Abortion Drives Bigger Wedge Between Red And Blue States

If you have (had) a point... I think you buried it.

I can't tell what it is you think you are getting at.

 

I know we have the law (UVVA) and that there has not been a significant number of scientists (if any) rising up against it - despite the immeasurable best interest of the abortion industries involved.

Not only did I not say anything like that - I don't see how you got that from anything I did say.

Yet a pro-abortion - voted against the Born Alive infant protection act - President like Obummer has not saw fit to reverse Bush's efforts.

I bet you are really disappointed in him for that.

First of all, that's only in your opinion.

You haven't convinced me of the need for me to waste any more of my time doing so.

 

Every morning, around 7 am, I read the news then flush about half a pound of waste and human DNA to a watery grave. Is it human? Yes. Is it a human being? No. Is it murder? No, because it's not a human being.

 

You can dodge the point but the point is not going to go away.

Also, I never claimed that all human "cells" are human beings.

I believe that was you.

 

Still waiting for you to come up with some science to justify your silly claim.

Nothing so far.

- - - Updated - - -

You claim that the single human cell at conception is a living human according to science.

Unfortunately you have not presented any valid justification for this claim.

Science please.

 

The UVVA supports my 'silly claims.'

So, the way I see it- the onus is on you.

 

Still going with the Appeal to Authority fallacy even though you yourself have admitted that this is logical fallacy.

As I said previously. If you want to base your beliefs on a bunch of politicians passing a bill for religious reasons that is your right.

Just do not expect me to accept this as a valid argument. In fact you have already refuted your own belief by stating that some laws are bad.

 

Have a nice day.

 

What does uniqueness have do with anything ?

Having human DNA, unique or otherwise, does not make that entity a human. Every human cell has human DNA.

You seem to have questions: "how can it be anything else" Of course it can be something else. The single cell at conception is a single celled eukaryote.

A human is not a single celled eukaryote.

What is true is that the DNA in this cell may create a human. Is this ability unique to this cell ? Absolutely not. Within a short period of time this cell will reproduce creating two daughter cells. Genetic clones of the parent called daughter cells. Either of these cells, (or rather the DNA in each of these cells) and at least 100 or so more that follow, have the ability to create a new human.

The process of creation in of itself is not a living human.

The reality is that there only one significant difference between the DNA in single cell at conception and the DNA in other human cells.

The program codes in the zygote DNA for "create a human" have been turned on. This does not make this cell a human. It means that the cell is in the process of creating a human.

The DNA in every other human cell has these codes but, those codes are just not turned on.

As it turns out the "human organism" as you call it (Biologists claim otherwise but it is of no moment) will never be part of the eventual born human. This entity does not exist after the first reproduction.

The DNA lives on through replication, but the cells that make up the structure of the eventual born human will not start to be created for quite some time when the embryoblast starts to form.

The first cells form the blastocyst which goes on to become the placenta which is discarded after birth.

 

Sigh, ok in plain simple language.

If the Testes of a man are not his own ie they are the remains of his submissive chimera twin with different DNA then any offspring he has he is not the biological father of, he is biologically their uncle, you are now claiming that the sperm produced from his submissive twins testes make the submissive twin the biological father, even though a chimera submissive twin has no right to life, nor is it seen as anything other than a parasite.

In fact a submissive chimera twin is the closest analogy to a fetus their is.

1. A submissive chimera twin has unique DNA separate from the "host", as does a fetus
2. A submissive chimera twin can only exist while attached to the "host", just like a fetus (up to approx 21 weeks)
3. The majority of submissive chimera twins cause no life threatening problems to the "host", just like a fetus
4. According to pro-lifers the requirement for conciseness is not a requirement for "personhood" ergo a submissive chimera twin requires no conciseness to be a "person" under pro-life thinking.
5. A submissive chimera twin is very much alive, just like a fetus
6. A submissive chimera twin will continue to develop all be it in a restricted way, so does a zygote, embryo, fetus etc

So please explain to me, in the pro-life thinking, what the difference is between a submissive Chimera twin and a fetus is, because from the pro-life argument there is no difference.

does that make it easier for you.

 

The woman has to carry the fetus for only 9 months. The twin has to carry the submissive twin for the rest of his life. Besides, by having sex, the woman took the risk of having to take care of the fetus, but the twin didn't choose to have a submissive twin attached to his body. And don't accuse me of wanting to punish women for sex-I have repeatedly told you many times before that that is not my motivation.

 

Now you are placing arbitrary conditions onto the pro-life premise .. I mean they don't say that there is a "person at conception except .... " do they?

It's interesting you use the word choose when talking about chimera twins, the same could be said for a woman, she may not have chosen to be pregnant, and please don't give me the natural consequences of sex, chimera twins are natural as well.

As it has been explained to you before, consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy, implied consent is very, very difficult to prove otherwise anything you consented to would mean you have to bear the consequences of that consent ie no medical treatment for any accident involved in, you took the risk the damage caused to you is your own fault.

Sam I simply don't care what your motivation is, the plain and simple fact is that by making abortion illegal you (as in all of pro-lifers not you singularly) will by default create a punishment based law for women who wish to have sex but don't want to be pregnant. You may not want to punish them, but your actions will lead to it, add to that-that most pro-lifers want to stop the very things that stop a pregnancy and you have a twofold attack on women simply because they were born with a womb. If you cannot see that then you are blinded by dogma.

 

Sometimes it's hard to understand what you are trying to say. You have very poor communication skills. This is not an insult; I am just telling you this so that you debate better in the future. Are you saying that other pro-lifers are motivated by a desire to punish women for sex? Besides, from a pro-life worldview, the woman is trying to punish the fetus. That's why pro-lifers want to ban abortions-they have the interests of the innocent in mind.

 

Strange, you seem to be the only one who has a problem comprehending my comments, and as I write poetry which is published on a regular basis i would have to say that it is your communication skills that are not up to scratch .. and BTW that is not a insult either, merely an observation given the number of times you have had to say "I didn't mean it that way", which is probably why you get accused of being sexist, perhaps a little more thought before posting would help.

As to debating, well I've been doing that for nearly 11 years now, and prior to that took part in debates against other schools and colleges .. however this forum does not conduct itself very well for true debating, for that I go to other more professional forums. This forum for me is to challenge the more radical extremists of the pro-life group, challenge them to actually research and think about what they are saying, what they are trying to achieve overall and the effects of their campaign, not just on abortion but all the related items as well.

Some pro-lifers are certainly motivated with the need to punish women for sex, some just want a religious based country, still others have noble intentions but haven't really thought through the consequences of it all, and finally some are just blinded by pro-lifer propaganda.

As I told you before I was pro-life for a number of years, until I really started to dig into the research and reality of it .. that is what changed my position to what I am now, which is pro-gradualism

 

I suppose it is way too complex for you to grasp that scientists have better things to do than "rising up" against stupid laws, that ultimately have nothing to do with abortion, science or rational thinking.

 

Coming from the guy who can't put it in the right words that is just f*****g hilarious.
Here is a clue. It is your knowledge and ability to understand that give you the difficulty and the inability to put it in the right words.

 

Okay. And...

I don't recall making that claim... but again...

Okay.... and?

I see now - why you can't accept the definitions for the word 'organism' that use the wording "or can develop the ability to function independently."

It destroys your argument. Doesn't it.

A 'parasitic' chimera twin can not "develop the ability to live or to act independently" and a child in the fetal stage of their development can.

I'll ask you the same.

 

Actually you do not. If you did you would know that your definition does not meet the criteria and only serves your dishonest tactics of misrepresentation and it destroys YOUR argument that is based on semantics and misrepresentation.

 

Actually it doesn't, There are numerous humans defined as "persons" who will never function independently .. you yourself posted a reference to one, a newborn with Anencephaly, so why are chimera twins any different?

You also need to remember that ALL joined twins are chimera twins with varying degrees in how joined they are.

Neither can a newborn with Anencephaly, yet they still have rights do they not, nor numerous other "persons" with various disabilities who still have rights.

Well when you actually answer the question asked it might, so far you haven't.

 

Ummmm. Did you not read the links provided earlier?

A child with anencephalia actually is considered by law - to be an independent living being.

(that's why their organs can not be donated and harvested)

 

Love the way you cherry pick only part of my response so that it appears to adhere to your opinion .. and you had the gall to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

now how about you actually address the whole post.

 

I can't tell what it is you feel I haven't responded to.

 

willful ignorance as well

 

Don't be so hard on yourself.