Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/15/11 12:10 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

No, they actually aren't. Much as a 10 year old and a 15 year old aren't really different.

Because why?

Well, no. It's an example of what you have demanded. Realistically, you have no real way to differenciate between the two other than simply saying "they're different!".

Well between a Zygote/Early Foetus you have numerous anatomical differences, you've pretty much no mental activity, or limbs. Actualy, it doesn't even really look like people. The similarities are chemical and that isn't sufficently human for me.

No, that's not how this works. You made a moronic claim that babies are born without brains, a claim that anyone who has ever taken a basic class on science knows is impossible.

And then showed you that your idea of Enlightenment era, binary opposition based science is refuted. The exception makes the rule, I grant you. But there's clearly been cases of this since there's plenty of documenation. So, what the fuck is it you're saying?

While some babies have been born with only brain stems, and usually die immediately, they still have something there. Even if you had been right, it's on you to make the case, i.e. to provide links. It's not on your opponents to do the research for you.

That's the fallacy of any debate, it's no one's job until proof is demanded.

According to that link, the most expensive condom is 50 cents. I've seen higher, but still, condoms are affordable.

In your little hidey hole of the world, yes. How much does a new perspective cost? It'd be an investment, I promise! In Ireland I'd put a condom on about 1-2 euro. These guys say similiar. With a social welfare of 180 euro, average rent of about 100 euro, food costing at least 40-50 and then your bills I can't see it being that clearly affordable for all.

Or if we decide 80-90% isn't good enough we can go with chemical contraception. But that's expensive and the woman doesn't always react posotively to them. So I guess we're at a point where contraception isn't a perfect solution?

And Africa is irrelevant. Things are different there.

Things are different everywhere. That's not an intelligent response.

If having the baby will kill her, Ireland permits an abortion. Hmmm....

But it doesn't take into account mental health - so not really, no. You're only physicaly screened and I can tell you now while the mechanics are there it's near impossible to get a GP to persue this course of action with a pregnant woman.

There's no sidestepping. I addressed and dismissed you. You may dislike how curt I am, but it's not like I'm dancing around the issue. Or, like above, it's not like I'm saying that abortion is always illegal in Ireland when it isn't. Hmmm...

Yes, there is one condition under which you can have one. But it's so hard to get them there's companies in England who do discounts for Irish women!

Your argument is just "there's a difference because I say so!"

And yours is?

Well, no there isn't. Abortion is the killing of a human being

Oh, it's "There's no difference because I say so".

Where? When? Who?

The church were very anti abortion until maybe the 80's, 90's

Even in Ireland there isn't a blanket ban. NO ONE has ever proposed a ban on medically necessary abortions. Which is why, even in Ireland, medical abortions take place.

But medical necessity has always been an issue of debate. Which makes it just bullshit, wishy washy legislation. And if you don't state clearly where the lines are nothing happens. What doctor wants to be the test case for that? No, they advise they travel abroad.

The abortion laws should be like Ireland. You are ONLY allowed an abortion if having the baby will kill or harm you.

In some ways I agree. But if we're only going to consider the basic, physical level then we're not really looking at the issue properly. A rape victim should not be burdened with a child she didn't want from a man she didn't consent with in a country that wont give her any real support. Even giving the kid to adoption is dodgy - child abuse issues are no secret here.

so your saying if i fucked you sister and got her pregnant then dumped her you wouldent want her to have a abortion hypothetically speaking of course

At 2/15/11 03:03 AM, WolvenBear wrote: The question for me is: Is it a human being with God granted rights?. Science says yes.

Science says that it has "God granted" "rights"? Wow, didn't know that.

It's human. And the instant we use flawed logic to take away its right to life

We don't need flawed logic to justify it. We could just do it without all this moralizing nonsense and achieve the same results.

we will use other flawed logic to get rid of the infirm and the elderly and the sick and the stupid and the "unfit" and all other manner of "worthless" people who we can define their rights away.

So what you're saying is that being for abortion is like supporting eugenics.

I guess you can do that too, lol. Not my problem, though, because I'm none of those. Besides, that won't be happening for the most part simply because there's no need to do so. "Unfit" people wouldn't even pollute the gene pool all that much simply because few sane people would ever want to reproduce with them.

At 2/12/11 04:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote: You may not have liked the counter, but both are morally repugnant

Moralizing.

Raping a girl who said no, and killing a child because it isn't cheap to raise are both morally wrong.

Moralizing.

the moral issue remains unchanged.

Moralizing.

Um, you must be stupid if you believe that society doesn't get to have a say in what you do with your body. Tens of thousands of people get arrested every day for doing things the government doesn't approve of with their body.

Moralizing.

And as if that were a justification, lol. I think I should be able to do all the blow I want. If I get addicted that's my own fault. Societies don't ban drug use because they care about the individual. They care about addicts who cause problems.

And it can only be said by someone with no grasp of what the real world is like.

You're the one using "moral arguments," lol.

At 2/16/11 11:01 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Source it up. Really. Source it up or admit failure.

Um, this is the first time I've EVER refused to present a source, but no.

You're literally trying to claim that your scientific illiteracy is a valid counter argument. That every school in the entire country teaches that pregnancy is when an egg and sperm join and then implant in the uterine wall...I'm supposed to source that?

That's like demanding that I source that we need Oxygen to breathe.

Am I really supposed to take someone serious who doesn't appear to have gone through fifth grade?

Well, yes, actualy. If someone didn't go to school that doesn't disqualify them from having an opinion. Or even having a structured debate. But I'm sure we'll ignore it and you and the others in this mysterious group of the "scientificly literate" can enjoy facts based on anecdotal evidence and opinion. Tell Richard Dawkins I said hi.

Oh, did you know that in secondary education Science is largely thought wrong? They simply give you the easiest model to work with and build from the ground up. Like how you might study electricity but leave out things like complex impedence when doing resistance and AC or look at semiconductors but ignore transistors and operational amplifiers. What I am saying is that you cannot citate a school book. Ever. As soon as you move the object out of the context you learnt it the factuality of what you learnt rapidly deteriorates.

Oh and I would like a source that says we need Oxygen to breath, actualy. I'm sure if you look at it you'll find multiple other chemical requirements for us to respire. You'll find it's an over simplification. Pure oxygen is toxic to humans.

At 2/18/11 07:02 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Um, this is the first time I've EVER refused to present a source, but no.

... I wonder why...

You're literally trying to claim that your scientific illiteracy is a valid counter argument. That every school in the entire country teaches that pregnancy is when an egg and sperm join and then implant in the uterine wall...I'm supposed to source that?

Yeah, I know that. But that is NOT what you were claiming. When a sperm and an egg meet they implant on the unterine wall... Now source me something that says that THAT is a human being. You can try to dodge the subject by acting like you said something different, but I won't let you. Source it up or shut up.

That's like demanding that I source that we need Oxygen to breathe.

Um no that's like trying to prove that we need oxygen to breath by saying oxygen is made up of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules...

Am I really supposed to take someone serious who doesn't appear to have gone through fifth grade?

Ah yes. So says the person with the debate skills of a 2 year old.

You said that all aborted babies are independent human beings, show me science that proves it. Especially for the period prior to it being able to survive outside of the womb.

At 2/18/11 11:33 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: Oh and I would like a source that says we need Oxygen to breath, actualy. I'm sure if you look at it you'll find multiple other chemical requirements for us to respire. You'll find it's an over simplification. Pure oxygen is toxic to humans.

So, it's kinda like I said earlier. You're a dishonest tit.

I tell you what. Let's have an experiment. I'll tie a plastic bag around your head so you can't get new oxygen, and we'll see how it works for you! We'll even videotape it, so everyone can see you struggle for lack of oxygen.

Then, when I pull the bag off your head, after you pass out, and you are able to breathe normally, you can shut up eh?

Shall I toss a stone up in the air and watch it fall to prove gravity too?

F-ing imbecile.

At 2/18/11 11:54 AM, Camarohusky wrote: ... I wonder why...

Because the question is literally as stupid as "PROVE TO ME I CAN'T DRINK BLEACH!" or "PROVE THAT IT WILL KILL ME IF I PUT MY HEAD IN A WHEAT THRESHER!"

Why? What's the point? If you're going to ask the question to begin with, you have ALREADY rejected the answer. Every child is taught in high school (private school kids learn in 3rd-5th grade, but whatever) that when a sperm meets an egg, a unique embryo is formed that is not the same DNA as either its mother or its father. If you choose to reject science that we teach to children, then whatever. Pardon me if I refuse to take you seriously.

Yeah, I know that. But that is NOT what you were claiming. When a sperm and an egg meet they implant on the unterine wall... Now source me something that says that THAT is a human being. You can try to dodge the subject by acting like you said something different, but I won't let you. Source it up or shut up.

Do they form a unique human DNA? They do... NO ONE DISAGREES!

So is a unique human DNA a unique human DNA? It is? Well then kids...we have a new life!

I get it, you don't want it to be life. So you set terms. But ALL of the terms would fail on basic mold, so you're wrong. "Prove it can life without whatever conditions!" I don't have to. It's there, it is what it is, and science doesn't support you.

Demanding that I prove that a fetus is human is like demanding that I prove that hitting you in the face with a hammer hurts. No matter how many times I do it, you'll lie and say it felt fantastic, because, otherwise, it proves my point.

You're not open to logic, reason, or science. The very claim of proving that something that is UNDENIABLY human is human proves it.

I don't see why people have to use moral arguments to justify it either way.

If you don't want it, just kill it. It's not that complicated.

At 2/19/11 05:35 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Because the question is literally as stupid as "PROVE TO ME I CAN'T DRINK BLEACH!" or "PROVE THAT IT WILL KILL ME IF I PUT MY HEAD IN A WHEAT THRESHER!"

No it's not. Now, you tell me what of the characteristics of life a 1st and 2nd term fetus have.

Why? What's the point? If you're going to ask the question to begin with, you have ALREADY rejected the answer. Every child is taught in high school (private school kids learn in 3rd-5th grade, but whatever) that when a sperm meets an egg, a unique embryo is formed that is not the same DNA as either its mother or its father. If you choose to reject science that we teach to children, then whatever. Pardon me if I refuse to take you seriously.

So we have some unique cells. Since when did the mere existence of cells mean life? I can give you numerous examples of cells that we don't consider to be living. Remember that severed hand? It has all the DNA of a human and it has cells to, but NO ONE would claim the severed hand is alive.

Do they form a unique human DNA? They do... NO ONE DISAGREES!

That was never the question.

So is a unique human DNA a unique human DNA? It is? Well then kids...we have a new life!

That is NOT the definition of life.

I get it, you don't want it to be life. So you set terms. But ALL of the terms would fail on basic mold, so you're wrong. "Prove it can life without whatever conditions!" I don't have to. It's there, it is what it is, and science doesn't support you.

You don't have to because you CAN'T. You can keep on fudging the question and acting like this ultra-scientific question is basic gemnoerty, but you will still never prove anything. Find me sources.

Demanding that I prove that a fetus is human is like demanding that I prove that hitting you in the face with a hammer hurts. No matter how many times I do it, you'll lie and say it felt fantastic, because, otherwise, it proves my point.

Not it's not. This is not an obvious question, so seriously just find a source. You can spout gibberish all you want. So source it up. And, hell, if it IS so obvious as you contest, that should be really really easy.

You're not open to logic, reason, or science. The very claim of proving that something that is UNDENIABLY human is human proves it.

You have not provided any science. You logic is missing numerous steps, and your reasoning in far too general.

At 2/19/11 05:35 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

So, it's kinda like I said earlier. You're a dishonest tit.

Whar did I lie?

I tell you what. Let's have an experiment. I'll tie a plastic bag around your head so you can't get new oxygen, and we'll see how it works for you! We'll even videotape it, so everyone can see you struggle for lack of oxygen.

Then, when I pull the bag off your head, after you pass out, and you are able to breathe normally, you can shut up eh?

I found this funny. How about we remove the heomoglobin from your red blood cells and let you breathe away? You'll find you're taking air in and out but your body is still not actualy respiring. Or how about we remove all your glucose so your body can't actualy engage the Oxygen in a reaction?

Shall I toss a stone up in the air and watch it fall to prove gravity too?

Again, that never proved gravity. You're an over simplifying child. If Newton actualy went into a hall full of Academics and told this falling apple story they'd have laughed and slapped his shit with a wooden panel. All that proves is stones fall when you throw them.

What's the nature of the falling? How does it correspond to the upward movement? It's enviroments, conditions and mass? Do bigger stones fall faster? Do stones fall faster in different mediums?

F-ing imbecile.

Right, buddy. At least I'm not the one busying himself with conclusion jumping. And your problem with critical thinking is the same problem you're having with this abortion thing - you assume that a clump of cells is alive. Well it's not an instantaneous process and you can't assume what came in is what came out or that it happens straight away! The speculation around late term abortion is justified - we simply can't know. But in early and mid term abortions I don't see the issue. It's not sentient, it's not feeling, it's not as important as the mother. You can't just say a pregnant woman is carrying a baby. It's over simplification to the point where you don't even seem interested in what you're talking about.

And if the babies going to be severely handicapped then I don't see an issue so long as it's done as close to diagnosis as possible.

At 2/19/11 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote: No it's not. Now, you tell me what of the characteristics of life a 1st and 2nd term fetus have.

...
...
...

Other than the basic fact that they are alive?

Is the current strategy to say things so ridiculous that I have an aneurism trying to understand how a thinking human being could make such a dumb argument?

So we have some unique cells. Since when did the mere existence of cells mean life? I can give you numerous examples of cells that we don't consider to be living. Remember that severed hand? It has all the DNA of a human and it has cells to, but NO ONE would claim the severed hand is alive.

But when the hand is severed, the cells start to die. If left removed too long, the hand is dead. The hand is part of an organism. It is not an organism in and of itself. The hand has the same DNA as the arm. And if someone loses a hand, they (99.999999%) of the time would like it reattached.

This is a really bad counter argument.

That was never the question.

Well, it was. The question of whether it was a unique human was asked, and I answered it. You're now going into even more scientifically illiterate questions to justify the earlier silliness.

That is NOT the definition of life.

It actually is.

You don't have to because you CAN'T. You can keep on fudging the question and acting like this ultra-scientific question is basic gemnoerty, but you will still never prove anything. Find me sources.

Again, no. It's not an ultra-scientific question. It's a basic question of basic science that any 8 year old can understand. The question of "when does life begin" on a scientific level is very simple, and very unambiguous. No one claims an amoeba isn't alive. It clearly is. No one claims bacteria isn't alive, it clearly is. The question of "when does something become human" is as un-scientific as it gets. A new human being is created at the point of conception. When it can breathe, when it can feel, when it can think, when it can speak are all questions with answers...but none of them change the original question of "When is a new human created."

Either your above questions show a profoundly sad misunderstanding of 3rd grade science...or they're insanely dishonest. Asking when something "becomes life" is a dumb question. Things that are living die...but things that aren't living never start living. Asking "when it becomes human" implies that it was ever NOT human. It doesn't start as a fish, turn into a lizard, then progress to an ape, and finally become a human being. It was always human, and developed as it grew.

If I hurt your feelings with the mockery about having to prove obvious non-disputed facts...then perhaps you need to open a book, and not ask people to prove things that everyone who ever took a science class knows?

At 2/19/11 02:21 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: I found this funny. How about we remove the heomoglobin from your red blood cells and let you breathe away? You'll find you're taking air in and out but your body is still not actualy respiring. Or how about we remove all your glucose so your body can't actualy engage the Oxygen in a reaction?

I guess I fail to see the humor. You asked that I prove that oxygen is necessary to breathe. I provided a mocking response that did just what you asked. Your new response actually confirms oxygen is necessary. So, you're being a dishonest tit.

Again, that never proved gravity. You're an over simplifying child. If Newton actualy went into a hall full of Academics and told this falling apple story they'd have laughed and slapped his shit with a wooden panel. All that proves is stones fall when you throw them.

I find simple works when dealing with stupid people.

For example, almost nothing that Newton proposed was anything new, and he was accused of plagiarism. Most of what we know about gravity today was NOT proposed by Newton, and was added long after he was dead. So had Newton walked into a hall of people and said "Dude, an apple hit me in the head! I think there's this magical force I want to call Newtonicity! that attracts it...." everyone would've looked at him and said "We've known about this magical force for years. And we already have a name for it. It's called gravity!" The only thing Newton proposed that was even mildly interesting was the idea that gravity decreased the farther away you were from the center.

But yeah, keep going with the mockery. You're doing a bang up job so far.

What's the nature of the falling? How does it correspond to the upward movement? It's enviroments, conditions and mass? Do bigger stones fall faster? Do stones fall faster in different mediums?

Yet, Newton addressed NONE of those points. The two stones on a tower thing is usually (and incorrectly) attributed to Gallileo, centuries earlier.

Right, buddy. At least I'm not the one busying himself with conclusion jumping. And your problem with critical thinking is the same problem you're having with this abortion thing - you assume that a clump of cells is alive. Well it's not an instantaneous process and you can't assume what came in is what came out or that it happens straight away! The speculation around late term abortion is justified - we simply can't know. But in early and mid term abortions I don't see the issue. It's not sentient, it's not feeling, it's not as important as the mother. You can't just say a pregnant woman is carrying a baby. It's over simplification to the point where you don't even seem interested in what you're talking about.

The clump of cells IS alive, and they are all human cells. That you think you know about Newton, and that you think you're witty doesn't change this.

And if the babies going to be severely handicapped then I don't see an issue so long as it's done as close to diagnosis as possible.

So, this undermines your entire point. Nothing you've said above has any basis in science, and you're just basing it on what you want. Don't get me wrong, I always knew that. But to hear you mock me on some imaginary scientific basis (when you're buying into the whole apple thing that they tell us didn't happen in 8th grade), then to admit that it's based on some personal standards...it stuns me that your head doesn't explode from the lack of consistency.

At 2/3/11 07:40 PM, Saen wrote:

-Hormonal: O. Hormonal birth control tends to be 86-99.98% effective,

-Barrier:. Effectiveness for condoms is difficult to calculate, but if used properly it is approximately 96-98%,

-Spermicide: . Spermicides tend to be around 92-98% effective.

-Intrauterine: 98-99.98% effective.

-Permanent: Vasectomy and tubal ligation. Effectiveness 99.999%, within a month or two of surgery, afterwards 100% (assuming that sex remains monogynous between partners)

-Emergency contraceptive: Morning After Pill. 98-99.8% effective.

0.002x0.02x0.02x0.0002x0.002x0.0001= 1.6x10^(-13) Which doesn't equal one. Therefore there is still a chance (no matter how small) that pregnancy can occur. You can't claim this will absolutely guarantee pregnancy will be avoided. Bear in mind I used the maximum of your estimates so therefore the chance could be even higher.

At 2/20/11 08:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

I guess I fail to see the humor. You asked that I prove that oxygen is necessary to breathe. I provided a mocking response that did just what you asked. Your new response actually confirms oxygen is necessary. So, you're being a dishonest tit.

My point was that it's a false statement - it's much like saying you need an education to get a job. Yes you do, but you also need a number of other things. I'm not being dishonest, it's just that you're omitting obvious factors.

For example, almost nothing that Newton proposed was anything new, and he was accused of plagiarism. Most of what we know about gravity today was NOT proposed by Newton, and was added long after he was dead. So had Newton walked into a hall of people and said "Dude, an apple hit me in the head! I think there's this magical force I want to call Newtonicity! that attracts it...." everyone would've looked at him and said "We've known about this magical force for years. And we already have a name for it. It's called gravity!" The only thing Newton proposed that was even mildly interesting was the idea that gravity decreased the farther away you were from the center.

Oh, really? What about F=M.A which made Gravity a definable thing? All of a sudden we could plot orbits and due to planetary motion we could define gravity and it's inverse square law.

Yes, rocks fall. But the rock needs mass to be affected by gravity. That's what he showed that was of worth.

Yet, Newton addressed NONE of those points. The two stones on a tower thing is usually (and incorrectly) attributed to Gallileo, centuries earlier.

I'm fairly sure adresed the first few to the best of the ability of an academic during his time. He showed as many variables as he could to determine the variables which impacted the velocity of a falling object.

The clump of cells IS alive, and they are all human cells. That you think you know about Newton, and that you think you're witty doesn't change this.

No, but likewise neither does refuting my point. Look, saying they're human cells makes them human is like saying my clothes feel pain because they're human clothes. It's purely descriptive, and you've no way of backing up the idea that human cells feel pain. You need at least a partialy functioning nervous system to feel pain or discomfort. So prove me to from week 1 to week 40 a prenatal body feels pain or shove it.

So, this undermines your entire point. Nothing you've said above has any basis in science, and you're just basing it on what you want. Don't get me wrong, I always knew that. But to hear you mock me on some imaginary scientific basis (when you're buying into the whole apple thing that they tell us didn't happen in 8th grade), then to admit that it's based on some personal standards...it stuns me that your head doesn't explode from the lack of consistency.

Doesn't even make sense. Any opinion is a combination of facts, feelings and your attitudes toward those facts. I beleive abortion is right and I beleive in cases where the child is going to have no quality of life that abortion would be, though I hate the word, moral. Ultimately abortion is an ethical issue, so why is my bringing my ethics into this such an issue?

Oh and I never said I beleived the falling apple shit. I didn't go to school to be told what I think. But I will give you this, your consistency. You consistantly refuse to substantiate your arguements and instead busy yourself dismantling the other sides arguement. Which is half a debate, I will admit. But you must be able to input something other than Ad Absurdum analagies and Strawman arguements. You might look at my wording (And some of it is sloppy, I'll admit. Sometimes I'm posting at 2am) with disdain but you're the king of logical fallacies.

At 2/20/11 08:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Again, no. It's not an ultra-scientific question. It's a basic question of basic science that any 8 year old can understand. The question of "when does life begin" on a scientific level is very simple, and very unambiguous.

If it's so simple SOURCE IT UP. Seriously. Find me a scientifically sound study that proves that a fetus prior to the hird trimester is an independent viable lifeform.

No more bullshit. No more deflecting. No more acting like this is a simple question. Just find me sources or admit failure. There is no third option here.

At 2/20/11 10:14 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: My point was that it's a false statement - it's much like saying you need an education to get a job. Yes you do, but you also need a number of other things. I'm not being dishonest, it's just that you're omitting obvious factors.

I'm stopping here. Claiming that someone else needs to PROVE oxygen is necessary to breath precludes you from mocking others.

Sorry, I feel little more need to debate children on adult matters beyond their intelligence.

At 2/20/11 10:36 AM, Camarohusky wrote: If it's so simple SOURCE IT UP. Seriously. Find me a scientifically sound study that proves that a fetus prior to the hird trimester is an independent viable lifeform.

Oh, so now we're changing the criteria?

I've never claimed, and have specifically addressed the viability issue. So viability is a non-issue for me. As addressed at least 3 times before.

As for independent, I don't have to prove it's independent. You have to prove it's not. And since you've admitted it is, well, you're kinda sunk on that one.

No more bullshit. No more deflecting. No more acting like this is a simple question. Just find me sources or admit failure. There is no third option here.

Sure there is. I can continue to say I'm not sourcing issues that everyone agrees on.

And if you wish to disagree on scientifically settled issues, please show me that YOU are correct. Show me that a fetus DOESN'T have different DNA than it's mother.

It's an impossible challenge and you have 150% chance of failure, but go ahead and try if you like.

At 2/21/11 06:00 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Oh, so now we're changing the criteria?

I've never claimed, and have specifically addressed the viability issue. So viability is a non-issue for me. As addressed at least 3 times before.

Oh, so it's not alive but you can kill it?

As for independent, I don't have to prove it's independent. You have to prove it's not. And since you've admitted it is, well, you're kinda sunk on that one.

Again, you're trying to prove that it is alive, I am telling you that it is part of the mother. Since you are you are the oen trying to prove the affirmative, the burden is on you to prove it.

Sure there is. I can continue to say I'm not sourcing issues that everyone agrees on.

Um... This back and forth you have had with me, as well as the ones you have had with the rest of the BBS show that their is no consensus here.

And if you wish to disagree on scientifically settled issues, please show me that YOU are correct. Show me that a fetus DOESN'T have different DNA than it's mother.

I have never made that claim.

It's an impossible challenge and you have 150% chance of failure, but go ahead and try if you like.

The only impossible challenge here is to get you to back up ANY claim you have made with evidence. You say it's obvious, i have called shenanigans on that claim. If it is so damn obvious you should be able to prove it with a 10 minute search and 5 links. So do it. If it is so damn obvious, bury me with sources! All your delaying is doing is proving that it is NOT obvious by hinting that you cannot prove it.

Um, Wolven, a baby may have similar if not very close DNA to its mother but so does its mothers organs. I don't think anyone's debating that a prenatal organism is made from some sort of distant, unrelated cell type that would pre-clude it from ever becoming a human. But you're still not making any sort of decent point for the anti-abortion debate.

Please watch some sort of documentary or read something about back-alley abortions. Come to grips with exactly how sordid a part of reality this is in poorer parts of the world and even some first world nations. Then tell me that the alternative to a clinic abortion is this. Haven't seen this one, incidentaly. But I've read enough about them to know I don't want to see it.

The answer to a rape victim should not be "bear the burden" or die in a back alley. That's pretty much the same choice the rapist approached her with in the first place.

You clearly don't want to deal with what I'm saying, my arguements or any sort of logic. So you can keep your artificial tone of superiority. I'm not terribly interested in changing your mind, you're not the sort of person I'd like to hear defending the pre-choice side in a debate.

First off, you are an idiot. You speak of saying absolutely nothing with morals, but that is complete and total bullshit. A person has the right to get an abortion if they choose to. If you want to have sex with full pleasure and you get pregnant, then it is okay to get an abortion. And second off, Jesus is pure opinion and morals. What about the people who don't believe in Jesus. That is where your argument truly came to an end, because saying such an ignorant comment like " It's Jesus" just goes to show that you are not only an buffoon at trying to make a valid case, but also that you are completely bias and trying to reason with you will be as affective as trying to talk to a brick wall.

At 2/21/11 10:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/21/11 06:00 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Oh, so now we're changing the criteria?

I've never claimed, and have specifically addressed the viability issue. So viability is a non-issue for me. As addressed at least 3 times before.

Oh, so it's not alive but you can kill it?

if it bleeds we can kill it plus it's not born yet i should have been abourted but instead he had me she had me and there missrble and hate me i should not exsit

At 2/21/11 10:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Oh, so it's not alive but you can kill it?

Wait. Sorry, I think I had a stroke for the moment.

Are you unclear as to the meaning of the word "viability"?

Viability is the ability of an infant to survive if it is birthed, based on development. Whether or not an infant is viable had nothing to do with whether or not it is alive.

And pro-choicers, who rarely know basic scientific terms, feel comfortable in mocking someone who understands basic concepts better than them...

Again, you're trying to prove that it is alive, I am telling you that it is part of the mother. Since you are you are the oen trying to prove the affirmative, the burden is on you to prove it.

And you are wrong on both counts. EVERY fetus is alive, or it is referred to as dead tissue. Anything that does not have the same DNA as the mother is NOT part of the mother.

Goodness, having to explain basic concepts to fools is tiring.

Um... This back and forth you have had with me, as well as the ones you have had with the rest of the BBS show that their is no consensus here.

Ironically, no it doesn't. It just shows there are a lot of stupid people who ask a lot of stupid questions. I keep getting asked to prove basic biological facts that NO ONE IN THE WORLD (except for you morons) disputes.

The only impossible challenge here is to get you to back up ANY claim you have made with evidence. You say it's obvious, i have called shenanigans on that claim. If it is so damn obvious you should be able to prove it with a 10 minute search and 5 links. So do it. If it is so damn obvious, bury me with sources! All your delaying is doing is proving that it is NOT obvious by hinting that you cannot prove it.

But you have provided me NOTHING to disprove me. And EVERY claim I have made is an undisputed scientifict FACT. Hell, none of the basic points I've made are even arguable. A new DNA creation is made at conception. This creation is alive. Baring complications, it will grow and mature and be born. None of that is arguable.

Despite no one showing me I'm wrong, and despite none of my claims being arguable, I'm supposedly a fool for telling my intellectual inferiors that their questions are unscientific? Yawn.

At 2/21/11 03:11 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Um, Wolven, a baby may have similar if not very close DNA to its mother but so does its mothers organs. I don't think anyone's debating that a prenatal organism is made from some sort of distant, unrelated cell type that would pre-clude it from ever becoming a human. But you're still not making any sort of decent point for the anti-abortion debate.

OH SWEET JESUS.

A mother's organs have IDENTICAL (nt close) DNA to the mother. A baby will have 50% of the same genetic material as it's mother. That distinguishes it from every other part of the mother that has 100% DNA similarity.

Fuck, it pisses me off when morons who have no clue how something that GRADE SCHOOLERS understand call ME an idiot because they have no ida what they are ranting about.

Please watch some sort of documentary or read something about back-alley abortions. Come to grips with exactly how sordid a part of reality this is in poorer parts of the world and even some first world nations. Then tell me that the alternative to a clinic abortion is this. Haven't seen this one, incidentaly. But I've read enough about them to know I don't want to see it.

It's irrelevant. Ignoring that abortions INCREASED after abortion was legalized...

Whatever.

The answer to a rape victim should not be "bear the burden" or die in a back alley. That's pretty much the same choice the rapist approached her with in the first place.

Rape abortions are less than 2% of all abortions.

Not that this matters. It's just emotional grandstanding because intellectually you don't have the chops.

You clearly don't want to deal with what I'm saying, my arguements or any sort of logic. So you can keep your artificial tone of superiority. I'm not terribly interested in changing your mind, you're not the sort of person I'd like to hear defending the pre-choice side in a debate.

You mean I don't wish to deal with fantasy or error? Well, yes, that's true. I tend to deal with fact and reality. I've dealt with intelligent pro-choicers who made me actually debate. You are not one of them.

I'd place you around 5 year olds trying to convince me Barbie is real.

At 2/27/11 09:02 AM, WolvenBear wrote: I have made is an undisputed scientifict FACT.

again, the debate here says it's not. Source. Just do it. Stop balking. Seriously, just source. i have asked you for proof and you have done is beat your cheast saying "NO POOFS NEEDEDS! YOU BE Teh STOOPID IF YOU DON'T KNOW!"

How about you just source it up. You claim baby is alive at conception. Prove it. Seriously, just prove it. I could repeat this request one millions times, so how's about you do it.

At 2/27/11 09:08 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

OH SWEET JESUS.

A mother's organs have IDENTICAL (nt close) DNA to the mother.

Right, I misread you and saw you said that the DNA was the same. Obviously it's not since they only share half the chromosomes. But it's great that you took it so well.

It's irrelevant. Ignoring that abortions INCREASED after abortion was legalized...

The amount of abortions documented/reported is what increased. If you can't distinguish between the two it's all the one I suppose.

Rape abortions are less than 2% of all abortions.

And thus should not be taken into account. Or if we go with your facitous logic we can still find fault in not all rapes being reported. And if we go further we find you still haven't made any remark relating to the sex industry and element of misogyny sitting at the core of the anti-abortion arguement other than:

Not that this matters. It's just emotional grandstanding because intellectually you don't have the chops.

Because logic is fundamental. Which is not an unfair statement so long as you're willing to present an arguement. But your only arguement to me has been I'm wrong. Which, even if true, doesn't make you right.

You mean I don't wish to deal with fantasy or error? Well, yes, that's true. I tend to deal with fact and reality. I've dealt with intelligent pro-choicers who made me actually debate. You are not one of them.

I don't think so far you've shown you can actually debate. You're just agressive and you've yet to source anything you've said or make any constructive arguements. You mightn't like my views but it's better than just simply contradicting the opposition. I still don't have much to say to you until you have some evidence for what you're saying - and don't bother with this "universally agreed" bullshit because it's not agreed if people dispute it. If it's so simply to source a fact, source it and stop being stop trying to weasel your way out by pretending we're idiots. If you honestly feel we're not worth argueing with than I can't see why you'd have come this far.

At 2/27/11 11:41 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/27/11 09:02 AM, WolvenBear wrote: I have made is an undisputed scientifict FACT.

again, the debate here says it's not. Source. Just do it. Stop balking. Seriously, just source. i have asked you for proof and you have done is beat your cheast saying "NO POOFS NEEDEDS! YOU BE Teh STOOPID IF YOU DON'T KNOW!"

How about you just source it up. You claim baby is alive at conception. Prove it. Seriously, just prove it. I could repeat this request one millions times, so how's about you do it.

Sorry, but it's pretty obvious that an embryo is living matter. He's right there. I would however, like to see a scientific proof that the mere state of being both alive and human automatically grants a fetus all the rights of a baby, child, adolescent, or adult. I see no reason to take it for granted that it does.

At 2/9/11 01:09 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 2/6/11 08:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

By discipline don't you mean lonliness and an uncanny ability to strike out with the other sex?

no. by discipline, i mean the uncanny ability to not fuck like jackrabbits just because there is someone of the opposite sex nearby.

problem is today men have grown to expect sex out of any woman they date, and the women have been brainwashed by today's entertainment industry that they must give sex to men in order to keep them.

course, if a man will dump you because you won't spread em for him.... do you really want that kind of selfishness in your life? I wouldn't.

I'm single, but not because I can't find a woman. I'm single because I prefer to live free and not be bound to another person.

I know this is a little off topic but......

Did you know that women also have libidos and are often times willing participants in various sex acts? I love how you just assume that most women don't have sex for pleasure but because we have had our weak, fragile, female brains have been washed by the entertainment industry?

There is nothing wrong with abortion, and regardless, it has NOTHING to do with you.

At 2/28/11 04:39 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Sorry, but it's pretty obvious that an embryo is living matter.

So is the mother's kidney, but that doesn't mean a thing. I am trying to get WB to show me some proof that the entire time prior to the third trimester that the clump of cells to an early fetus is alive. Not just living matter.

If it such an undisputed fact he should be blowing me out of the water here. His rabid refusal to provide sources indicates that he cannot find sources and thus that it is not such an undispiuted fact, or even a fact at all.

Yummy

At 2/28/11 10:20 AM, camobch0 wrote: There is nothing wrong with abortion, and regardless, it has NOTHING to do with you.

YES it does young buck.

At 3/3/11 05:46 PM, willowlynn wrote: YES it does young buck.

Like?