, so if you absolutely, positively need to go there…

I iz all ears…

656

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
My apologies, not sure how I missed this post. Again, please accept my apologies.

Because we are having a ‘discussion’ about the definition of human life. Please prove to me the human sperm is alive, like a person is alive. Either one walking the world or even the embryo you claim is impossible to define.

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Source for above definition ^ Koshland Jr, Daniel E. (March 22, 2002). “The Seven Pillars of Life”. Science 295 (5563): 2215Ã??Ã?¢??2216. doi:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. Retrieved 2009-05-25

[quote]orion wrote:
According to whom?

I am sure that I can find a definition of “alive” that fits.

edit: and I would be very careful with that, because if you answer that sperm cannot survive on their own you leave a gap open I could drive a truck through, with room to spare. [/quote]
[/quote]

Alright, blood and sperm is alive then.

I am glad that this is settled-[/quote]

Yet, they are not individual human lives, traversing the human life cycle. You keep getting smacked down point, by point, by point. When you run out of points to get smacked down over, you then completely restart the same points from the beginning. Keep this together; individual human organism (life). You are the individual organism from the womb. Deal with this honestly, or let the more honest pro-choicers take a crack at it, why don’t you?
[/quote]

Excuse me?

They are distinct living units that are human.

As long as you, or anyone else fails to address this, I am utterly unable to retreat.

657

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
My apologies, not sure how I missed this post. Again, please accept my apologies.

Because we are having a ‘discussion’ about the definition of human life. Please prove to me the human sperm is alive, like a person is alive. Either one walking the world or even the embryo you claim is impossible to define.

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Source for above definition ^ Koshland Jr, Daniel E. (March 22, 2002). “The Seven Pillars of Life”. Science 295 (5563): 2215Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??2216. doi:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. Retrieved 2009-05-25

[quote]orion wrote:
According to whom?

I am sure that I can find a definition of “alive” that fits.

edit: and I would be very careful with that, because if you answer that sperm cannot survive on their own you leave a gap open I could drive a truck through, with room to spare. [/quote]
[/quote]

Alright, blood and sperm is alive then.

I am glad that this is settled-[/quote]

Yet, they are not individual human lives, traversing the human life cycle. You keep getting smacked down point, by point, by point. When you run out of points to get smacked down over, you then completely restart the same points from the beginning. Keep this together; individual human organism (life). You are the individual organism from the womb. Deal with this honestly, or let the more honest pro-choicers take a crack at it, why don’t you?
[/quote]

Excuse me?

They are distinct living units that are human.

As long as you, or anyone else fails to address this, I am utterly unable to retreat.

[/quote]

They are not the human organism. A sperm is a haploid gamete. A human skin cell is diploid somatic cell of a human organism. It’s addressed in Anatomy/Bio 101. The zygote/embryo are distinct, individual human organisms, traveling IT’S human life cycle. Not the skin cell life cycle. Not the sperm life cycle. You don’t have to retreat, don’t get me wrong. But, you’re flat out ill informed.

658

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Which point do you need evidence for? I have told anyone, including you, to ask for evidence when my point is failed to be expressed in a manner you understand.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Again, you are making claims with nothing to back the statements.
[/quote]

More than half your “arguments” are made with no foundation. Most of the rest are either copy pasted from biased websites or made appealing to the authority of your previous statements (which have no foundation).[/quote]
[/quote]

There’s no point asking you for further clarification, you’ll either link a biased website or appeal to a previous statement made by yourself, which appeals to the authority of another statement you’ve made which appeals to a biased source.

Also, you quote like an idiot.

659

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The argument is basically, “unless you can demonstrate that there is a ‘soul’ of a human being assigned to the individual human life already present, it’s fair game.” Of course, science can’t falsify souls at any stage of development, either.[/quote]

I’m still undecided but science doesn’t have to falsify souls. The burden of proof for the existence of a soul is on those making the claim it exists.

[/quote]

The ones bringing in the descent of some kind of human being ‘soul’ are the pro-choicers. So the burden is on them.
[/quote]

You make a claim, burden of proof exists with you. Stop shirking your responsibility. Every day you let slip without proving the existence of the soul and when it enters the body, you allow abortion to continue.

Off you go, I’ll wait.

660

[quote]Makavali wrote:

You make a claim, burden of proof exists with you. Stop shirking your responsibility. Every day you let slip without proving the existence of the soul and when it enters the body, you allow abortion to continue.

Off you go, I’ll wait.[/quote]

I’ve made no claim. Start paying attention. Pro-choicers are making the claim that so long as we don’t know when some non falsifiable (as Orion described) essence of humanity (‘soul’) descends upon an individual human life, abortion must stay legal. I’m arguing exclusively from a materialist perspective, with what biology tells us. My argument is simple, individual human life. Sorry, the burden of proof isn’t on me.