 |
|

04-09-2008, 09:32 PM
|
 |
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I go where the jellyfish are plentiful and the air burns like a whore's rash.
Posts: 269
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by George O Well
>>>Just because a fetus has human DNA DOES NOT make it human. The definition of "human" goes well beyond deoxy-ribonucleic ACID. For a being to be 'human', it has to be sensate. DNA cannot touch, smell, see or hear, and it cannot process those sensations. How can it be human?
|
Ah, finally, someone willing to use actual definitions of actual science.
So, let 'er rip, George...show us your definition of human which means you can hear, unless you're a deaf human, and can see, unless you're a blind human, and can touch, unless you're a paralyzed human, and can process those sensations, unless you're under anasthesia, in a coma, are a vegetable, or are just really distracted. There are times when I've been so deep in thought that I'd qualify, under your definition, to be at most 25% human. Probably less.
__________________
Global Warming is my favorite color.
|

04-10-2008, 05:15 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,164
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintMalaclypse
Ah, finally, someone willing to use actual definitions of actual science.
So, let 'er rip, George...show us your definition of human which means you can hear, unless you're a deaf human, and can see, unless you're a blind human, and can touch, unless you're a paralyzed human, and can process those sensations, unless you're under anasthesia, in a coma, are a vegetable, or are just really distracted. There are times when I've been so deep in thought that I'd qualify, under your definition, to be at most 25% human. Probably less.
|
You weren't really expecting an answer were you? It is a feint. They use language that suggests science, but when you try to engage them with actual science, off they go to get as far away from any actual discussion of science as possible.
__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi
"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma
|

04-19-2008, 05:18 AM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Greatest Nation on Earth, Australia
Posts: 1,370
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
Yep. I have watched trees grow. In fact, I can point out some oaks and maples that I carved my initials into back in the 1950's. I have never seen limbs shed deliberately by a tree though. It makes a nice story, but I am afraid that I have never seen it and am unaware of any tree whose geometry is such that each and every limb isn't positioned to maximum efficiency.
Maybe you could provide some botanical texts on this subject.
|
Well obiviously you haven't watched a Gum Tree grow or a Banksia, or even a tree trying to grow towards the light, in the middle of a rainforest.
Planets grow by Photosythesis, so it stands to reason that a planet grows towards the light. Yet you deny that with your false science. 
__________________
To Love and be Loved, thats all that is required.
CHIEF CRAZY CROTCH
|

04-19-2008, 06:30 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,164
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moggy
Well obiviously you haven't watched a Gum Tree grow or a Banksia, or even a tree trying to grow towards the light, in the middle of a rainforest.
|
Interesting. You suggest that trees (in general) shed their limbs in order to survive in an impotent attempt to suggest that abortion is analogous and when challenged to provide some information to support your argument, you mention two highly specialized trees in Australia. One of which is so specialized and localized that it is becoming endangerd due to a disease.
Further, the trees in question don't shed limbs because they are no longer needed, (as you indicated) they shed limbs in order to preserve moisture. It is a process of slow suicide so if you want to analogize abortion to a slow process of societal suicide then perhaps you could get away with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moggy
Planets grow by Photosythesis, so it stands to reason that a planet grows towards the light. Yet you deny that with your false science. 
|
Who ever said that plants don't grow by photosynthesis? And what does photosynthesis have to do with abortion. You just keep drifting further and further away from any actual connection to the topic.
__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi
"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma
Last edited by PaleRider; 04-19-2008 at 06:33 AM.
|

05-05-2008, 01:13 PM
|
|
Political Novice
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf_22
and that can easily be fixed by removing the fetus from the womb. there is nothing in the law saying that someone else has to work to ensure life for another being.
|
There are a host of laws upon simple reflection that require us to work to ensure life for another being. If you starve your dog or your kids or neglect an elderly relative in your care you will go to jail. It is sinful, immorral, and dispicable to argue that you can deprive an innocent infant in the womb of food and oxygen and that is perfectly OK.
Last edited by SeekJustice; 05-05-2008 at 01:19 PM.
|

05-05-2008, 01:17 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: chapmanville, wv
Posts: 4,829
|
|
Why of course the "human fetus" has the right of life as does all life examples found in reference of the Constitution of the United States. If you want to find the intent of any example of the wording of our constitution all one has to do is "reference" the source that these same men did that drafted our constitution and following legal system. "BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES ON THE LAW". The Law Book used exclusively by our Supreme Court up until the 1920s. And endorsed by such men as Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, and the rest of our founding fathers. What you find if you referenced the righteous source, would be the breaking of a direct decree of the creator. The spilling of innocent blood. And that same decree finds that the life of the flesh is found in the blood, not in any capacity of mental cognation. Therefore, if a human fetus contains human blood to support its life functions, then indeed it is considered "ALIVE". BD
Last edited by bluedog; 05-05-2008 at 01:21 PM.
|

05-05-2008, 02:57 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,916
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themaniacster
Therefor since a fetus is alive and human, it does have the right to live by our constitution.
|
Yes. And those that kill them should be killed.
An eye for an eye.
__________________
GOD BLESS AMERICA
|

05-05-2008, 03:15 PM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,398
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themaniacster
To answer this question, you need to know wether the fetus is alive and human.
Not whether some person considers it alive.
But whether it is alive, by definition. Since a fetus has cells and DNA, does breath, uses energy, and every other thing that makes it definably alive does exist in a fetus.
Now is a fetus Human?
A fetus has Human DNA, making it Human.
Therefor since a fetus is alive and human, it does have the right to live by our constitution.
|
why are those things you said suddenly the criteria for life? There are many life forms which don't breath, many that don't even have a respiratory system. It uses energy, but so does a car, is a car alive? I'd like you to think a lot harder about how we qualify life. You'll come to realize there is no scientific definition possible, and that the distinction itself is a false dichotomy. Life is just a pattern repeating itself of a select few combinations of atoms, though the combination is never the exact same from creature to creature of species to species. Not all life can think or contains a nervous system. Things other than life consume and combust energy, are even born and die. These things are still not life. So come up with a working definition for life first and then lets talk.
|

05-05-2008, 06:38 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,164
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanite
why are those things you said suddenly the criteria for life? There are many life forms which don't breath, many that don't even have a respiratory system.
|
You are bright enough to know that breathing is nothing more and nothing less than the mundane term for respiration and respiration describes the sum total of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which oxygen is conveyed to tissues and cells, and the oxidation products, carbon dioxide and water, are given off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanite
You'll come to realize there is no scientific definition possible, and that the distinction itself is a false dichotomy.
|
No scientific definition possible? Are you kidding? Of course it is possible to scientifically define life. Life is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, it is manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
There, wasn't that easy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanite
Life is just a pattern repeating itself of a select few combinations of atoms, though the combination is never the exact same from creature to creature of species to species.
|
But certain characteristics of that "repeating pattern" exhibit themselves in creatures that are alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanite
Not all life can think or contains a nervous system. Things other than life consume and combust energy, are even born and die. These things are still not life. So come up with a working definition for life first and then lets talk.
|
Been there, done that. There is no requirement that a thing be able to think in order to be alive, or that it contain a nervous system. The things you mention that consume energy do not fit the definition of life.
__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi
"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma
|

05-11-2008, 02:23 PM
|
|
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: My house
Posts: 408
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanite
why are those things you said suddenly the criteria for life? There are many life forms which don't breath, many that don't even have a respiratory system. It uses energy, but so does a car, is a car alive? I'd like you to think a lot harder about how we qualify life. You'll come to realize there is no scientific definition possible, and that the distinction itself is a false dichotomy. Life is just a pattern repeating itself of a select few combinations of atoms, though the combination is never the exact same from creature to creature of species to species. Not all life can think or contains a nervous system. Things other than life consume and combust energy, are even born and die. These things are still not life. So come up with a working definition for life first and then lets talk.
|
The criteria for life is that it does all of a certain list of things. A car uses energy, but it does not respirate, can not reproduce, does not have DNA or Cell Structure, meaning it is not alive. And there are some microscopic beings that are not considered alive, because they don't respirate, or because they can't reproduce some time in their existence. Go back to grade school.
__________________
Gun control is giving criminals guns and taken guns away from law abiding citizens.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|