I've hesitated to post this thread, but someone has to speak out.

[creekdipper]

Is a dandelion seed which contains all of the DNA and an embryo alive or not?
Is the seed a dandelion or is it a dandelion seed?

My answer will remain the same.....it's a developmental process....a continuum. There is no exact moment when it magically and instantly goes from not a dandelion to a dandelion.
Sort of the same with humans.

The highlighted word says it all.

 

[creekdipper]

Malice? Towards what?

Your stance certainly isn't charity to all.

You can't even define what you mean by human being (or "human person). But you believe in magic.

 

[luthervol]

Yes, so much in common.

It's almost as if you are attempting to insult me.

 

[luthervol]

You attack other people's intellect but call an orange seed a potential orange. That's rich.

You may be a little late to the party. You seem confused.

 

[luthervol]

The highlighted word says it all.

What exactly does it say?

 

[luthervol]

Your stance certainly isn't charity to all.

You can't even define what you mean by human being (or "human person). But you believe in magic.

What?
I swear you guys make zero sense sometimes.
My stance is the most charitable stance of all.....but it's a matter of perspective.
We obviously are viewing this from vastly different perspectives.

hu·man be·ing
noun

1. a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
   
   What seems to be absent from that definition is anything about a zygote, embryo, or fetus.

 

[Vol8188]

What?
I swear you guys make zero sense sometimes.
My stance is the most charitable stance of all.....but it's a matter of perspective.
We obviously are viewing this from vastly different perspectives.

hu·man be·ing
noun

1. a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
   
   What seems to be absent from that definition is anything about a zygote, embryo, or fetus.

The term child encompasses all developmental states until roughly 18 (zygote, fetus, toddler, etc). Idk why I have to explain that to you every 5 seconds. That's why the phrase "with child" exists.

That's the real issue here. You confuse (intentionally) developmental states for different species. You proclaim a zygote is not a human (common name for the homo sapien species). It's ignorant and I assume intentionally so.

Zygotes are homo sapiens (human). Zygotes are alive. Zygotes are living humans. It's very simple. Dehumanizing the zygote by pretending it is something else entirely is not "the most charitable stance".

 

[OHvol40]

The term child encompasses all developmental states until roughly 18 (zygote, fetus, toddler, etc). Idk why I have to explain that to you every 5 seconds. That's why the phrase "with child" exists.

That's the real issue here. You confuse (intentionally) developmental states for different species. You proclaim a zygote is not a human (common name for the homo sapien species). It's ignorant and I assume intentionally so.

Zygotes are homo sapiens (human). Zygotes are alive. Zygotes are living humans. It's very simple. Dehumanizing the zygote by pretending it is something else entirely is not "the most charitable stance".

A child, biologically, is between birth and puberty. A child, legally, is a person under the age of the majority. “With child” is an English language colloquialism. Just want to make sure we’re getting things correct here.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Edit : quote didnt work. This is a response to Hunerwadel posting the tripe about rape victims abortions...a dishonest straw man at best.

Dude i will bite if you are SERIOUSLY this misinformed...

Do you have any idea what INFINITECIMAL PERCENTAGE of abortions are rape babies?This dumb question reeks of logical fallacies. Several of them. Its a straw man. Also excluded middle/ 99.9% majority. Its also dishonest on its face with a predisposition that people ACTUALLY WANT rape victims to have to give birth to babies from rapists....which is overwhelmingly BULLCRAP.

YOUR stupid question literally contains 3 or 4 logical fallacies and made up positions of others who do not even exist in sufficient numbers to be rationally considered. Its dumb...its a cheap way out of a very complicated and nuanced situatiom and IF you are an adult you know better so just stop already with this BS non starter of a White Knight argument.

Educate yourself on:

What tiny, numerically insignificant % of abortions result from actual rapes.

What large % of women who get abortions actually have more than 1 in their lifetimes bc they use murder as a backstop lazy means of birth control rather than being responsible and easily preventing unwanted pregnancies (with FREE BIRTH CONTROL FROM HEALTH DEPTS AND OTHER FREE SOURCES)

ACTUALLY important figures such as there are more black babies killed in clinics in NY EVERY YEAR than live black babies born. Hundreds of thousands killed evwry single year in NYC alone. Murder as birth control rather than a TINY amount of responsibility or SELF CONTROL. Other races are not that far behind and gaining ground every year.

Learn about how VERY early in pregnancy...like 8 weeks etc before any mom is visibly pregnant even in a bathing suit....that the growing baby in her womb already has a brain...heart...lungs...arms and legs etc . This happens way way earlier than the vast majority of people ever know. Little babies...not "fetuses" a BS term used to try an dehumanize a young life in order to justify murdering it.

Learn about who gets a "VOTE" on whether or not to kill that developing human. Mom? Yep. Dad??? Nope. What about the BABY??? NOPE!!! Seems kinda crazy considering ALL THOSE MOMS got "lucky" i guess and werent killed themselves in the womb before they could be born...

If a man kills his pregnant wife...how many murders will he be charged with???? (Its TWO btw)...so then when MOM decides, many times AGAINST Dads wishes to kill that same unborn child....WHY IS THAT NOT ALSO MURDER? How Is the same unborn child a human if a man kills it and NOT a human when a woman kills them at the exact same age????

How many couples that cannot get pregnant fail to have babies to adopt despite spending tens and even sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to adopt???? Thousands and thousands of couples just in the US every year.

What % of ProLife people are actually 100% against it being legal to abort a child in the tiny fractions of 1% of abortions that actually DO come from a rape or pose serious risk of death or injury to the mother or baby in the womb??? Give you a hint. Very, very few folks want to keep those very few women with dire circumstances from makimg the difficult decision to end a human life so early. I personally dont know anyone who feels that way. While we may not feel it is moral or right....almost nobody wants to deny a woman/couples right to choose inder these EXTREMELY RARE cases.

Learn more about human bodies, pregnancy development and how abortions are brutally performed in many cases. Watch the videos where the little babies who have never even drawn a breath of air yet use their tiny hands to try and push away the metal instruments as the doctors bludgeon them to death, dismember their little bodies, then drag their little corpses out through the birth canal. This isnt at like 7 or 8 months pregnant bud. Try mid pregnancy when BS liberals still gaslight by calling them a "fetus" and "it" instead of "him/her" or "the baby". WATCH some of those videos. Please. Fully formed little hands fighting in futility against their killers.

Learn about the genocide in the US and worldwide caused by so many minorities killed in the womb.

Learn about how many women have deep emotional trauma that haunts them for LIFE after having 1 or more abortions.....it wrecks them emotionally because murder is " Malum in se" not " Malum prohibitum"....plainly stated humans are hardwired to KNOW that killing humans is WRONG not because a law book says so...but because the act is EVIL in and of itself and all sane humans know this from a VERY early age.

I guess bud you need to do a great deal of reading first ...then when you actually know the facts and stop with the childish logical fallacies you can try to form a rational argument as to why it should be legal for ANY and ALL women to decide all by themselves to kill theirs and the Dads unborn child. You will never actually WIN an honest discussion or debate about this topic from that stance...because it is not legally nor logically sound and therefore cannot honestly defeat the opposing argument in any logical and sincere debate....simply because that stance conflicts with both other relevant legal precedents and established logical reason and facts...but if you actually research the topic earnestly you will at least be able to introduce yourself with a somewhat educated and rational opinion. Not this BS above or emotional appeals such as "her body, her choice!!! "....nobody says a woman cant kill her OWN body. Its that totally separate human with different DNA growing inside her that many believe she has NO right to kill.

Read. Learn. Dont be ignorant about this subject.

 

[Vol8188]

A child, biologically, is between birth and puberty. A child, legally, is a person under the age of the majority. “With child” is an English language colloquialism. Just want to make sure we’re getting things correct here.

What’s the third definition from your “source” (American Heritage Dictionary)? Or would you prefer I tell?

Seems pretty disingenuous of you to openly lie about the definitions provided by your own source

 

[luthervol]

The term child encompasses all developmental states until roughly 18 (zygote, fetus, toddler, etc). Idk why I have to explain that to you every 5 seconds. That's why the phrase "with child" exists.

That's the real issue here. You confuse (intentionally) developmental states for different species. You proclaim a zygote is not a human (common name for the homo sapien species). It's ignorant and I assume intentionally so.

Zygotes are homo sapiens (human). Zygotes are alive. Zygotes are living humans. It's very simple. Dehumanizing the zygote by pretending it is something else entirely is not "the most charitable stance".

My earlobe is human, my earlobe is alive, my earlobe is a living human.....it's that simple.
Claiming a couple using invitro-fertilization where 10 eggs are fertilized but only the strongest is implanted willingly murdered 9 of their children so that one could mature is not "the most charitable stance". And it's a really stupid claim.

 

[Vol8188]

My earlobe is human, my earlobe is alive, my earlobe is a living human.....it's that simple.
Claiming a couple using invitro-fertilization where 10 eggs are fertilized but only the strongest is implanted willingly murdered 9 of their children so that one could mature is not "the most charitable stance". And it's a really stupid claim.

Ear lobe is not a developmental state of humans. Zygote, fetus, child, teenage all are.

 

[luthervol]

Ear lobe is not a developmental state of humans. Zygote, fetus, child, teenage all are.

An orange seed is a developmental stage of an orange tree, but an orange seed is not an orange tree or even an orange. Throwing away an orange seed is nothing like throwing away an orange and certainly not like cutting down an orange tree.
An orange seed is really nothing more than a potential orange tree.

 

[RikidyBones]

You may be a little late to the party. You seem confused.

I know it's your thing to resort to ad hominem after being called out on one of your illogical word salads, as that is all you have in your arsenal but you aren't escaping your own words. No matter how much you attempt to display your hopeful arrogance. An orange seed is not a potential orange. It is the entire entity of an orange tree. Just like a zygote is not an ear. It is the entire entity which is a human being.

I know I know. Blah blah blah ad hominem blah blah ad hominem. Skip it.

 

[RikidyBones]

An orange seed is a developmental stage of an orange tree, but an orange seed is not an orange tree or even an orange. Throwing away an orange seed is nothing like throwing away an orange and certainly not like cutting down an orange tree.
An orange seed is really nothing more than a potential orange tree.

I am glad we progressed from calling it an orange and now an orange tree.

If we cared about the life of orange trees then the same gripe might be had. I identify as an orange tree and I can tell you that throwing away a seed is like killing an orange tree. Don't argue my identity, bigot.

 

[Vol8188]

An orange seed is a developmental stage of an orange tree, but an orange seed is not an orange tree or even an orange. Throwing away an orange seed is nothing like throwing away an orange and certainly not like cutting down an orange tree.
An orange seed is really nothing more than a potential orange tree.

You're confusing species and developmental state....still. Orange (let's go with the mandarin orange this name) is a common name for both the fruit and the treat. Let's use the species name so hopefully you're less confused.

Citrus reticulata (mandarin oranges) has many developmental states. In each of those states, it is still a mandarin orange (Citrus reticulata).

Humans (homo sapiens) have many developmental states (zygote, child, teen, etc). In each of those states they are still humans.

Yes, going from one state to another is only "potential". You're a potential centurion. Not a potential human.

A zygote is a potential toddler, teeanger, etc. But a zygote/fetus is not a "potential human". It's 100% human.

This is a concept the average 3rd grader learns in science. IDK why you struggle so hard with it.

 

[luthervol]

I know it's your thing to resort to ad hominem after being called out on one of your illogical word salads, as that is all you have in your arsenal but you aren't escaping your own words. No matter how much you attempt to display your hopeful arrogance. An orange seed is not a potential orange. It is the entire entity of an orange tree. Just like a zygote is not an ear. It is the entire entity which is a human being.

I know I know. Blah blah blah ad hominem blah blah ad hominem. Skip it.

That was blah blah.
An orange seed is as much of an orange or an orange tree as a zygote is a child or an adult.
Maybe we can all agree with that.

 

[Vol8188]

That was blah blah.
An orange seed is as much of an orange or an orange tree as a zygote is a child or an adult.
Maybe we can all agree with that.

Good. You're doing better now.

A zygote is not an adult. Agreed. Those are developmental states. But a zygote is obviously human. And obviously living. Therefore a zygote is obviously a living human.

 

[luthervol]

Good. You're doing better now.

A zygote is not an adult. Agreed. Those are developmental states. But a zygote is obviously human. And obviously living. Therefore a zygote is obviously a living human.

zy·gote
noun
BIOLOGY

1. a diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes; a fertilized ovum.
   
   

You can call it a living human as much as you wish. Very few will agree.
I'll call it a human diploid cell.

The couple using invitro fertilization who have 10 eggs fertilized but only the strongest implanted, did not sacrifice 9 living humans in order to have one.

If you think the loss of those 9 fertilized eggs is equivalent to the loss of 9 12 week fetuses, I think you're nuts.
If you think the loss of 9 12 week fetuses is the equivalent to the loss of 9 new born babies, I think you're nuts.
If you think the loss of those 9 fertilized eggs is in any way equivalent to the loss of 9 new born babies - you're insane.

If you think the morning after pill is killing living humans, you're nuts.

I put it all in the same category as the "every sperm is sacred" lunacy.

 

[85SugarVol]

A woman doesn't need any help from the government deciding what is best for her.

That’s where I pretty much come down.

Big reason why I am against mandated vaccination.

 

[C-south]

A woman doesn't need any help from the government deciding what is best for her.

That's all I'm going to say about it. These abortion threads just keep rehashing the same arguments that we've all heard before.

No but the person inside her does.

 

[Vol8188]

zy·gote
noun
BIOLOGY

1. a diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes; a fertilized ovum.

You can call it a living human as much as you wish. Very few will agree.
I'll call it a human diploid cell.

The couple using invitro fertilization who have 10 eggs fertilized but only the strongest implanted, did not sacrifice 9 living humans in order to have one.

If you think the loss of those 9 fertilized eggs is equivalent to the loss of 9 12 week fetuses, I think you're nuts.
If you think the loss of 9 12 week fetuses is the equivalent to the loss of 9 new born babies, I think you're nuts.
If you think the loss of those 9 fertilized eggs is in any way equivalent to the loss of 9 new born babies - you're insane.

If you think the morning after pill is killing living humans, you're nuts.

I put it all in the same category as the "every sperm is sacred" lunacy.

You’ve already admitted it’s human. You’ve already admitted it’s living.

Why will you not call a zygote a living human?

If you understood what a zygote is, you wouldn’t bring up the morning after pill

 

[Vol8188]

A woman doesn't need any help from the government deciding what is best for her.

That's all I'm going to say about it. These abortion threads just keep rehashing the same arguments that we've all heard before.

Who decides what’s best for the child?

If killing you is in my best interest, should the government stay out of it?

 

[85SugarVol]

You’ve already admitted it’s human. You’ve already admitted it’s living.

Why will you not call a zygote a living human?

If you understood what a zygote is, you wouldn’t bring up the morning after pill

I’ll play.

A zygote is a human.

 

[Vol8188]

I’ll play.

A zygote is a human.

Yes. A zygote is a living human. I'm not sure why he's spent 2 days running from that fact other than to dehumanize the act of abortion. We can debate the limits on abortion, but to do so we have to start from a factual basis. Many supporters of abortion want to downplay the act by pretending a zygote is either not alive or not a human. Obviously both are true.