[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Short answer—NO! A woman can do what she wants with her body. ROE V. WADE will NEVER be overturned!!!
Live with it, you freakin religious nutjobs!
Love to stop by from time to time to see what the crazy 22% are doing.
Never dissapointed.[/quote]
Um, Professor, it seems that you’ve misspelled “disappointed.” And “nut jobs” would be two words. I usually never correct spelling errors on the board, I make plenty of them. But then most people don’t try to pass themselves off as a Professor. When all you do is skate on occasion insult those whom you disagree with usually misspell a few words and leave.
I don’t think you’ve ever actually even tried to back up your case.
Lie much?[/quote]
Blah blah blah. I don’t have to impress you nutjobs. Fuck off. How’s that? Mr. Rich guy?
What’s really going on here, and what these guys in large part won’t admit, is that they postulate some essential “ethereal” quality that makes things what they are. It’s similar to how folks like Aristotle approached nature: this flower is a flower by virtue of its flowerness, which is of course essential to its very being, and as essential, has always been present an essential to the organism, even prior to it appearing as a flower.
At the end of the day, that’s metaphysics, not physics (or an examination of something within the physical world via science). Science (and observation in general) have us define things based on their attributes, and work from there. When we identify enough similar attributes in an organism or phenomenon we may decide that they are same type or species of phenomena.
We don’t work backwards and assert that there is a common essence present (in this case humanity), and then go from there. Yet, that is exactly what these folks are doing, and despite being super-simplistic, the picture you’re showing illustrates it well: they are not the same thing, despite having a definite, necessary relationship to each other.[/quote]
You’re a moron for defending that picture. You’re entire first paragraph is a straw man AND you’re arrogant enough to even admit it in the first sentence. Further, you try to assert that the species of a zygote is not observable by science. We can DIRECTLY observe and reproduce the fusion of two haploid gametes of the human species into a diploid syngamete(zygote) of the same species with all of the defining characteristics of a living organism. In fact, the entire field of embryonic stem cell research is dependent on the reliability of the outcome of such an experiment. Also, I’d like to point out that defining species by their attributes/qualities in a dichotomy has been almost entirely replaced by a quantitative examination of DNA parity. In other words, Two haploid sets of Homo sapiens chromosomes cannot produce a diploid set with a value for species==Null. The value can only be Homo sapiens with X representing the subspecies variant including any of a set of “mutant” variants that may or may not survive to implantation, birth, adulthood, etc…
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Short answer—NO! A woman can do what she wants with her body. ROE V. WADE will NEVER be overturned!!!
Live with it, you freakin religious nutjobs!
Love to stop by from time to time to see what the crazy 22% are doing.
Never dissapointed.[/quote]
Um, Professor, it seems that you’ve misspelled “disappointed.” And “nut jobs” would be two words. I usually never correct spelling errors on the board, I make plenty of them. But then most people don’t try to pass themselves off as a Professor. When all you do is skate on occasion insult those whom you disagree with usually misspell a few words and leave.
I don’t think you’ve ever actually even tried to back up your case.
Lie much?[/quote]
Blah blah blah. I don’t have to impress you nutjobs. Fuck off. How’s that? Mr. Rich guy?
[/quote]
Clearly a woman has the right to her own life, liberty, and body. However, the zygote her egg was fused from is not anymore “her body” than it is the body of the donor that contributed his spermatozoon to the fusion.
As far as “religious nutjobs” go, I have made no reference to any religious cannon or faith of any kind in support of my arguments. In fact, I don’t have any such faith-baaed inclination. The amount of evidence available now supporting the definition of abortion as a type of homicide far exceeds prior evidence to the contrary.
I do agree with you that Roe V. Wade will likely not be overturned. I predict it will become largely irrelevant in a future(as I foresee it) where most of the Federal statutes including Supreme Court rulings extending the power of the Federal government will be either formally nullified or simply ignored by the state governments in a post-dollar America.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please quote me where I typed anything about banning education or even saying it was bad. Please spend numerous hours pouring over my posts finding where I am saying that the education of people to stop abortions is a bad thing?
I have a problem with birth control that does NOT allow a fetus to implant on the uterine wall. Big difference Mak, but thank you for placing words in my mouth.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I am NOT following. Are you saying societies problems can be solved with abortion, or even the control of those problems? Please clarify.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Omigod, are unborn babies human? What a relevant discussion. In this imperfect world the only thing to discuss is how balance abortions and societal problems. The number of abortions will never be zero but how low can you get in an open society, that’s worth discussing. and what are the means to reach that.
It wasn’t really adressed to you so forget it. But for the sake of discussion, do you think the problem with abortions is solved if it is prohibited? Is it going to have repercussions? Should men be bound by law to fatherhood as strongly as women are naturally bound to motherhood? If you don’t take responsibility for your child you go to jail, right? Do you go there repeatedly till your child is of full age if you refuse to act responsibly?[/quote]
I’ve said numerous times that a realistic solution would be to simply educate on birth control, and making it available. They don’t want a realistic solution, because if it had the desired effect, they wouldn’t be able to complain loudly about it anymore.[/quote]
[/quote]
I was going to respond, but responding to you when you still refuse to quote properly makes for a confusing thread for other people who come into this thread.
the attributes they brought up in the video were the biological specifications for anything to be considered living. a fetus can not live outside the mother. so by biological definition, it is a parasite until its out
[quote]xspoonman wrote:
the attributes they brought up in the video were the biological specifications for anything to be considered living. a fetus can not live outside the mother. so by biological definition, it is a parasite until its out [/quote]
Lol…what? So, because it depends on the mother it isn’t a person? So, infants aren’t persons because they depend fully on its mother?
A parasite?! Is that all you can bring to the table?
[quote]xspoonman wrote:
the attributes they brought up in the video were the biological specifications for anything to be considered living. a fetus can not live outside the mother. so by biological definition, it is a parasite until its out [/quote]
Dodge is what it looks like you are doing :o ] Just because everyone quotes differently, well that should make your job of quoting me even easier from the little land of Kiwi’s ; )
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please quote me where I typed anything about banning education or even saying it was bad. Please spend numerous hours pouring over my posts finding where I am saying that the education of people to stop abortions is a bad thing?
I have a problem with birth control that does NOT allow a fetus to implant on the uterine wall. Big difference Mak, but thank you for placing words in my mouth.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I am NOT following. Are you saying societies problems can be solved with abortion, or even the control of those problems? Please clarify.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Omigod, are unborn babies human? What a relevant discussion. In this imperfect world the only thing to discuss is how balance abortions and societal problems. The number of abortions will never be zero but how low can you get in an open society, that’s worth discussing. and what are the means to reach that.
It wasn’t really adressed to you so forget it. But for the sake of discussion, do you think the problem with abortions is solved if it is prohibited? Is it going to have repercussions? Should men be bound by law to fatherhood as strongly as women are naturally bound to motherhood? If you don’t take responsibility for your child you go to jail, right? Do you go there repeatedly till your child is of full age if you refuse to act responsibly?[/quote]
I’ve said numerous times that a realistic solution would be to simply educate on birth control, and making it available. They don’t want a realistic solution, because if it had the desired effect, they wouldn’t be able to complain loudly about it anymore.[/quote]
[/quote]
I was going to respond, but responding to you when you still refuse to quote properly makes for a confusing thread for other people who come into this thread.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Dodge is what it looks like you are doing :o ] Just because everyone quotes differently, well that should make your job of quoting me even easier from the little land of Kiwi’s ; )[/quote]
Apparently you can’t read. If this conversation between us was only meant for us, I would have taken it to PMs, but when other people start to quote conversations we have, with the way you quote and respond it becomes confusing and the original point becomes lost.
Quote like a normal person and I might be inclined to respond on topic.
Our discussion is in reality quite far from that. Let me try a different train of thought. You would like to bring the abortion number down. Am I correct in that presumption? A simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ will be perfectly sufficient.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Dodge is what it looks like you are doing :o ] Just because everyone quotes differently, well that should make your job of quoting me even easier from the little land of Kiwi’s ; )[/quote]
Apparently you can’t read. If this conversation between us was only meant for us, I would have taken it to PMs, but when other people start to quote conversations we have, with the way you quote and respond it becomes confusing and the original point becomes lost.
Quote like a normal person and I might be inclined to respond on topic.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Dodge is what it looks like you are doing :o ] Just because everyone quotes differently, well that should make your job of quoting me even easier from the little land of Kiwi’s ; )
Are you from another country? I am trying to think of why you fail to know the English language before you come into a debate and try to argue a point. In fact I will try to help you. A fetus is the opposite of a parasite. In fact here is a definition for you:
par·a·site
â?? â??(par-uh-sahyt)
noun
1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. Another species!
Nature intended for the embryo to be a part of the mother as they develop and grow. Where else should they go? Please enlighten me. Or learn the English language before you partake in a conversation with adults. Thanks :o ]
[quote]xspoonman wrote:
the attributes they brought up in the video were the biological specifications for anything to be considered living. a fetus can not live outside the mother. so by biological definition, it is a parasite until its out [/quote]
[quote]xspoonman wrote:
the attributes they brought up in the video were the biological specifications for anything to be considered living. a fetus can not live outside the mother. so by biological definition, it is a parasite until its out [/quote]
Kind of, but a parasite technically can never live with out a host. The video did not bring up attributes of any living thing, it brought up attributes of human living things only. The point is that birth does not technically make the being something different than it was in utero.
Just like your dick, your dick doesn’t become something different when it’s inside the woman. Nor is the dick part of her body just because it’s inside her poontang. The poontang isn’t the mighty barrier that changes the biological make up of that which crosses it’s threshold.