Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I feel a little pity for JoeBagadonuts and AlaskanAssassin. They are serious, and doing their best to present a real defense of their position. Their allies are the trolling Heathme and NPC D4617, the out-of-touch babe, and the above-it-all contrarian idestroyedthetoilet. Their best sources of information seem to be PragerU and the Washington Times. With friends and sources like that, who needs enemies?

Not being on a team doesn't make me a contrarian.

 

[One Brow]

Not being on a team doesn't make me a contrarian.

My apologies if I mischaracterized you. I tend to think of you as one of the thoughtful, if less loquacious, conservatives.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I agree. You find any neo-Marxists around here, we'll give'em hell together.

As much as we disagree, I do enjoy the banter.

 

[One Brow]

It makes no sense. The Left will connect themselves wholeheartedly to the "science" of climate change but saying that the human baby growing inside the mother is not a human is ridiculous.

A fetus is human. So is cancer (in a human). So is my eyebrow hair. However, to say "a human" requires more than merely having human origin, and people can disagree on what being a human means. It can't just be that it is alive, because, again, so is cancer.

Why does it change from a whatever to a human as it passes the birth canal?

Life is a continual process, from the mother forming the ovum (and father the sperm) all the through birth and death. The Catholics have taken to heart the policy that "every sperm is sacred", but unless you are advocating for that position, there will be an arbitrary dividing line at some point.

The baby is just as human as the mother and of course deserves the right to live.

Hint: convincing arguments can't be reversed, such as "the mother is just as human as the fetus and of course deserves not be biologically connected to another human against her will".

If the mother does not want to keep the baby then put it up for adoption.

If all the aborted fetuses were birthed, the list of adoptees would vanish in less than a year.

 

[Heathme]

A fetus is human. So is cancer (in a human). So is my eyebrow hair. However, to say "a human" requires more than merely having human origin, and people can disagree on what being a human means. It can't just be that it is alive, because, again, so is cancer.



Life is a continual process, from the mother forming the ovum (and father the sperm) all the through birth and death. The Catholics have taken to heart the policy that "every sperm is sacred", but unless you are advocating for that position, there will be an arbitrary dividing line at some point.



Hint: convincing arguments can't be reversed, such as "the mother is just as human as the fetus and of course deserves not be biologically connected to another human against her will".



If all the aborted fetuses were birthed, the list of adoptees would vanish in less than a year.

The abortion debate in a nutshell. You have taken away the "human"ness of the baby inside the mother's womb to not feel remorse at killing him/her. I feel that the baby inside the mother's womb is a baby and should not be killed.

 

[One Brow]

You have taken away the "human"ness of the baby inside the mother's womb to not feel remorse at killing him/her.

I feel badly for the people that call themselves conservatives are are saddled with being on the same side as a guy who, in a response to a post where the very first sentence says, "A fetus is human.", responds by " You have taken away the "human"ness of the baby inside the mother's womb...". That's just so sad.

 

[One Brow]

I mean I guess it says in the Constitution that you have the right to life.

Actually, it says that in the Declaration of Independence, a document that has no legal force over the US system of laws.

 

[LogGrad98]

Actually, it says that in the Declaration of Independence, a document that has no legal force over the US system of laws.

No legal force, but definitely influence on.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

A fetus is human. So is cancer (in a human). So is my eyebrow hair. However, to say "a human" requires more than merely having human origin, and people can disagree on what being a human means. It can't just be that it is alive, because, again, so is cancer.

Equating a dead hair cell to offspring is pretty faulty from a biological perspective. Cancer, a part of an organism, doesn't pass a basic biological test for new life. The question of when life begins after two haploid cells combine to form an organism genetically different than it's host is not similar to any specialized group of diploid cells metastasizing within an organism.

The question is when does life begin and that has proven difficult to answer definitively.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You mean, it's true, but you don't like the truth, so it's an unimportant truth?



Like Judas was a founder of Christianity?



Moore is easily searchable on Google. Any scrubbing was done on the Greenpeace website by Greenpeace.

I was unaware of these responses to my posts until now. You don't know what you're talking about. There was evidence in the other thread showing that if you googled "who are the founders of greenpeace" that a picture of Patrick Moore used to come up in a "related searches" box along with several other founders. Then someone at Google decided Moore was no longer worthy and his face disappeared from the results.

 

[One Brow]

Equating a dead hair cell to offspring is pretty faulty from a biological perspective.

Equating a hair from my scalp to a hair from my arm is also faulty. It's a good thing I didn't equate anything, unless you think whenever two things have the same adjective describing them, that means they are equal.

Cancer, a part of an organism, doesn't pass a basic biological test for new life.

Hela cultures started as a cancer. Cancer can pass from host to host (such as when one host bites another). Cancer is as much new life as any parasite.

The question of when life begins after two haploid cells combine to form an organism genetically different than it's host is not similar to any specialized group of diploid cells metastasizing within an organism.

The haploid cells are also distinct from the diploid organism that forms them. So, their life begins long after fertilization. Do you believe the destruction of human haploid lives should be made illegal?

The question is when does life begin and that has proven difficult to answer definitively.

You mean, in the sense that it might have been 4 billion years ago, or 4.1 billion years ago?

 

[One Brow]

I was unaware of these responses to my posts until now. You don't know what you're talking about. There was evidence in the other thread showing that if you googled "who are the founders of greenpeace" that a picture of Patrick Moore used to come up in a "related searches" box along with several other founders. Then someone at Google decided Moore was no longer worthy and his face disappeared from the results.

No doubt you think Google was carefully monitoring the various possible results of searching for the founders of Greenpeace, to make sure he was manually eliminated, as opposed to a search algorithm updating automatically in response to various web posting. Yeah, that first one makes way more sense.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

A fetus is human. So is cancer (in a human). So is my eyebrow hair. However, to say "a human" requires more than merely having human origin, and people can disagree on what being a human means. It can't just be that it is alive, because, again, so is cancer.



Life is a continual process, from the mother forming the ovum (and father the sperm) all the through birth and death. The Catholics have taken to heart the policy that "every sperm is sacred", but unless you are advocating for that position, there will be an arbitrary dividing line at some point.



Hint: convincing arguments can't be reversed, such as "the mother is just as human as the fetus and of course deserves not be biologically connected to another human against her will".



If all the aborted fetuses were birthed, the list of adoptees would vanish in less than a year.

Ok. Attempting to define the term life as loosely as absolutely conceivable proves what point?

 

[One Brow]

Ok. Attempting to define the term life as loosely as absolutely conceivable proves what point?

My point was that any division we make between when a pregnancy can or can not be avoided/terminated is an arbitrary decision.

 

[LogGrad98]

My point was that any division we make between when a pregnancy can or can not be avoided/terminated is an arbitrary decision.

Not entirely. There comes a point of viability outside the womb.

Cancer will never be viable outside a host. Let alone any chance for sentience.

Although sentient cancer sounds like a premise for a Stephen King book.

 

[Rubashov]

Not entirely. There comes a point of viability outside the womb.

Cancer will never be viable outside a host. Let alone any chance for sentience.

Although sentient cancer sounds like a premise for a Stephen King book.

I would name it Rupert Murdoch...

 

[One Brow]

Not entirely. There comes a point of viability outside the womb.

Cancer will never be viable outside a host. Let alone any chance for sentience.

Although sentient cancer sounds like a premise for a Stephen King book.

I agree that viable fetuses should not be killed. If termination of the pregnancy is desired, they should be removed.

Perhaps not. Then again, if you put 200 lbs of cancer cells together and let them grow for 1000 years, who knows?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

No doubt you think Google was carefully monitoring the various possible results of searching for the founders of Greenpeace, to make sure he was manually eliminated, as opposed to a search algorithm updating automatically in response to various web posting. Yeah, that first one makes way more sense.

Oh yeah. The idea that Google might have a political agenda or might manipulate results in any way is so ludicrous. Surely there is no evidence of such things happening at all. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[LogGrad98]

I agree that viable fetuses should not be killed. If termination of the pregnancy is desired, they should be removed.

Perhaps not. Then again, if you put 200 lbs of cancer cells together and let them grow for 1000 years, who knows?

Ain't nobody got time for that!

 

[One Brow]

Oh yeah. The idea that Google might have a political agenda or might manipulate results in any way is so ludicrous. Surely there is no evidence of such things happening at all. Thanks for setting me straight.

Assuming such a political agenda exists (Google's primary agenda is to sell us as a product to the major corporations that support conservative politicians, so how far can they really go before their source of income dries up?), why would you think it was focused on the notion of who was or was not afounder of Greenpeace? Do you think they are still monitoring this concern?