Have you always been alive?

naturemomma · #**121** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Neither you, nor anyone else seems to have science suggesting that unborns are not living human beings from the time of conception. If there were science suggesting that unborns are not alive, you shoud be able to provide it.

Is that YOUR argument now? Keep changin' around huh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rooster

"combining male sperm and a female egg produces humans and other life forms. The fetus so produced has all the specific DNA, from previous eggs and sperm, read "life", to produce a new individual by combination, so life exists in each egg and spermatzoa prior to combining them"

Please note my word "fetus" and my reference to a "new individual"... did you miss that?

I answered that in a previous second reply, which see above. This is the third time.

How many times do you need?

He needs like 25 more, and then he still won't get it. Lexi is right - the boy done lost it. I have asked several times what he does for his cause other than this - never got an answer. Eventually he'll be on the evening news..... you know what for..... crazylazy crazylazy

hey pale, stop listening to the little blue people. They bad, real, real, bad.

Lexi · #**122** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

You aren't fooling anyone lexi.

Neither are you Pale...Everyone knows you're a fanatical lost cause now..

George O Well · #**123** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Hardly since one is a philosophical concept and the other is a matter of hard, demonstrable science.

>>>Demonstrable science of having lived before??? You're not going to pull out the Old Testament and tell me to look at the hard, cold facts, are you?

PaleRider · #**124** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturemomma

Is that YOUR argument now? Keep changin' around huh?

That has always been the basis for my argument naturemomma. Are you saying that you are just now getting it?

Here is the first post I ever made on this board with regard to abortion from back in 2006 note that my argument is still the same.

"This would seem to indicate that we do enjoy a "right" to live and it isn't dependent upon our citizenship. It is as I have argued all along, when it becomes undeniable that unborns are indeed human beings, in order for abortion to continue, law is going to have to be written that specifically denies their right to live."

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturemomma

I have asked several times what he does for his cause other than this - never got an answer. Eventually he'll be on the evening news..... you know what for..... crazylazy crazylazy

That whole line of reasoning is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is an ad homenim fallacy. What I do, or don't do has absolutely no bearing at all on whether unborns are living human beings who have a right to live or not.

PaleRider · #**125** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

>>>Demonstrable science of having lived before??? You're not going to pull out the Old Testament and tell me to look at the hard, cold facts, are you?

No, but I will be happy to pull out some med school textbooks that state explicitly that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved. Can you pull out anything credible that says we aren't?

naturemomma · #**126** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

>>>Demonstrable science of having lived before??? You're not going to pull out the Old Testament and tell me to look at the hard, cold facts, are you?

George,

Run dear man, get out while you can - some of us are sucked in, and it's too late now.

But there is still time for you to save yourself!!!!! Run! Run! RUN!

wyse wyfe · #**127** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

The argument doesn't fly wyse. If you (God forbid) suffered heart failure and found it necessary to have a heart transplant, the heart you recieve would most certainly be attatched to your body and operating in conjunction with the rest of your systems, but it would never be "part" of your body. All of your parts share your DNA. Things that are in your body but do not share your DNA simply are not, and never can be "parts" of your body. Even blood that you might recieve in a transfusion never becomes part of your body. The cells live out their lifetime and die but never become part of you.

As I said earlier, if you can provide credible science stating that the unborn is part of its mother's body, you have an argument but just saying a thing doesn't make it so. Since this is such a contentious issue and is a large part of the pro choice argument, if such hard and credible science existed, it would be easily found.

I have provided the "scientific" reasoning why a woman's body recognizes the fetus as a part of herself. I agree that just saying a thing doesn't make it so, on the converse simply saying a thing is not so doesn't make it not so. So if a woman's body recognizes the fetus as a part of herself....maybe her body knows better than you. One body can have more than one type of DNA, so DNA is not the be all and end all of humanness.

Quote:

Of course it is. Your life began at a particular time. You didn't "ease" your way into life, you are either alive or you are dead. There is no third state

.

All life is a continuum so it is impossible to pinpoint a particular point in time for a particular life's beginning.

Quote:

None of us are self sustaining. You require resources from outside yourself to live. Attatchment does not mean that the unborn is not separate. It's DNA proves beyond any doubt that it is separate. Even in the case of conjoined twins, there are two separate individuals. While the two may share organs, there are no organs that are a combiniation of the two. All parts have the DNA of one or the other.

Attachment means exactly that the unborn is not separate. When it's detached it IS separate, but not before. Different DNA doesn't prove anything about separateness. Different DNA can exist in one body. In the case of conjoined twins, they are neither separate nor individual so long as they are conjoined. They have the potential to be separated and individual, but they are not while they are joined.

Quote:

Sorry, but that simply isn't true. You can be "attatched" to any number of things but that attatchment will never make you "part" of the thing you are being attatched to. If you have dialasis, do you believe that you are "part" of the kidney machine or that the kidney machine is part of you? Do you not believe that the machine is a separate entity from you that is simply doing a job that your body isn't capable of?

You can be attached and detached to many things, but if a detached thing dies as a result of being detached it probably was a part of you.

Quote:

Then there is the fact that the unborn itself is medically classified as "foriegn tissue". Further, it is illegal to execute a woman who is pregnant because the child is a separate individual who can not be executed for the crimes of its mother. Were it simply a part of her body due to its intimate relationship to her, there woud be no reason not to execute her while she is pregnant

A woman's body doesn't recognize the "unborn" as foreign tissue, it recognizes it as a part of herself. Please provide proof that the reason for not executing pregnant women is because the "child is separate." The trend is to allow fewer executions altogether and to recognize that a pregnant woman is more vulnerable is logical.

Quote:

If your argument depends upon proving that the child is an "appendage" of its mother in order to succeed, then you need a new argument. This one is bound to fail.

My "argument" does not depend upon proving that the "child" is anything, it doesn't matter what IT is. What matters is where it is, and anytime it is inside a woman, she has a right to remove it.

George O Well · #**128** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 06:14 PM

You went to the wrong med school, my friend.

naturemomma · #**129** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

That has always been the basis for my argument naturemomma. Are you saying that you are just now getting it?

Here is the first post I ever made on this board with regard to abortion from back in 2006 note that my argument is still the same.

"This would seem to indicate that we do enjoy a "right" to live and it isn't dependent upon our citizenship. It is as I have argued all along, when it becomes undeniable that unborns are indeed human beings, in order for abortion to continue, law is going to have to be written that specifically denies their right to live."

That whole line of reasoning is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is an ad homenim fallacy. What I do, or don't do has absolutely no bearing at all on whether unborns are living human beings who have a right to live or not.

Your argument has changed several times, I wasn't here in 2006 so I can't speak to that. What I know now is that your argument was the protection of babies - then only unborn babies - then fetal pain - then the laws defended your cause - then there were no back alley abortions - well, now that we have put an end to all of those fallacies, you have nothing. Though I am sure you will continue on the quest of bullshit in grannies basement.

What you do has a direct effect on the world - what did you learn a new word from your desk dictionary today? Anyway.... Talk to teenage girls at schools about premarital sex, and the dangers of the choices they could face, start a church group, decide what would work best for you and your life, and volunteer accodingly.

If everyone thought that doing nothing and participating in nothing acheived nothing - we'd all be in stone ages and I'd be smackin' your ass with a stone tablet instad of a laptop..... Action causes reaction causes change - Maybe this is why you never actually passed science.

Themaniacster · #**130** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 06:22 PM

Naturemomma, YOU have nothing, even if every bit of information he said was wrong, you never disproved any of it. And, you don't have to cling on to one fact, I say fetus's can feel pain, they can think, and lack of money doesn't matter much, adding that most abortions aren't with people who have lack of money (poor people who aren't hobos pretty much get enough money to eat), most of the people who have abortions aren't 18, and the baby shouldn't be punished because someone had sex when they were -18, and that only 1% of abortions are due to rape, and even if it was an abortion because of the rape, again, don't make the baby pay. That's enough to say it's immoral to have 4/5 of abortions (When baby can't feel and think is 1/5 of that.)