If u say that a fetus is a baby, a tiny human being, which is totally incorrect, it still does not justify anti-aboriton in terms of society. The government's job is to protect the rights of its citizens; the baby is not a citizen of the government until it is born, so it is not under government's protections. Aside from that, why should any woman be forced to use her body as a human-incubator for a baby that she doesn't even want, when no one can force that kind of use of the human body on another for any other reason?
However, a human fetus is not a baby. It cannot think, nor cry, nor does it have temper tantrums. It is not a "little human" but an embryonic egg turned Gastrulla, morphing slowly into a human; it is not actually human until it is born. If anyone here has taken a biology course, you would know that in the early stages of a babies development, up to the last weeks of the first trimester, it actually looks similar to the fetus' of other animals, a fact which has been used to support the theory of evolution.
Of course, many anti-abortionists argue that the fetus "could and would develop into a human being" and thus that by killing it you are commiting a murder. Well, I hate to tell all of the guys this, but all of your tiny sperm can and would develop into human beings, but they don't when u whack off; I guess ur committing murder then too. And I suppose that oral sex is murder since those little sperm, which could have been human beings, will never be given a change to fertilize the egg, but will be digested by the woman's stomach acid.
In article <78q4pg$tm...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>, "Dave H"
<sch...@frontiernet.net> wrote: >If u say that a fetus is a baby, a tiny human being, which is totally >incorrect, it still does not justify anti-aboriton in terms of society. The
Fetus is Latin for "BABY". Genius.
>government's job is to protect the rights of its citizens; the baby is not a >citizen of the government until it is born, so it is not under government's
So can I go out and indiscriminately kill foreigners or illegal aliens? They're not citizens.
>protections. Aside from that, why should any woman be forced to use her >body as a human-incubator for a baby that she doesn't even want, when no one >can force that kind of use of the human body on another for any other >reason?
Can you legally sell your organs to the highest bidder? Can you prostitute yourself? The government has always been in the business of telling people what they can do with their bodies.
>However, a human fetus is not a baby. It cannot think, nor cry, nor does it >have temper tantrums. It is not a "little human" but an embryonic egg >turned Gastrulla, morphing slowly into a human; it is not actually human >until it is born. If anyone here has taken a biology course, you would know >that in the early stages of a babies development, up to the last weeks of >the first trimester, it actually looks similar to the fetus' of other >animals, a fact which has been used to support the theory of evolution.
So are deformed people less than human? The don't "look similar" to us. Using your logic, they therefore can't be like us.
>Of course, many anti-abortionists argue that the fetus "could and would >develop into a human being" and thus that by killing it you are commiting a >murder. Well, I hate to tell all of the guys this, but all of your tiny
Not that it "could and would" be human, it IS HUMAN! After all, how does one get non-humans from humans?
>sperm can and would develop into human beings, but they don't when u whack >off; I guess ur committing murder then too. And I suppose that oral sex is >murder since those little sperm, which could have been human beings, will >never be given a change to fertilize the egg, but will be digested by the >woman's stomach acid.
Gametes are not normal human cells. They don't have a full complement of human chromosomes. Every human cell contains 46 chromosomes (with the exception of people with genetic defects and diseases) a gametes (sperm cells and "egg" cells for you pro aborts) only contain 23.
I've debated this with pro-aborts that are 1000 times more adept and informed than you are. You and your ignorance are an embarrassment to the pro "choice" crowd. I love people like you because in a debate I'll tear you and your arguements limb from limb.
LK
"If a president ever lied to the American people, he should resign." -William Jefferson Clinton Give us cable modems NOW! r...@adelphia.net uad...@adelphia.net webmas...@adelphia.net doma...@adelphia.net postmas...@adelphia.net wec...@adelphia.net requ...@adelphia.net ab...@adelphia.net sa...@adelphia.net aebb...@adelphia.net jon...@adelphia.net ==And a big fat "FUCK YOU" to== t...@telerama.com t...@nospam.lm.com sy...@telerama.com sy...@nospam.lm.com Eat well spambots.
First of all, latin meanings do not exactly constitute their English counterparts. For example, we say homo in reference to gay people, but that is actual a latin term for alike, and does not exactly correspond to sexual preference. Same thing with hetero. Secondly, I don't care if the word was baby, it is not; as I said, genius, in its early developmental stages a fetus is very similar to other organisms in their early developmental stages(similar to aquatic organisms in early development) Note, also, that there is a time in the pregnancy when a woman can abort and she will not be aborting the fetus, but the embro, the pre-fetus, which is at that time merely a 3 layer folded ball of cells, with the ectoderm on the outside, the mesoderm in the middle, and the endodermi on the inside.
>Genius.
No need to be sarcastic and jerkish.
>So can I go out and indiscriminately kill foreigners or illegal aliens? >They're not citizens.
You have twisted the meaning of what I said. Let me restate, for clarity, government has the job to protect the people within the theoretical(if its a cybergovernment, I guess) or physical ranges of its power. The United States has an obligation to protect every human being within its boundaries, but we do not have an obligation to protect the suppressed people of China -- that is the job of the Chineese government, though they seem not to be doing good at it. A fetus is not a human being, as it cannot think or have emotional feelings, and even if it were, it is not an indendent one, since it relies totally on its mother. Essentially, a baby is a parasite nurtured by the body, since it provides the mother with no biological benefit, and it is benefited by the mother. Consider it like this: Take me for example, if it was necessary for me to grow on your ass to survive, and you had to log me around all damn day, I would say that you'd have a right to say, "No, that's enough, your not tail-assin' me anymore". When a mother lets a child grow within her, she is not doing something that is morally involuntary, but is extending a curtousy of her-self; look at it this way: a baby is a person about to be shot by a crook, and you do not need to step in the way and risk harm to yourself to save that peson. A baby is very similar to this hypothetical person in danger: it is constantly on the verge of dying, dependent, and you are not obligated to help him/her. I don't recall that anyone is obligated to save another, unless they pass the Good Sumaritan Act.
>Can you legally sell your organs to the highest bidder? Can you >prostitute yourself? The government has always been in the business of >telling people what they can do with their bodies.
No you can't. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able too. I see no moral wrong in myself selling a kidney to the highest bidder if I wanted the money; it would, after all, save a life. The act does not harm any person, besides myself a little, as I am dumb enough to sell off that potentially life saving kidney(If one kidney ever fails, the other acts as a backup). As for prostitution, though I sure as hell wouldn't want my daughter doing it, the government has no right to outlaw it, and is wrong in doing so; the two individuals doing it, the body seller and the buyer, make their own decisions; the prostitute decides to degrade her-self by doing this, and the buyer decides to take the chance that he could get every STD known to man, but it is their decision. No one else is effected by it, other than the man's wife, who probably would get hurt even if there were no prostitutes, since married men who sleep with prostitutes would surely have lovers-on-the-side if there were no prostitutes. In any case, it is the prostitutes choice to degrade herself -- perhaps she needs the money and has no other way of getting it; perhaps she likes the job, who knows, but its her decision. As for the man's wife, it is he that hurts his wife by sleeping with a prostitute, not the prostitute, as she doesn't even know if he's married. The government has no business telling us what to do with our bodies; the government has no business telling us we can't masturbate, or pierce ourselves, or get tatoos. If the government can tell us what to do in respect to one area of our bodies, it can do the same for all areas. As for abortion, the Supreme Court has already ruled that anti-abortion laws in the 1st trimester, prohibiting any abortion, violate a woman's right to privacy. Note, we also have a right to pursue hapiness, and if having a baby will not make a woman happy, then it is in her pursuance of happiness to have an abortion. Have you ever heard of a peson, or the government, minding their own damn business. I'll state it simply as Plato did, in his conclusion at the end of a series of arguments with Thrasymachus and Glaucon about justice, "Justice, then, is everyone minding what is their own business"(words not exactly matching)
>So are deformed people less than human? The don't "look similar" to us. >Using your logic, they therefore can't be like us.
Excuse, me, I never justified killing deformed people, or people that don't look like us. A fetus and embryo, however, don't look like us because they AREN'T; the difference is not superficial; in early development a fetus/embryo has more similarity to an aquatic organism than a human being in both appearance, emotion, intelligence, and organs. What I define as a living entity that deserves rights, is a being which is (A) intelligent, or at least reasoning, as alzheimers people aren't very recalling, nor are the mentally handicapped, and (B) has emotions. B is the important one. A is kind of important; A distinguishes us from animals, as dogs can feel but they cannot reason, not like us. B is more important, since any being which can feel, can be hurt, emotionally, deserves rights; a embryo and early fetus does not have emotions, it does not cry, does not have temper tantrums, does not have the cranial development to have emotions(that part of the brain isn't developed yet)
>Not that it "could and would" be human, it IS HUMAN! After all, how does >one get non-humans from humans?
Ok, genius, your words, "how does it get from being not human to human" -- have you ever heard of evolution? As in, the homo-erectus evolved into the homo-sapien, us, the population evolved that is, not the individuals within it. Evoltuion and development are similar, one macroscopic, one microscopic; evolution describes the changing of a population into something it was not before; development, the changing of an individual organism. A fetus changing from a fetus to a human being is a development, just like a child changing from child to parent; before, the child is immature, brattish, and shortsighted; afterwards, hopefully, mature, polite, and far-sighted. Before a fetus becomes a human being, does not have emotions and is incapable of thought; after, it is capable of both. That is the difference between being human and not. Oh, your argument that you can't get a non-human from a human, very similar to saying that a creators creation will be like itself, is illogical. It was once thought that organic compounds MUST come from living things; now, it is known that that is false; in general, any molecule with Carbon in it is considered organic -- there are a few exceptions, like Methane, CH4, a gas, which is clearly not organic. We create many things which are totally unlike us -- building for example. Oh, and the sperm and the egg and the zygote are all NON-HUMAN but yet they come from the human body; your shit isn't human, but it comes out of your large-intestine. A embro develops into a fetus, purely a physical development, then slowly, over nine-months, the fetus develops into a human being, a physical and interbody development, which eventually yields emotion and thought; when a baby is born, the development is complete -- it is a human being.
>Gametes are not normal human cells. They don't have a full complement of >human chromosomes. Every human cell contains 46 chromosomes (with the >exception of people with genetic defects and diseases) a gametes (sperm >cells and "egg" cells for you pro aborts) only contain 23.
That is NOT the point. You are using a technicality to make your argument seem correct. Yes, the sperm contains 23 chromosomes, unless its defective, and yes the egg contains 23, but when the combine and form the zygote, there are 46. The zygote, the fertilized egg, is something that, over nine months, can become human(unless there's a problem and the fetus/embro dies inside the womb). The sperm, assuming that the woman is in ovulation, has approximately a 90+ % chance of fertilizing the egg(I should say, all of the sperm). So, there's a 90+% chance that one of those million or so sperm will make something that will develop into a woman; yet, oral sex is not seen as horrid, despite the fact that they are killed.
>I've debated this with pro-aborts that are 1000 times more adept and >informed than you are. You and your ignorance are an embarrassment to the >pro "choice" crowd. I love people like you because in a debate I'll tear >you and your arguements limb from limb.
boy, you are pretty damn arrogant. Perhaps you should declare yourself a Noble Prize Winner. a 1000 times more adept and informed than you -- yeah, uh huh. Thats a generalization of predjudice against pro-abortionists whose magnitude I dare not even contemplate. For some-one that's a thousand times more adept than us pro-abortioners, you don't seem to understand the obvious implications of a living organisms development. Our "ignorence" -- yes, sure, whatever you say, were ignorent, why because we don't agree with you? I suppose the Supreme Court is also in that category of ignorence, since in a 7-2 vote, they said states couldn't outlaw abortion in the 1st trimester, given a
...
In article <b_Ms2.2357$EE2.1...@newsr1.twcny.rr.com>, "Dave H"
<whein...@rochester.rr.com> wrote: >>Fetus is Latin for "BABY". >First of all, latin meanings do not exactly constitute their English >counterparts. For example, we say homo in reference to gay people, but that >is actual a latin term for alike, and does not exactly correspond to sexual >preference. Same thing with hetero. Secondly, I don't care if the word was
The "homo" in homosexual means alike. One who is sexually attracted to people that are like him/herself.
>>Genius. >No need to be sarcastic and jerkish.
>>So can I go out and indiscriminately kill foreigners or illegal aliens? >>They're not citizens. >You have twisted the meaning of what I said. Let me restate, for clarity, >government has the job to protect the people within the theoretical(if its a >cybergovernment, I guess) or physical ranges of its power. The United
Are you rambling on like this because I rattled you? I didn't twist your words. I quoted them and asked a question based upon their clear an obvious meaning.
>States has an obligation to protect every human being within its boundaries,
Not according to court rulings. The state has no obligation to protect anyone. The obligation of the state is to the entire populace, not to "every" member of it.
>but we do not have an obligation to protect the suppressed people of >China -- that is the job of the Chineese government, though they seem not to >be doing good at it. A fetus is not a human being, as it cannot think or >have emotional feelings, and even if it were, it is not an indendent one,
Thank ayou for going here. So are people who've had severe brain damage or have been afflicted with a disease that robs them of their faculties no longer human? They can't think for themselves, right?
>since it relies totally on its mother. Essentially, a baby is a parasite >nurtured by the body, since it provides the mother with no biological >benefit, and it is benefited by the mother. Consider it like this: Take me >for example, if it was necessary for me to grow on your ass to survive, and >you had to log me around all damn day, I would say that you'd have a right >to say, "No, that's enough, your not tail-assin' me anymore". When a mother >lets a child grow within her, she is not doing something that is morally >involuntary, but is extending a curtousy of her-self; look at it this way: >a baby is a person about to be shot by a crook, and you do not need to step >in the way and risk harm to yourself to save that peson. A baby is very >similar to this hypothetical person in danger: it is constantly on the >verge of dying, dependent, and you are not obligated to help him/her. I >don't recall that anyone is obligated to save another, unless they pass the >Good Sumaritan Act.
So when your parents are no longer able to care for themselves and you have to care for them, will it be your right to kill them because they are parasitizing you?
>>Can you legally sell your organs to the highest bidder? Can you >>prostitute yourself? The government has always been in the business of >>telling people what they can do with their bodies. >No you can't. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able too. I see no >moral wrong in myself selling a kidney to the highest bidder if I wanted the
Not this issue, the point is that the government can, does, and sometimes should limit what people can do with their own bodies.
<snip>
>>So are deformed people less than human? The don't "look similar" to us. >>Using your logic, they therefore can't be like us. >Excuse, me, I never justified killing deformed people, or people that don't >look like us. A fetus and embryo, however, don't look like us because they >AREN'T; the difference is not superficial; in early development a
The difference is in appearance. Just as in deformed people. Take a DNA sample from a fetus, and take one from a deformed person. Both samples will prove to be HUMAN samples.
>fetus/embryo has more similarity to an aquatic organism than a human being >in both appearance, emotion, intelligence, and organs. What I define as a >living entity that deserves rights, is a being which is (A) intelligent, or >at least reasoning, as alzheimers people aren't very recalling, nor are the >mentally handicapped, and (B) has emotions. B is the important one. A is
People with severe brain injuries can't feel anything. Comatose people can't feel either.
>kind of important; A distinguishes us from animals, as dogs can feel but >they cannot reason, not like us. B is more important, since any being which
Dogs can most definately reason. If you shoot your dog with a watergun everytime he climbs on the couch, he will eventually stop climbing on the couch. He has reasoned that what I do this, that is the penalty. If I don't want the penalty I won't do it.
>can feel, can be hurt, emotionally, deserves rights; a embryo and early >fetus does not have emotions, it does not cry, does not have temper >tantrums, does not have the cranial development to have emotions(that part >of the brain isn't developed yet)
What about people who've sustained such severe brain damage that those parts of the brain are inactive? Can we kill them?
>>Not that it "could and would" be human, it IS HUMAN! After all, how does >>one get non-humans from humans? >Ok, genius, your words, "how does it get from being not human to human" -- >have you ever heard of evolution? As in, the homo-erectus evolved into the
Natural selection (not evolution) is a THEORY not a LAW! Do you know the difference.
>creation will be like itself, is illogical. It was once thought that >organic compounds MUST come from living things; now, it is known that that >is false; in general, any molecule with Carbon in it is considered >organic -- there are a few exceptions, like Methane, CH4, a gas, which is >clearly not organic. We create many things which are totally unlike us --
Do you knoe where methane comes from? Do you know why Methane is called a fossil fuel? BECAUSE IT COMES FROM THE REMAINS OF THINGS THAT WERE ONCE LIVING!
>building for example. Oh, and the sperm and the egg and the zygote are all >NON-HUMAN but yet they come from the human body; your shit isn't human, but
Sperm, human but it's a gamete, not a cell or an organism. "egg" human but also a gamete. Zygote human cell. Independant organism.
<snip>
>>Gametes are not normal human cells. They don't have a full complement of >>human chromosomes. Every human cell contains 46 chromosomes (with the >>exception of people with genetic defects and diseases) a gametes (sperm >>cells and "egg" cells for you pro aborts) only contain 23. >That is NOT the point. You are using a technicality to make your argument >seem correct. Yes, the sperm contains 23 chromosomes, unless its defective, >and yes the egg contains 23, but when the combine and form the zygote, there >are 46. The zygote, the fertilized egg, is something that, over nine >months, can become human(unless there's a problem and the fetus/embro dies >inside the womb). The sperm, assuming that the woman is in ovulation, has >approximately a 90+ % chance of fertilizing the egg(I should say, all of the
You don't know the human reproductive system very well. The best chance that any sperm can have of reaching the egg (under normal circumstances) is 50%.
<snip>
>>I've debated this with pro-aborts that are 1000 times more adept and >>informed than you are. You and your ignorance are an embarrassment to the >>pro "choice" crowd. I love people like you because in a debate I'll tear >>you and your arguements limb from limb. >boy, you are pretty damn arrogant. Perhaps you should declare yourself a >Noble Prize Winner. a 1000 times more adept and informed than you -- yeah, >uh huh. Thats a generalization of predjudice against pro-abortionists whose >magnitude I dare not even contemplate. For some-one that's a thousand times >more adept than us pro-abortioners, you don't seem to understand the obvious
Not all of you, just YOU.
>implications of a living organisms development. Our "ignorence" -- yes,
Not all of you, just YOU.
>sure, whatever you say, were ignorent, why because we don't agree with you? >I suppose the Supreme Court is also in that category of ignorence, since in >a 7-2 vote, they said states couldn't outlaw abortion in the 1st trimester, >given a doctors approval; perhaps, its should be you sitting on the Supreme >Court. Are you so high up on your Christian ladder that you think your the >only person who can "ascend out of the cave and see the light, while >everyone else only sees the shadows"? In debate, you seem to do a better
Thank you for going here. I'm not a Christian. I'm a neo-pagan. Should I explain to you what that is?
>job of making a jerk out of your-self than negating our arguments; you have >proven nothing, besides your own arrogance, and I say not ignorence because >ignorence is a word to be used by the likes of Plato, Socrates, and >Aristotle, not us laymen. For someone so adept, you do a real good job of >coming up with original metaphors, "limb from limb" -- how old is that >metaphor?, sounds like a cliche to me. I also love the way you say " >"choice" " and "aborts" two words, one quoted as if to question the >integrity of the word, the other shortened and slackened(aborts), making it
Yes I question the validity of the word choice when used in pro-"choice". Why is abortion the only choice that they think is available?
>seem like a foul word to say. Your comments are degrading and designed to >reduce Pro-Choicer's confidence; however, they will not work on anyone who
I don't debate you for your sake. I debate to hone my skills so that when someone seeks my advice I'll be able to convince them that I am right.
>The "homo" in homosexual means alike. One who is sexually >attracted to
people that are like him/herself. no shit, Sherlock. Calling someone a homo is not, by your interpretations of greek words, calling them gay; saying someone's a homo is the same thing as saying someone's alike; homosexual means attractted to the same sex. Even given the Greek meaning of the word fetus, they knew hardly anything about life compared to what we know now, so it's irrelevent.
>Are you rambling on like this because I rattled you? I didn't twist >your
words. I quoted them and asked a question based upon their >clear an obvious meaning. you asked a question i such a manner that it disqualified the words, when you knew damn well I didn't mean to use them in that manner.
>Not according to court rulings. The state has no obligation to >protect
anyone. The obligation of the state is to the entire >populace, not to "every" member of it. the obligation of the State is to PROTECT the individual's rights and the protect the populace. Protecting the populace, all of the people, involves protecting each one of them; if someone is harassing me, the state has an obligation to protect me somehow.
>Thank ayou for going here. So are people who've had severe >brain damage
or have been afflicted with a disease that robs >them of their faculties no longer human? They can't think for >themselves, right? they are still human because they have emotions; they get upset, they get sad sometimes, they are still deserving.
>So when your parents are no longer able to care for themselves >and you
have to care for them, will it be your right to kill them >because they are parasitizing you? I wouldn't have to support them, and if I did, I'd do it because I wanted to and because they had supported me willingly for years. Also, when I say parasite, I mean within the body, not any stretched definitions, but by the biological sense.
>Not this issue, the point is that the government can, does, and >sometimes
should limit what people can do with their own bodies. Just because the government does it doesn't make it right; the government in Germany killed millions of Jews, the Communist-ruled Polish government then did the same thing after the war. Our government, our legal system, let a rapist off in the Miranda case because he wasn't read his rights(the Miranda Rights, they're now called) -- that is NOT RIGHT. The government should not be able to tell you what you can do with your body, unless it affects society.
>The difference is in appearance. Just as in deformed people. >Take a DNA
sample from a fetus, and take one from a deformed >person. Both samples will prove to be HUMAN samples. do you know that human beings have much DNA in common with monkeys, that all life has essentially very similar DNA? Does that mean that the difference is only in appearance? NO. Human DNA samples does not amount to the difference only being in appearance. The difference is in, essentially, inner body organs, metabolism, emotion, and intelligence. The early embro, an indented sphere -- the outer layer being the endoderm, the middle one being the mesoder, and the inner one being the ectoderm -- is very much not like a human being.
>People with severe brain injuries can't feel anything. Comatose >people
can't feel either. I meant emotions. Severe brain injuries diminish the meaning of life; I would not want to live as such. In any case, since they are no longer feeling anything, or thinking, since all they are doing is basically metabolizing, there is no moral consequence to them living or not; the family may want to keep them alive, though, in case science progresses enough to cure it. Comatos people may not be able to feel you touch them, or be emotionally hurt if you chop off their heads, but they may be having dreams; dreams constitute a meaningful life to some degree; and in those dreams, they are intelligent and emotional; so they are still human, are still living, still have meaningful lives; besides, a cure might come along.
>Dogs can most definately reason. If you shoot your dog with a >watergun
everytime he climbs on the couch, he will eventually stop >climbing on the couch. He has reasoned that what I do this, that is >the penalty. If I don't want the penalty I won't do it. dogs can reason, but not at the human level; a dog could never figure out that the third side of a triangle has to be shorter than the combined lenght of the other two sides. NEVER.
>What about people who've sustained such severe brain damage >that those
parts of the brain are inactive? Can we kill them? severe brain damage still leaves the victims with emotions, so you can't kill them -- anything with BOTH emotions and intelligence should not be killed off indifferently. If the parts of the brain that give a person emotion are inactive, then killing him or not is not a moral issue -- he is no different than a computer, a complex one, but a comptuer none the less. If the part of a person's brain that gives him emotions were destroyed, then he would not care if he lived or died, since he had not emotions, and since logic cannot back up the continuations of life(until you can answer to what the meaning of life is, then you can't say that logical argument will support pro-longing life) Socrates said that, "Being dead does not concern the living since they are not dead, and does not concern the dead because they can no longer be concerned with anything..." -- not exact words.
>Natural selection (not evolution) is a THEORY not a LAW! Do you >know the
difference. The sarcasm is touching. Yes, I do know the difference. It is a theory, but a theory that EVERY biologist in the world accepts; ask any geneticist, or biology teacher, or whatever and they will all tell you that there is evolution. It is a theory that is supported by the fossil record. At different layers, there are different organisms; the ones close look like eachother, but if you keep on going down, you will see a slow progression from complex to more simple organisms. Do not try to tell me that evolution does not exist -- thats bullshit. Do you think that every biologist in the world is wrong? Yes, the people with the phD's in an area of biology are wrong about evolution, and you are right. I can provide a simple example for your apparently simple intellect<snip> -- a group of snails has a range of shell colors from light to dark; the ground is light. The first year, the predators eat all of the darkest ones, but the dark ones had implanted their genes in the gene pool, so a few new dark ones are born in the next generation; the next year, the predators eat those few remaining dark ones; the cycle repeats a few times, until the gene for dark shells is out of the gene pool(lets say the dark gene is d, and non-dominant. Eventually, it will be breed out of the population, as all the ones born dark will be eaten. The population has evolved from a mix of colors to a range of colors in the light area. Evolution.
>Do you knoe where methane comes from? Do you know why >Methane is called a
fossil fuel? BECAUSE IT COMES FROM >THE REMAINS OF THINGS THAT WERE ONCE LIVING! true, I was incorrect. The point was that there are some compounds with C in them that are not organic. I am sure of this because on the AP Chemistry exam there was a question asking which chemical was organic, and there were two chemicals with C in them, so obviously one of them was not organic.
>Sperm, human but it's a gamete, not a cell or an organism. "egg" >human
but also a gamete. Zygote human cell. Independant >organism. Ah yes, but it WILL or likely will be an organism, just like a embryo WILL be a fetus, and a fetus WILL be a baby eventually.
>You don't know the human reproductive system very well. The >best chance
that any sperm can have of reaching the egg (under >normal circumstances) is 50%. Assuming a woman's in ovulation, the chances are above 90% -- fact. Perhaps on an average 50%, but during ovulation its 90%. When the egg is right there, where it should be, and there are however many million sperm, there's obviously a very high percentage of fertilization.
>Not all of you, just YOU.
You specifically said, "you pro-choicers" -- don't try to change your words now. And the thought of you being in a position to know whats right from wrong above me is laughible; were you in a better position to tell right from wrong and just from injust than me, why, I'd have the moral integrity of Richard Nixon. Fortunately, that is not the case. Your opinions are just opinions. They are worth no more than anyone elses, nor should they be treated that way. What is annoying, is when you try to say that your opinions, of which you cannot solidly back up because they are opinions, are more sound than others.
>Thank you for going here. I'm not a Christian. I'm a neo-pagan. >Should
I explain to you what that is? again, your rude knack for sarcasm. I suppose it is to be assumed, that were your head any farther up you ass, you'd be in your small intestine. And I don't care what a neo-pagan is; it's irrelevent. What's important is that no one should force his or her beliefs on anyone else.
>Yes I question the validity of the word choice when used in >pro-"choice".
Why is abortion the only choice that they think is >available? It isn't the only choice available, and every woman considering one knows it; women who get abortions decide that it is the best choice. Many women who are pro-choice in-fact decide not to have an abortion when they don't want to be a parent -- that is their choice: they've analyzed the options and decided that abortion wasn't the one for them.
>I don't debate you for your sake. I debate to hone my skills so that >when
someone seeks my advice I'll be able to convince them that I >am right. the thought of anyone taking your advice is scary to me. As for your skills, they are lacking; your
...
<whein...@rochester.rr.com> wrote: >>The "homo" in homosexual means alike. One who is sexually >attracted to >people that are like him/herself. >no shit, Sherlock. Calling someone a homo is not, by your interpretations >of greek words, calling them gay; saying someone's a homo is the same thing >as saying someone's alike; homosexual means attractted to the same sex. >Even given the Greek meaning of the word fetus, they knew hardly anything >about life compared to what we know now, so it's irrelevent.
>>Are you rambling on like this because I rattled you? I didn't twist >your >words. I quoted them and asked a question based upon their >clear an >obvious meaning. >you asked a question i such a manner that it disqualified the words, when >you knew damn well I didn't mean to use them in that manner.
>>Not according to court rulings. The state has no obligation to >protect >anyone. The obligation of the state is to the entire >populace, not to >"every" member of it. >the obligation of the State is to PROTECT the individual's rights and the >protect the populace. Protecting the populace, all of the people, involves >protecting each one of them; if someone is harassing me, the state has an >obligation to protect me somehow.
You don't know the law. No matter how many times you call the police to report someone who is stalking you, you have no right to sue them if they don't prevent the person from hurting you. Many people have tried.
>>Thank ayou for going here. So are people who've had severe >brain damage >or have been afflicted with a disease that robs >them of their faculties no >longer human? They can't think for >themselves, right? >they are still human because they have emotions; they get upset, they get >sad sometimes, they are still deserving.
>>So when your parents are no longer able to care for themselves >and you >have to care for them, will it be your right to kill them >because they are >parasitizing you? >I wouldn't have to support them, and if I did, I'd do it because I wanted to >and because they had supported me willingly for years. Also, when I say >parasite, I mean within the body, not any stretched definitions, but by the >biological sense.
Spell it all out when you say it or I'll nail you every time.
>>Not this issue, the point is that the government can, does, and >sometimes >should limit what people can do with their own bodies. >Just because the government does it doesn't make it right; the government in >Germany killed millions of Jews, the Communist-ruled Polish government then >did the same thing after the war. Our government, our legal system, let a >rapist off in the Miranda case because he wasn't read his rights(the Miranda >Rights, they're now called) -- that is NOT RIGHT. The government should not >be able to tell you what you can do with your body, unless it affects >society.
Abortion affects society as a whole. In addition to what the women do to their bodies, they aldo destroy the bodies of their children.
>>The difference is in appearance. Just as in deformed people. >Take a DNA >sample from a fetus, and take one from a deformed >person. Both samples >will prove to be HUMAN samples. >do you know that human beings have much DNA in common with monkeys, that all >life has essentially very similar DNA? Does that mean that the difference >is only in appearance? NO. Human DNA samples does not amount to the >difference only being in appearance. The difference is in, essentially, >inner body organs, metabolism, emotion, and intelligence. The early embro, >an indented sphere -- the outer layer being the endoderm, the middle one >being the mesoder, and the inner one being the ectoderm -- is very much not >like a human being.
>>People with severe brain injuries can't feel anything. Comatose >people >can't feel either. >I meant emotions. Severe brain injuries diminish the meaning of life; I >would not want to live as such. In any case, since they are no longer >feeling anything, or thinking, since all they are doing is basically >metabolizing, there is no moral consequence to them living or not; the >family may want to keep them alive, though, in case science progresses >enough to cure it. Comatos people may not be able to feel you touch them, >or be emotionally hurt if you chop off their heads, but they may be having
May be, might be, could be, I'm talking about what IS known at this time.
>dreams; dreams constitute a meaningful life to some degree; and in those >dreams, they are intelligent and emotional; so they are still human, are >still living, still have meaningful lives; besides, a cure might come along.
>>Dogs can most definately reason. If you shoot your dog with a >watergun >everytime he climbs on the couch, he will eventually stop >climbing on the >couch. He has reasoned that what I do this, that is >the penalty. If I >don't want the penalty I won't do it. >dogs can reason, but not at the human level; a dog could never figure out >that the third side of a triangle has to be shorter than the combined lenght >of the other two sides. NEVER.
Neither could someone who's never learned the basics of math.
>>What about people who've sustained such severe brain damage >that those >parts of the brain are inactive? Can we kill them? >severe brain damage still leaves the victims with emotions, so you can't >kill them -- anything with BOTH emotions and intelligence should not be
How do you know if these people feel emotions? They can't convey their feelings, so what makes yo uso sure?
>killed off indifferently. If the parts of the brain that give a person >emotion are inactive, then killing him or not is not a moral issue -- he is >no different than a computer, a complex one, but a comptuer none the less.
Un huh?
<snip>
>>Natural selection (not evolution) is a THEORY not a LAW! Do you >know the >difference. >The sarcasm is touching. Yes, I do know the difference. It is a theory, >but a theory that EVERY biologist in the world accepts; ask any geneticist,
You don't know very many biologists then.
>or biology teacher, or whatever and they will all tell you that there is >evolution. It is a theory that is supported by the fossil record. At >different layers, there are different organisms; the ones close look like >eachother, but if you keep on going down, you will see a slow progression >from complex to more simple organisms. Do not try to tell me that evolution >does not exist -- thats bullshit. Do you think that every biologist in the >world is wrong? Yes, the people with the phD's in an area of biology are
507 years ago every "educated" person in the world thought that the earth was flat. Was the one man who disputed them right?
>wrong about evolution, and you are right. I can provide a simple example >for your apparently simple intellect<snip> -- a group of snails has a range >of shell colors from light to dark; the ground is light. The first year, >the predators eat all of the darkest ones, but the dark ones had implanted >their genes in the gene pool, so a few new dark ones are born in the next >generation; the next year, the predators eat those few remaining dark ones; >the cycle repeats a few times, until the gene for dark shells is out of the >gene pool(lets say the dark gene is d, and non-dominant. Eventually, it >will be breed out of the population, as all the ones born dark will be >eaten. The population has evolved from a mix of colors to a range of colors >in the light area. Evolution.
That is evidence, not proof do you know the difference? How's this I say that I can control a coin with the power of my brain. I flip the coin and I say it'll be heads. <flip> it's heads. I said it would be heads and it turned out to be heads, therefore I have the power of psychokinesis.
>>Do you knoe where methane comes from? Do you know why >Methane is called a >fossil fuel? BECAUSE IT COMES FROM >THE REMAINS OF THINGS THAT WERE ONCE >LIVING! >true, I was incorrect. The point was that there are some compounds with C >in them that are not organic. I am sure of this because on the AP Chemistry >exam there was a question asking which chemical was organic, and there were >two chemicals with C in them, so obviously one of them was not organic.
>>Sperm, human but it's a gamete, not a cell or an organism. "egg" >human >but also a gamete. Zygote human cell. Independant >organism. >Ah yes, but it WILL or likely will be an organism, just like a embryo WILL >be a fetus, and a fetus WILL be a baby eventually.
>>You don't know the human reproductive system very well. The >best chance >that any sperm can have of reaching the egg (under >normal circumstances) is >50%. >Assuming a woman's in ovulation, the chances are above 90% -- fact. Perhaps >on an average 50%, but during ovulation its 90%. When the egg is right
A woman has two ovaries, the sperm have a 50/50 chance of taking the correct fallopian tube. Approximately half of the sperm will take the wrong path. Immediately 50% of them die without ever coming close to the egg. If the number of sperm that make it there are not great enoug, they'll never get through the coating on the outside of the egg. It takes several thousand sperm for ONE of them to get in.
>there, where it should be, and there are however many million sperm, there's >obviously a very high percentage of fertilization.
>>Not all of you, just YOU. >You specifically said, "you pro-choicers" -- don't try to change your words
>>I don't debate you for your sake. I debate to hone my skills so that >when >someone seeks my advice I'll be able to convince them that I >am right. >the thought of anyone taking your advice is scary to me. As for your >skills, they are lacking; your primary skill seems to be in picking things >apart, and doing a poor job at that, rather than building things,
>If u say that a fetus is a baby, a tiny human being, which is totally >incorrect, it still does not justify anti-aboriton in terms of society. The >government's job is to protect the rights of its citizens; the baby is not a >citizen of the government until it is born, so it is not under government's >protections. Aside from that, why should any woman be forced to use her >body as a human-incubator for a baby that she doesn't even want, when no one >can force that kind of use of the human body on another for any other >reason?
>However, a human fetus is not a baby. It cannot think, nor cry, nor does it >have temper tantrums. It is not a "little human" but an embryonic egg >turned Gastrulla, morphing slowly into a human; it is not actually human >until it is born. If anyone here has taken a biology course, you would know >that in the early stages of a babies development, up to the last weeks of >the first trimester, it actually looks similar to the fetus' of other >animals, a fact which has been used to support the theory of evolution.
>Of course, many anti-abortionists argue that the fetus "could and would >develop into a human being" and thus that by killing it you are commiting a >murder. Well, I hate to tell all of the guys this, but all of your tiny >sperm can and would develop into human beings, but they don't when u whack >off; I guess ur committing murder then too. And I suppose that oral sex is >murder since those little sperm, which could have been human beings, will >never be given a change to fertilize the egg, but will be digested by the >woman's stomach acid.
It's amazing the level of cognitive dissonance people will adhere to in order to justify killing other human beings, regardless of their stage of development. Kinda makes the Nazis look like amateurs.
My experience is that the more rabid pro-abortionist apologetics tend to be women for whom the issue is moot-- for no self-respecting man would ever come near enough to them to have sex in the first place...
>>>The "homo" in homosexual means alike. One who is sexually >attracted to >>people that are like him/herself. >>no shit, Sherlock. Calling someone a homo is not, by your interpretations >>of greek words, calling them gay; saying someone's a homo is the same thing >>as saying someone's alike; homosexual means attractted to the same sex. >>Even given the Greek meaning of the word fetus, they knew hardly anything >>about life compared to what we know now, so it's irrelevent.
>>>Are you rambling on like this because I rattled you? I didn't twist >your >>words. I quoted them and asked a question based upon their >clear an >>obvious meaning. >>you asked a question i such a manner that it disqualified the words, when >>you knew damn well I didn't mean to use them in that manner.
>>>Not according to court rulings. The state has no obligation to >protect >>anyone. The obligation of the state is to the entire >populace, not to >>"every" member of it. >>the obligation of the State is to PROTECT the individual's rights and the >>protect the populace. Protecting the populace, all of the people, involves >>protecting each one of them; if someone is harassing me, the state has an >>obligation to protect me somehow.
>You don't know the law. No matter how many times you call the police to >report someone who is stalking you, you have no right to sue them if they >don't prevent the person from hurting you. Many people have tried.
>>>Thank ayou for going here. So are people who've had severe >brain damage >>or have been afflicted with a disease that robs >them of their faculties no >>longer human? They can't think for >themselves, right? >>they are still human because they have emotions; they get upset, they get >>sad sometimes, they are still deserving.
>>>So when your parents are no longer able to care for themselves >and you >>have to care for them, will it be your right to kill them >because they are >>parasitizing you? >>I wouldn't have to support them, and if I did, I'd do it because I wanted to >>and because they had supported me willingly for years. Also, when I say >>parasite, I mean within the body, not any stretched definitions, but by the >>biological sense.
>Spell it all out when you say it or I'll nail you every time.
>>>Not this issue, the point is that the government can, does, and >sometimes >>should limit what people can do with their own bodies. >>Just because the government does it doesn't make it right; the government in >>Germany killed millions of Jews, the Communist-ruled Polish government then >>did the same thing after the war. Our government, our legal system, let a >>rapist off in the Miranda case because he wasn't read his rights(the Miranda >>Rights, they're now called) -- that is NOT RIGHT. The government should not >>be able to tell you what you can do with your body, unless it affects >>society.
>Abortion affects society as a whole. In addition to what the women do to >their bodies, they aldo destroy the bodies of their children.
>>>The difference is in appearance. Just as in deformed people. >Take a DNA >>sample from a fetus, and take one from a deformed >person. Both samples >>will prove to be HUMAN samples. >>do you know that human beings have much DNA in common with monkeys, that all >>life has essentially very similar DNA? Does that mean that the difference >>is only in appearance? NO. Human DNA samples does not amount to the >>difference only being in appearance. The difference is in, essentially, >>inner body organs, metabolism, emotion, and intelligence. The early embro, >>an indented sphere -- the outer layer being the endoderm, the middle one >>being the mesoder, and the inner one being the ectoderm -- is very much not >>like a human being.
>>>People with severe brain injuries can't feel anything. Comatose >people >>can't feel either. >>I meant emotions. Severe brain injuries diminish the meaning of life; I >>would not want to live as such. In any case, since they are no longer >>feeling anything, or thinking, since all they are doing is basically >>metabolizing, there is no moral consequence to them living or not; the >>family may want to keep them alive, though, in case science progresses >>enough to cure it. Comatos people may not be able to feel you touch them, >>or be emotionally hurt if you chop off their heads, but they may be having
>May be, might be, could be, I'm talking about what IS known at this time.
>>dreams; dreams constitute a meaningful life to some degree; and in those >>dreams, they are intelligent and emotional; so they are still human, are >>still living, still have meaningful lives; besides, a cure might come along.
>>>Dogs can most definately reason. If you shoot your dog with a >watergun >>everytime he climbs on the couch, he will eventually stop >climbing on the >>couch. He has reasoned that what I do this, that is >the penalty. If I >>don't want the penalty I won't do it. >>dogs can reason, but not at the human level; a dog could never figure out >>that the third side of a triangle has to be shorter than the combined lenght >>of the other two sides. NEVER.
>Neither could someone who's never learned the basics of math.
>>>What about people who've sustained such severe brain damage >that those >>parts of the brain are inactive? Can we kill them? >>severe brain damage still leaves the victims with emotions, so you can't >>kill them -- anything with BOTH emotions and intelligence should not be
>How do you know if these people feel emotions? They can't convey their >feelings, so what makes yo uso sure?
>>killed off indifferently. If the parts of the brain that give a person >>emotion are inactive, then killing him or not is not a moral issue -- he is >>no different than a computer, a complex one, but a comptuer none the less.
>Un huh?
><snip> >>>Natural selection (not evolution) is a THEORY not a LAW! Do you >know the >>difference. >>The sarcasm is touching. Yes, I do know the difference. It is a theory, >>but a theory that EVERY biologist in the world accepts; ask any geneticist,
>You don't know very many biologists then.
>>or biology teacher, or whatever and they will all tell you that there is >>evolution. It is a theory that is supported by the fossil record. At >>different layers, there are different organisms; the ones close look like >>eachother, but if you keep on going down, you will see a slow progression >>from complex to more simple organisms. Do not try to tell me that evolution >>does not exist -- thats bullshit. Do you think that every biologist in the >>world is wrong? Yes, the people with the phD's in an area of biology are
>507 years ago every "educated" person in the world thought that the earth >was flat. Was the one man who disputed them right?
>>wrong about evolution, and you are right. I can provide a simple example >>for your apparently simple intellect<snip> -- a group of snails has a range >>of shell colors from light to dark; the ground is light. The first year, >>the predators eat all of the darkest ones, but the dark ones had implanted >>their genes in the gene pool, so a few new dark ones are born in the next >>generation; the next year, the predators eat those few remaining dark ones; >>the cycle repeats a few times, until the gene for dark shells is out of the >>gene pool(lets say the dark gene is d, and non-dominant. Eventually, it >>will be breed out of the population, as all the ones born dark will be >>eaten. The population has evolved from a mix of colors to a range of colors >>in the light area. Evolution.
>That is evidence, not proof do you know the difference? How's this I say >that I can control a coin with the power of my brain. I flip the coin and >I say it'll be heads. <flip> it's heads. I said it would be heads and it >turned out to be heads, therefore I have the power of psychokinesis.
>>>Do you knoe where methane comes from? Do you know why >Methane is called a >>fossil fuel? BECAUSE IT COMES FROM >THE REMAINS OF THINGS THAT WERE ONCE >>LIVING! >>true, I was incorrect. The point was that there are some compounds with C >>in them that are not organic. I am sure of this because on the AP Chemistry >>exam there was a question asking which chemical was organic, and there were >>two chemicals with C in them, so obviously one of them was not organic.
>>>Sperm, human but it's a gamete, not a cell or an organism. "egg" >human >>but also a gamete. Zygote human cell. Independant >organism. >>Ah yes, but it WILL or likely will be an organism, just like a embryo WILL >>be a fetus, and a fetus WILL be a baby eventually.
>>>You don't know the human reproductive system very well. The >best chance >>that any sperm can have of reaching the egg (under >normal circumstances) is >>50%. >>Assuming a woman's in ovulation, the chances are above 90% -- fact. Perhaps >>on an average 50%, but during ovulation its 90%. When the egg is right
>A woman has two ovaries, the sperm have a 50/50 chance of taking the >correct fallopian tube. Approximately half of the sperm will take the >wrong path. Immediately 50% of them die without ever coming close to the >egg. If the number of sperm that make it there are not great enoug, >they'll never get through the coating on the outside of the
In article <GSbt2.1725$Fs.1705...@news4.mia>, "sae"
<[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >It's amazing the level of cognitive dissonance people will adhere to in >order to justify killing other human beings, regardless of their stage of >development. Kinda makes the Nazis look like amateurs.
The Nazis killes roughly 11-12 million people. The pro-aborts have killed 30 million since 1973.
>My experience is that the more rabid pro-abortionist apologetics tend to be >women for whom the issue is moot-- for no self-respecting man would ever >come near enough to them to have sex in the first place...
As Rush says, the feminist movement was started so that ugly women could get dates.
LK
"If a president ever lied to the American people, he should resign." -William Jefferson Clinton Give us cable modems NOW! r...@adelphia.net uad...@adelphia.net webmas...@adelphia.net doma...@adelphia.net postmas...@adelphia.net wec...@adelphia.net requ...@adelphia.net ab...@adelphia.net sa...@adelphia.net aebb...@adelphia.net jon...@adelphia.net ==And a big fat "FUCK YOU" to== t...@telerama.com t...@nospam.lm.com sy...@telerama.com sy...@nospam.lm.com Eat well spambots.
>The pro-aborts have killed >30 million since 1973.
Don't throw around shit like this; it is equally true, following your logic, to say that the pro-lifes are harassers, and murderers, as they blew up an abortion clinic. There is no justification for that. It is the pro-lifers who rally around someones yard and stick burning crosses in the ground.
and the pro-deathers just reach into a woman's womb, scalpel a poor baby to death (who can feel the pain), and suck him out with a glorified wet-vac. Makes sticking crosses in someone's yard sound quite benign by comparison...
Dave H <whein...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>>The pro-aborts have killed >30 million since 1973. >Don't throw around shit like this; it is equally true, following your logic, >to say that the pro-lifes are harassers, and murderers, as they blew up an >abortion clinic. There is no justification for that. It is the pro-lifers >who rally around someones yard and stick burning crosses in the ground.
In article <xuNt2.4326$EE2.3...@newsr1.twcny.rr.com>, "Dave H"
<whein...@rochester.rr.com> wrote: >>The pro-aborts have killed >30 million since 1973. >Don't throw around shit like this; it is equally true, following your logic, >to say that the pro-lifes are harassers, and murderers, as they blew up an >abortion clinic. There is no justification for that. It is the pro-lifers >who rally around someones yard and stick burning crosses in the ground.
I assume that you're trying to equate anti-abortion forces to KKK members. Well since I am (and many others are) black, you've just stuck your entire foot into your mouth.
LK
"If a president ever lied to the American people, he should resign." -William Jefferson Clinton Give us cable modems NOW! r...@adelphia.net uad...@adelphia.net webmas...@adelphia.net doma...@adelphia.net postmas...@adelphia.net wec...@adelphia.net requ...@adelphia.net ab...@adelphia.net sa...@adelphia.net aebb...@adelphia.net jon...@adelphia.net ==And a big fat "FUCK YOU" to== t...@telerama.com t...@nospam.lm.com sy...@telerama.com sy...@nospam.lm.com Eat well spambots.
>>If u say that a fetus is a baby, a tiny human being, which is totally >>incorrect, it still does not justify anti-aboriton in terms of society. The
>Fetus is Latin for "BABY". Genius.
An overly simplistic, and wrong, definition.
>>government's job is to protect the rights of its citizens; the baby is not a >>citizen of the government until it is born, so it is not under government's
>So can I go out and indiscriminately kill foreigners or illegal aliens? >They're not citizens.
Nice twist of logic. Hope your brain didn't snap on that one.
>>protections. Aside from that, why should any woman be forced to use her >>body as a human-incubator for a baby that she doesn't even want, when no one >>can force that kind of use of the human body on another for any other >>reason?
>Can you legally sell your organs to the highest bidder? Can you >prostitute yourself? The government has always been in the business of >telling people what they can do with their bodies.
So that makes it right?
>>However, a human fetus is not a baby. It cannot think, nor cry, nor does it >>have temper tantrums. It is not a "little human" but an embryonic egg >>turned Gastrulla, morphing slowly into a human; it is not actually human >>until it is born. If anyone here has taken a biology course, you would know >>that in the early stages of a babies development, up to the last weeks of >>the first trimester, it actually looks similar to the fetus' of other >>animals, a fact which has been used to support the theory of evolution.
>So are deformed people less than human? The don't "look similar" to us.
Where did deformed people enter the argument? That twist was so fast, I didn't even see it.
>Using your logic, they therefore can't be like us.
After seeing your previous twists and turns, logic is a word you should understand before you throw it around.
>>Of course, many anti-abortionists argue that the fetus "could and would >>develop into a human being" and thus that by killing it you are commiting a >>murder. Well, I hate to tell all of the guys this, but all of your tiny
>Not that it "could and would" be human, it IS HUMAN! After all, how does >one get non-humans from humans?
"Is human" is a personal, neither scientific nor common, opinion. Ignorantly shouting it, in caps, doesn't make it any more real.
>>sperm can and would develop into human beings, but they don't when u whack >>off; I guess ur committing murder then too. And I suppose that oral sex is >>murder since those little sperm, which could have been human beings, will >>never be given a change to fertilize the egg, but will be digested by the >>woman's stomach acid.
>Gametes are not normal human cells. They don't have a full complement of >human chromosomes. Every human cell contains 46 chromosomes (with the >exception of people with genetic defects and diseases) a gametes (sperm >cells and "egg" cells for you pro aborts) only contain 23.
>I've debated this with pro-aborts that are 1000 times more adept and >informed than you are.
Your fondness for arguing has nothing to do with the quality of your argument. The mere fact that you use the term "pro-aborts" indicates that your emotional egocentricity's are more dominant than your ability to reason.
You and your ignorance are an embarrassment to the
>pro "choice" crowd. I love people like you because in a debate I'll tear >you and your arguements limb from limb.
Spoken like a true (christian????) pro-lifer.
When you run out of reason (which you did before even your first sentence), beat the crap out of the sucker!
>"If a president ever lied to the American people, he should resign." >-William Jefferson Clinton >Give us cable modems NOW! >r...@adelphia.net >uad...@adelphia.net >webmas...@adelphia.net >doma...@adelphia.net >postmas...@adelphia.net >wec...@adelphia.net >requ...@adelphia.net >ab...@adelphia.net >sa...@adelphia.net >aebb...@adelphia.net >jon...@adelphia.net >==And a big fat "FUCK YOU" to== >t...@telerama.com >t...@nospam.lm.com >sy...@telerama.com >sy...@nospam.lm.com >Eat well spambots.
>>>Fetus is Latin for "BABY". >>First of all, latin meanings do not exactly constitute their English >>counterparts. For example, we say homo in reference to gay people, but that >>is actual a latin term for alike, and does not exactly correspond to sexual >>preference. Same thing with hetero. Secondly, I don't care if the word was
>The "homo" in homosexual means alike. One who is sexually attracted to >people that are like him/herself.
>>>Genius. >>No need to be sarcastic and jerkish.
>>>So can I go out and indiscriminately kill foreigners or illegal aliens? >>>They're not citizens. >>You have twisted the meaning of what I said. Let me restate, for clarity, >>government has the job to protect the people within the theoretical(if its a >>cybergovernment, I guess) or physical ranges of its power. The United
>Are you rambling on like this because I rattled you? I didn't twist your >words. I quoted them and asked a question based upon their clear an >obvious meaning.
Actually, you're right. you didn't twist his words. You didn't even use them. Irrational people do have a tendency to rattle those more reasonable and logical.
>>States has an obligation to protect every human being within its boundaries,
>Not according to court rulings. The state has no obligation to protect >anyone. The obligation of the state is to the entire populace, not to >"every" member of it.
So, now we can empty out the courts for anyone who's crime was against an individual. Either that, or we must insist that the laws be written more specific. Thou shalt not kill is not good enough .... make it thou shalt not kill Amos Anderson .. Arron Adams ... Amanda Arquette ....etc. etc. etc.
>>but we do not have an obligation to protect the suppressed people of >>China -- that is the job of the Chineese government, though they seem not to >>be doing good at it. A fetus is not a human being, as it cannot think or >>have emotional feelings, and even if it were, it is not an indendent one,
>Thank ayou for going here. So are people who've had severe brain damage >or have been afflicted with a disease that robs them of their faculties no >longer human? They can't think for themselves, right?
That they can't think for themselves does not make them inhuman; but this is a typical anti abortion twist - to compare the unborn to those already born. There is a difference between a born human being, and an unborn fetus/zygote. (Just thought I'd mention that - since you didn't seem to have that clue).
>>since it relies totally on its mother. Essentially, a baby is a parasite >>nurtured by the body, since it provides the mother with no biological >>benefit, and it is benefited by the mother. Consider it like this: Take me >>for example, if it was necessary for me to grow on your ass to survive, and >>you had to log me around all damn day, I would say that you'd have a right >>to say, "No, that's enough, your not tail-assin' me anymore". When a mother >>lets a child grow within her, she is not doing something that is morally >>involuntary, but is extending a curtousy of her-self; look at it this way: >>a baby is a person about to be shot by a crook, and you do not need to step >>in the way and risk harm to yourself to save that peson. A baby is very >>similar to this hypothetical person in danger: it is constantly on the >>verge of dying, dependent, and you are not obligated to help him/her. I >>don't recall that anyone is obligated to save another, unless they pass the >>Good Sumaritan Act.
>So when your parents are no longer able to care for themselves and you >have to care for them, will it be your right to kill them because they are >parasitizing you?
>>>Can you legally sell your organs to the highest bidder? Can you >>>prostitute yourself? The government has always been in the business of >>>telling people what they can do with their bodies. >>No you can't. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able too. I see no >>moral wrong in myself selling a kidney to the highest bidder if I wanted the
>Not this issue, the point is that the government can, does, and sometimes >should limit what people can do with their own bodies.
><snip>
>>>So are deformed people less than human? The don't "look similar" to us. >>>Using your logic, they therefore can't be like us. >>Excuse, me, I never justified killing deformed people, or people that don't >>look like us. A fetus and embryo, however, don't look like us because they >>AREN'T; the difference is not superficial; in early development a
>The difference is in appearance. Just as in deformed people. Take a DNA >sample from a fetus, and take one from a deformed person. Both samples >will prove to be HUMAN samples.
(I'll give you a hint ..... one of them has an umbilical cord...)
>>fetus/embryo has more similarity to an aquatic organism than a human being >>in both appearance, emotion, intelligence, and organs. What I define as a >>living entity that deserves rights, is a being which is (A) intelligent, or >>at least reasoning, as alzheimers people aren't very recalling, nor are the >>mentally handicapped, and (B) has emotions. B is the important one. A is
>People with severe brain injuries can't feel anything. Comatose people >can't feel either.
>>kind of important; A distinguishes us from animals, as dogs can feel but >>they cannot reason, not like us. B is more important, since any being which
>Dogs can most definately reason. If you shoot your dog with a watergun >everytime he climbs on the couch, he will eventually stop climbing on the >couch. He has reasoned that what I do this, that is the penalty. If I >don't want the penalty I won't do it.
>>can feel, can be hurt, emotionally, deserves rights; a embryo and early >>fetus does not have emotions, it does not cry, does not have temper >>tantrums, does not have the cranial development to have emotions(that part >>of the brain isn't developed yet)
>What about people who've sustained such severe brain damage that those >parts of the brain are inactive? Can we kill them?
Nope. They've been born. they are independent individuals - no longer dependent on the mother's body for life.
>>>Not that it "could and would" be human, it IS HUMAN! After all, how does >>>one get non-humans from humans? >>Ok, genius, your words, "how does it get from being not human to human" -- >>have you ever heard of evolution? As in, the homo-erectus evolved into the
>Natural selection (not evolution) is a THEORY not a LAW! Do you know the >difference.
>>creation will be like itself, is illogical. It was once thought that >>organic compounds MUST come from living things; now, it is known that that >>is false; in general, any molecule with Carbon in it is considered >>organic -- there are a few exceptions, like Methane, CH4, a gas, which is >>clearly not organic. We create many things which are totally unlike us --
>Do you knoe where methane comes from? Do you know why Methane is called a >fossil fuel? BECAUSE IT COMES FROM THE REMAINS OF THINGS THAT WERE ONCE >LIVING!
Screaming meaningless babble... the refuge of the small mind.
>>building for example. Oh, and the sperm and the egg and the zygote are all >>NON-HUMAN but yet they come from the human body; your shit isn't human, but
>Sperm, human but it's a gamete, not a cell or an organism. "egg" human >but also a gamete. Zygote human cell. Independant organism.
Human cell, yes. Independent organism? Don't know much about pregnancy and human development, do you!?
>>>Gametes are not normal human cells. They don't have a full complement of >>>human chromosomes. Every human cell contains 46 chromosomes (with the >>>exception of people with genetic defects and diseases) a gametes (sperm >>>cells and "egg" cells for you pro aborts) only contain 23. >>That is NOT the point. You are using a technicality to make your argument >>seem correct. Yes, the sperm contains 23 chromosomes, unless its defective, >>and yes the egg contains 23, but when the combine and form the zygote, there >>are 46. The zygote, the fertilized egg, is something that, over nine >>months, can become human(unless there's a problem and the fetus/embro dies >>inside the womb). The sperm, assuming that the woman is in ovulation, has >>approximately a 90+ % chance of fertilizing the egg(I should say, all of the
>You don't know the human reproductive system very well. The best chance >that any sperm can have of reaching the egg (under normal circumstances) >is 50%.
><snip> >>>I've debated this with pro-aborts that are 1000 times more adept and >>>informed than you are. You and your ignorance are an embarrassment to the >>>pro "choice" crowd. I love people like you because in a debate I'll tear >>>you and your arguements limb from limb. >>boy, you are pretty damn arrogant. Perhaps you should declare yourself a >>Noble Prize Winner. a 1000 times more adept and informed than you -- yeah, >>uh huh. Thats a generalization of predjudice against pro-abortionists whose >>magnitude I dare not even contemplate. For some-one that's a thousand times >>more adept than us pro-abortioners, you don't seem to understand the obvious
>Not all of you, just YOU.
>>implications of a living organisms development. Our "ignorence" -- yes,
>Not all of you, just YOU.
>>sure, whatever you say, were ignorent, why because we don't agree with you? >>I suppose the Supreme Court is also in that category of ignorence, since in >>a 7-2 vote, they said states couldn't outlaw abortion in the 1st trimester, >>given a doctors approval; perhaps, its should be you sitting on the Supreme >>Court. Are you
In article <GSbt2.1725$Fs.1705...@news4.mia>, "sae" <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >It's amazing the level of cognitive dissonance people will adhere to in >order to justify killing other human beings, regardless of their stage of >development. Kinda makes the Nazis look like amateurs.
>My experience is that the more rabid pro-abortionist apologetics tend to be >women for whom the issue is moot-- for no self-respecting man would ever >come near enough to them to have sex in the first place...
Hmmm. My experience is that people who make statements like the above, tend to breathe through their mouth and marry their first cousins.
It's amazing that we prolifers have any time to submit messages to counter your babble, as according to you we're all out burning crosses and/or planting explosives at the local aborturary...
The educated element of your opposition is your worst fear, as we cannot be countered with sound-byte cut-downs. At some point you have to actually think. I know its hard, but there is hope....
ThomasPaine_II <ThomasPaine...@excite.com> wrote in message
>In article <GSbt2.1725$Fs.1705...@news4.mia>, "sae" <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>It's amazing the level of cognitive dissonance people will adhere to in >>order to justify killing other human beings, regardless of their stage of >>development. Kinda makes the Nazis look like amateurs.
>>My experience is that the more rabid pro-abortionist apologetics tend to be >>women for whom the issue is moot-- for no self-respecting man would ever >>come near enough to them to have sex in the first place...
>Hmmm. >My experience is that people who make statements like the above, tend to >breathe through their mouth and marry their first cousins.
In article <lzcu2.3847$OS5.4159...@news3.mia>, "sae" <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >How is your cousin, by the way?
>It's amazing that we prolifers have any time to submit messages to counter >your babble, as according to you we're all out burning crosses and/or >planting explosives at the local aborturary...
>The educated element of your opposition is your worst fear, as we cannot be >countered with sound-byte cut-downs. At some point you have to actually >think. I know its hard, but there is hope....
All you offered was "sound bite" cut downs; and - partially tongue in cheek - that's how I answered. Present an argument that has some substance, and you'll get a like response. Try it once ... I know it's hard ...but there's hope.
>ThomasPaine_II <ThomasPaine...@excite.com> wrote in message >news:79bi9t$mfp$8@208.231.48.68... >>In article <GSbt2.1725$Fs.1705...@news4.mia>, "sae" ><[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>It's amazing the level of cognitive dissonance people will adhere to in >>>order to justify killing other human beings, regardless of their stage of >>>development. Kinda makes the Nazis look like amateurs.
>>>My experience is that the more rabid pro-abortionist apologetics tend to >be >>>women for whom the issue is moot-- for no self-respecting man would ever >>>come near enough to them to have sex in the first place...
>>Hmmm. >>My experience is that people who make statements like the above, tend to >>breathe through their mouth and marry their first cousins.
