It's a common term crabby, I'm not surprised you would fuck it up
no, it's a common redundancy.
you are now suggesting that common use isn't misuse, but the fact is, misuse of words is common. I thought that was a pet peeve of yours, so why didn't you know that?
Did you ever read or catch something in the news that was so stupid, so asinine that right then and there you threw up your hands or just screamed, or just threw up your hands AND screamed?
 It happened to me last week, while reading a column in The New York Times Magazine. It was about this woman, Amy Richards (as told to Amy Barrett), who was pregnant with triplets. You'd think that was wonderful news. But not to Amy. She wanted to know if there was a way she could have just one of the babies. As she relates her conversation with her doctor: "Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?"
Where is the moral depravity, o religious fanatic ?
If you have a cancerous tumour in your body that you do not want, you would ask the doctor to remove it, even though it is a "living" tissue.
Why not an unwanted embryo ?
It appears that you, too, are morally deparved. You equate a human being that has began its life journey with cancer. You are digusting, heartless filth. It is people like you that have given depravity its meaning.
It appears that you, too, are morally deparved. You equate a human being that has began its life journey with cancer. You are digusting, heartless filth. It is people like you that have given depravity its meaning.
Ad Hominems get your argument nowhere.
The reference was about an unwantedmulticellular tissue.
Whether it is an unwanted embryo or an unwanted tumour, it is identical in scope for the purpose of this discussion.
It would help your Biblical "conscience" and "morality" Â infinitely more if you learn to defend your religious pep-talk with logical analysis, and not profanities.
Spock, you'll see that is only one of many fallacies our friend jethro here committs. You'll also see that your particular argument has already been presented, proven, and summarily ignored by our religious absolutist bigot here
Ad Hominems get your argument nowhere.
I am not trying to get anywhere with you. It is not possible to convince the morally depraved that they are morally depraved.
The reference was about an unwantedmulticellular tissue.Only the morally depraved could attempt to pass that off as a serious statement.
Whether it is an unwanted embryo or an unwanted tumour, it is identical in scope for the purpose of this discussion. Only to the morally depraved. The morally depraved can justify anything. It is real easy to do if you just ignore certain facts.
It would help your Biblical "conscience" and "morality"  infinitely more if you learn to defend your religious pep-talk with logical analysis, and not profanities. F*** you. I have no respect for you or your kind. You lie to yourselves and call it logic.  I defend the right of the unborn to live on logical grounds and I always have. Life begins at conception because it is the first step in life. Everyone walking around had to go through that stage. It is people like you that say it is just fine to end that life at an early stage just because you want to. Using the logic of the morally depraved such as yourself, you could end anyones life at anytime just because it is convenient to do so.Â
jethro lends further credence to the theory that religion and science along with logic will never mix. leaving no further doubt he lives in a fantasy world
Spock, you'll see that is only one of many fallacies our friend jethro here committs. You prove over an over that you are an ignorant SOB, Demon. You try to make yourself look intelligent but you fail miserably because you have no clue what you are talking about. It must the inferority complex coming out. The
fact is that people like you ignore logic and reality to justify the butchery. Becuase it is all about selfishness with you. You are disgusting filth, Demon.  You'll also see that your particular argument has already been presented, proven, and summarily ignored by our religious absolutist bigot here. Nothing has been proven, dip shit. You saying it has doesn't change anything. You lie to yourselves over and over and over. Because in your soul, which apparently has been sold, you know you are wrong.
jethro lends further credence to the theory that religion and science along with logic will never mix. leaving no further doubt he lives in a fantasy world.
Logic says that abortion is the killing of a human being. Science says the unborn child is human life, too.  You just ignore those facts. You simply want the ability to kill the child because it allows you to fuck around as much as you want with out being responsible. Furthermore, I have presented no religious basis for being against abotion despite what you want to believe. You deny the truth again and again.
it's not butchery, murder, or what have you, if the organism in question has no rights
It might not be murder because that is a legal term but it is butchery. Do you enjoy showing your ignorance over and over and over? No, of course not. You are just to damn ignorant to know that is what you are doing.
Science says the unborn child is human life, too.Â
Science also says that "life" is merely an organisational complexityof hydrocarbon molecules, and that there is very little difference between Glycine (an Amino Acid ) and Vinegar.
If you understand Science, Glycine(NH2-CH2-COOH) is one H-bond replacement in the Vinegar(Acetic Acid) molecule with a NH2Het group.
And all that "life" does is to break down "ordered" packets of energy ( food ) into "disordered" packets ( change in entropy ) through the process of metabolism and "activity".
So why are you so uppity about "life" and "human" life in particular ?
Life beginsat conception because it is the first step in life.
Really ? Yeah really. If there is no conception there is no life. Even you were conceived, Spock. All I can say is to bad your mother didn't abort you. It was legal then wasn't it?
Are the sperm and ovum, that creates a zygote at conception, living or non-living?
The sperm and ovum
individual cells and are not human BEINGS. Once conception occurs there is something totally different, something that did not exist before. Something, if left along may become something like you. That would be unfortunate but it does happen. But hey I am for defending all human life even that of the chronically stupid.
If they are living, how does "life" beginat conception ? You really aren't that stupid are you? Well you just might be. I am not sure why I bother with such idiots.
So, if a zygote is merely an accidental combination of factors - just like a carcinogenic tumour is - what's so special about the unwantedembryo ? I can see you have zero respect for human life. But in order to help the intellectually challenged I will tell you the zygote is a human being that has began its life journey. What happens if the process is left alone? That's right, you have a life that could go on 90 or 100 years.  Sure there could be a miscarriage but that is not human intervention. And the human intervention is really what we are talking about. It is no different to abort the child after conception than it was or OJ to abort Nicole.Â
Science also says that "life" is merely an organizational complexityof hydrocarbon molecules, and that there is very little difference between Glycine (an Amino Acid ) and Vinegar.
Then you should have no problem with me aborting you or anyone else.
So why are you so uppity about "life" and "human" life in particular? Would YOU mind if I rearranged your hydrocarbon molecules by slitting YOUR throat? Or do you think there should be laws against killing human beings? Or is it just a matter of rearranging hydrocarbon molecules and it is no big deal?
spock is kicking your ass all over the place If you had a brain in your head you would know otherwise. He hasn't pointed out any distinction between a person walking around and one in the womb. In fact, it appears that he believes they are the same. The question for him is where can he draw the line that justifies the butchery of the unborn but not for the born. He can't do it on any logical basis and neither can you. The only thing you have to offer is arbitrariness. I suppose if you say it is okay to kill those walking around on their mother's whim then at least you are consistent. But you know that would only encourage matricide.
Do Virus, Bacteria and other Microbes have "conception" too ?
How about Chlamydomonas and Amoeba ?
Are they living or non-living ?
The sperm and ovum
individual cells and are not human BEINGS.
The last I heard, the Zygote too is an individual cell, with a nucleus, mitochondrion and cell membrane.
Once conception occurs there is something totally different, something that did not exist before.
Poor logic.
If you mix Acid and Alkali, you get a Salt. Something different, something that did not exist before.
If you mix and Organic Acid and an Organic Alcohol, you get an Organic Aldehyde. Something different, something that did not exist before.
That's hardly the point, and is not even a consideration here.
What Science says is that the constitutent C,H,O,N atoms ( along with the other elements ) didexist prior to conception, only the complexityof organisationchanged.
Just like a cancer tumour.
Why should the Zygote be treated differently ?
Something, if left along may become something like you.
If left along ( alone, perhaps, is what you mean ), it will be a dead duck in a matter of seconds.
It needs constant exchange of Hydrocarbon compounds, water molecules and dissolved oxygen, by Osmosis with the adjacent environment, in order to continue Mitosis and DNA replication.
Just as cancer cells in a tumour die if left alone in an environment where blood supply ( nutrient source ) is cut off, and surrounding cells are left dead from irradiation and chemotherapy.
It is the woman's placental environment that allows the Zygote to form and remain "alive".
It is therefore herchoice to sustain or terminate it.
And the human intervention is really what we are talking about.
Why is humanintervention any different from intervention by Bacteria(Meningitis), Virus(HIV) or Predatory(Lion/Tiger/Crocodile/Shark) intervention ?
Would YOU mind if I rearranged your hydrocarbon molecules by slitting YOUR throat?
Silly question.
In a game of the Survival of the Fittest, such duels would indeed come to pass.
Or do you think there should be laws against killing human beings?
Or is it just a matter of rearranging hydrocarbon molecules and it is no big deal?
The question for him is where can he draw the line that justifies the butchery of the unborn but not for the born.Â
Simple, o religious fanatic.
The line is called the umbilical cord.
Once the Amniotic sac breaks, the passage through the birth canal ( or Caesarian birth ) is complete, and the umbilical cord tied to the mother's placental sac is disconnected from the "foetus" , it has an existence independent of the placenta,- it is a "born".
Until then, it hasnoindependent existence,- it is an "unborn".
All the molecules that go into creating the "foetus" from the Zygote came from the Woman carrying it, through the Placental Barrier.
So, until then, the carrying woman decideswhether she would sustain it or abort it.
Do Virus, Bacteria and other Microbes have "conception" too ? We are talking human beings here, dingleberry.
Are they living or non-living ? They aren't human beings, now are they? Or are you that damn stupid that you think they are?
The last I heard, the Zygote too is an individual cell, with a nucleus, mitochondrion and cell membrane.
And how long does that last before it divides?Â
Â
Once conception occurs there is something totally different, something that did not exist before.
Poor logic.
Poor logic? It is factually true. Another example of someone that denies the truth.
If you mix Acid and Alkali, you get a Salt. Something different, something that did not exist before.
Is it human life? It is you that has no logic.
If you mix and Organic Acid and an Organic Alcohol, you get an Organic Aldehyde. Something different, something that did not exist before.
Is it human life? Your words are meaningless and are incomparable to the human life process.
What Science says is that the constituent C,H,O,N atoms ( along with the other elements ) didexist prior to conception, only the complexityof organisationchanged. Exactly my point, the complexity of human life. Human life that starts at conception. Without conception you have no human life.
Just like a cancer tumour. No not just like cancer.
There may be some similarities as to how the cells develop but cancer and human beings are not the same. Only a fool would argue human development is the same as cancer. Â
Why should the Zygote be treated differently ? Why should a 10 year old be treated differently?Â
Because the child is a human BEING just as the zygote and every stage of development thereafter.  You can use semantics all you want but you are still saying that it is okay to stop that process. And you offer no logical reason to as to why?
If left alone, it will be a dead duck in a matter of seconds.
No it won't. Because if you leave it alone it will become attached and develop as it is meant to. No you are talking about intervening, not I
It needs constant exchange of Hydrocarbon compounds, water molecules and dissolved oxygen, by Osmosis with the adjacent environment, in order to continue Mitosis and DNA replication. Then you propose to kill the mother to stop that process? Because as long as the mother continues the child will most likely continue.Â
Just as cancer cells in a tumour die if left alone in an environment where blood supply ( nutrient source ) is cut off, and surrounding cells are left dead from irradiation and chemotherapy. Cutting the cancer out or using chemotherapy or radiation is not leaving it alone, now is it?
It is the woman's placental environment that allows the Zygote to form and remain "alive". So?
It is therefore herchoice to sustain or terminate it. Now there is a lack of logic for you. T
And the human intervention is really what we are talking about.
Why is humanintervention any different from intervention by Bacteria(Meningitis), Virus(HIV) or Predatory(Lion/Tiger/Crocodile/Shark) intervention ? So you doapprove of murder, rape and assault. You are more mentally disturbed and morally depraved than I first thought.
Why shouldit be a big deal ? It is clear that you aren't worth the time.
You won't answer the key question because it undermines every nonsensical thing you have written.
What's so specialabout human "beings" ?
Damn you are one f****** up SOB.
The question for him is where can he draw the line that justifies the butchery of the unborn but not for the born.Â
Simple, o religious fanatic.
The line is called the umbilical cord.
Once the Amniotic sac breaks, the passage through the birth canal ( or Caesarian birth ) is complete, and the umbilical cord tied to the mother's placental sac is disconnected from the "foetus" , it has an existence independent of the placenta,- it is a "born".
Physically independent but the child was a human being since conception. Your line is not based on logic it arbitrary.
Until then, it hasnoindependent existence,- it is an "unborn". It has an independent existence. It is separate and distinct and readily identifiable. And before birth occurs a child can be viable and live separate from its mother.
So, until then, the carrying woman decideswhether she would sustain it or abort it.
Comprende ? I understand that you are morally corrupt. A disgusting example of a human being. Your line is arbitrary. Simple expediency is your rule. When a woman aborts her child by definition she is killing a human being. That is fact. And a another fact is that you don't care that a child is dismembered. You don't care about the pain and suffering that child goes through. You don't care and that really is the definition of a sociopath.
One definition of human is a member of the genus Homoand especially of the species homo sapiens.Another is simply of, or belonging to, or typical of mankind.Â
Now being is defined as the state or fact of existing or living; existence or life or that which exists, can exist or can be logically conceived.
I'll help you if you need it. But I think you can even understand it.
Physically independent but the child was a human being since conception.
It has an independent existence. It is separate and distinct and readily identifiable. And before birth occurs a child can be viable and live separate from its mother.
Contradictions galore.
If the "foetus" is viable and can lead "separate" life "independently", perhaps you can harvest the unwanted foetus from the D&C suction tubes , once the Abortion is complete, and given "life" OUTSIDE the woman's body.
The woman who doesn't want to continue carrying the "foetus" is to be left alone.
When a woman aborts her child by definition she is killing a human being.
Incorrect.
She is merely disconnecting her OWN body from a "growth" within her OWN amniotic sac.
And a another fact is that you don't care that a child is dismembered. You don't care about the pain and suffering that child goes through.
Pain is an electrochemical process,- when a cancer tumour reacts to Chemotherapy, it exhibits much of the same.
Suffering is a "mental" thought,- a fluctuation in the EM field. No different than the Electromagnetic side-effects of Radiation Therapy on Cancer cells.
You don't care and that really is the definition of a sociopath.
And what is specialabout human beings ?
I guess nothing to a sociopath. But for normal people human beings are special.
It is nothing other than a slightly more complexorganisation of hydrocarbon molecules when compared to a Microbe. Then you should have no problem with someone slitting yout throat. With an attitude like that maybe you engage in it yourself.
About the same time as an unicellular organism takes to complete Mitosis of its nucleus, and the required DNA replication.
Not long right. But we are talking about human beings that are a lot further along than the zygote stage.
Â
The difference is just the levelof genetic mutation in the tumour.
No there is a lot more difference. Only a sociopath. wouldn't understand it.
Why should a 10 year old be treated differently?Â
Simply because it is nolonger INSIDE the woman's amniotic sac.
That is not a logical reason that is an arbitrary reason.
It is the "environment" with which the "being" exchanges molecules and energy packets ( ingestion, respiration, excretion ) that matters. Spoken just like a true sociopath.
The one that is carrying the foetus has decided not to sustain that "growth" INSIDE her body with molecules from her OWN body.
That is not logical. That is simple fact. The decision not to continue is usually quite arbitrary.
Just like the one with the cancerous tumour decides not to sustain that "growth" INSIDE the body. The cells are not the same. And you equating them shows an intellectual dishonesty.
Because if you leave it alone it will become attached and develop as it is meant to.
Mark the word "alone".
Maybe that's what the woman wants,- for the "foetus" to leaveher body, and grow "alone".
But aborting the child isn't leaving it alone. Maybe you need to look it up. It is interfering with its development. And it isn't the same as destroying cancer cells as the cells aren't t human beings. One is human life and the other is destroying human life.
Does thatwork for you ? No because what you are saying isn't logical.
Cutting the cancer out or using chemotherapy or radiation is not leaving it alone, now is it?
Of course it is.
Of course it isn't fool. Anyone knows that.
That's precisely what is meant by leaving it "alone".Â
Leaving it alone would be to let it runs its course.
So you do approve of murder, rape and assault.
Irrelevant distractions.
Ah more words of a sociopath. Have you sought help?
All of the above are examples of acts done POST Partum, between Individuals with nodependecies for basic survival on each other. These acts that interfere with another human being. Abortion interferes with a human being. Abortion ends that life just like murder except that it is legal.
You won't answer the key question because it undermines every nonsensical thing you have written.
AFAIK, I have answered all your questions, and then some.
No you haven't. You said that they were irrelevant distractions. They maybe irrelevant to a sociopath. but not the rest of us.
The woman who doesn't want to continue carrying the "foetus" is to be left alone.
Exactly why? The value of human life should outweigh the convenience of the mother. But a sociopath. that respects no human life wouldn't understand that.
When a woman aborts her child by definition she is killing a human being.
Incorrect.
No that is absolutely correct.
She is merely disconnecting her OWN body from a "growth" within her OWN amniotic sac.
Semantics to justify the killing. But these words may indicate that you aren't so far gone that you cannot be saved from your illness. But then you write things like what there is nothing special about human beings. Dude, you are on the edge. Get help now.
And a another fact is that you don't care that a child is dismembered. You don't care about the pain and suffering that child goes through.
Pain is an electrochemical process,- when a cancer tumour reacts to Chemotherapy, it exhibits much of the same. If someone were to disembowel you would you think of it the same way?
Â
Please specify as to why we shouldcare.
Because it is the right thing to do. If you were capable of empathy you would understand. It is obvious you aren't.Â
Normalcy of people isn't the subject matter of this discussion,- the "specialty" of human beings are.
Any normal human being understands so it is no wonder you don't.
But aborting the child isn't leaving it alone.Â
The foetal growth is dissociated from the company of the woman's placenta.
Logically, it is leaving it "alone". You don't understand what "leaving alone" means, all do you?
As is killing cancer cells. Cancer cells are not human beings. The fact that you keep insisting there is no difference shows everyone, except people just like you, how depraved you are.
And it isn't the same as destroying cancer cells as the cells aren't t human beings. One is human life and the other is destroying human life.
What isthe difference ?
uh one is a human being and the other are cells that have gone haywire
Both are elimination of unwanted"living cells".Â
And you see no difference between the human being and the cells that are killing a human being. There is no help for you.Â
You are yet to specify why a human is "special". Because as a human being, which you are in form only, we expect each to look out for each other.
What is it that ends?life.
The C,H,O,N and other atoms that constitute the "life" still remain. Fine. Put a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger and see if it does.
No you haven't. You said that they were irrelevant distractions.
They are.
Only to a sociopath.
Abortion is more of the "Natural Selection" stage. But there isn't nothing natural about it. It is human intervention. Letting nature take its course then you may have natural selection. Or are you saying something about basic human nature?
 The value of human life should outweigh the convenience of the mother.
I see.
The endgame has begun.
What is the valueof "human" life ? Is that based on Biblical nonsense, or a logical reasoning ?
Logical reason. Conception is an essential part of everyone's life. By allowing abortion you are saying life doesn't matter. If that is the case the life of 10, 30, 50 80 year old doesn't matter. Let's just all of us kill each other.
Let me probe your puny Biblical argument a little further. I haven't asserted a biblical argument. I
asserted a logical argument. Life begins at conception because it is essential to all human life. People like you say it is okay to end that life on a whim and draw an arbitrary line. There is no reason in that line just convenience.
What is the needto "live" ?
I have no idea what you are talking about, you pointy eared hobgoblin.
uh one is a human being and the other are cells that have gone haywire
The cancer cells are mutated human cells that replicate under favourable conditions.
So does "human" cells in a zygote.
Are they both "haywire" ?
Because as a human being, which you are in form only, we expect each to look out for each other.
Vacuous statement.
WHYÂ should you expect that ?
life.
Even more vacuous statement.
What ends when "life" ends ? Just some electrochemical activity of recombination of hydrocarbons in your body. The constituent atoms remain until the body disintegrates.
Next time, try logic and science, not Biblical nonsense.
But there isn't nothing natural about it. It is human intervention.
Lest you haven't discerned it yet, humans ARE a partof Nature.
By allowing abortion you are saying life doesn't matter.
Doesit matter ?
Why ?
I have no idea what you are talking about
The typical problem with haldf-baked religious fanatics,- no idea about the basics.
Because as a human being, which you are in form only, we expecteach to look out for each other.
Vacuous statement.
You should know about vacuous statements. That is all you have in that pea brain of yours.
Next time, try logic and science, not Biblical nonsense.
I haven't. You accuse me of something that I haven't done. It is your bigotry peeking out.
Lest you haven't discerned it yet, humans ARE a partof Nature.
Humans are a part of nature but many human actions are done with deliberation as is abortion. It is a choice and choices have consequences.Â
The typical problem with half-baked religious fanatics,- no idea about the basics.
No it is you that are 1/4 baked, a lunatic even.
Explain whylife matters.
It matters to most people. I can't help it that you don't understand. Even our quasi lunatic crabs understands that. At least that would be the logical conclusion to his rantings about rights.
In other words, WHY do you needto live ?
I don't need to live. I want to like most people. Why are you so full of yourself?
That would clear all the hogwash you swim in. I have no idea what it is you mean, probably because you are a lunatic. Have you been huffing spray paint? I hear silver is the favorite.
 He is young and has recently graduated from an establishment known to try to liberalize young minds.
Your talkin about highschool, right?
Yo Damon.... FIGHT THE POWER, NINJA!! Ditch school....
crabgrass 7/23/04 3:15pm
It's a common term crabby, I'm not surprised you would fuck it up
Rich T 7/23/04 9:34pm
#7 on Mother Jones's list of most liberal colleges!
no, it's a common redundancy.
you are now suggesting that common use isn't misuse, but the fact is, misuse of words is common. I thought that was a pet peeve of yours, so why didn't you know that?
""Quit talking to me Crabgrass" -Torpedo 8" is common redundancy
no, I say it exactly as many times as it's needed.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass, quit it" would be an example of saying something redundantly.
crabs: you both are using the term incorrectly.
No I didn't. Look at MY post again.
Did you ever read or catch something in the news that was so stupid, so asinine that right then and there you threw up your hands or just screamed, or just threw up your hands AND screamed?
 It happened to me last week, while reading a column in The New York Times Magazine. It was about this woman, Amy Richards (as told to Amy Barrett), who was pregnant with triplets. You'd think that was wonderful news. But not to Amy. She wanted to know if there was a way she could have just one of the babies. As she relates her conversation with her doctor: "Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?"
 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/neilcavuto/nc20040724.shtml
good for her
Another example of just how morally depraved you are, Demon. You really need some help.
Where is the moral depravity, o religious fanatic ?
If you have a cancerous tumour in your body that you do not want, you would ask the doctor to remove it, even though it is a "living" tissue.
Why not an unwanted embryo ?
Where is the moral depravity, o religious fanatic ?
If you have a cancerous tumour in your body that you do not want, you would ask the doctor to remove it, even though it is a "living" tissue.
Why not an unwanted embryo ?
It appears that you, too, are morally deparved. You equate a human being that has began its life journey with cancer. You are digusting, heartless filth. It is people like you that have given depravity its meaning.
Ad Hominems get your argument nowhere.
The reference was about an unwantedmulticellular tissue.
Whether it is an unwanted embryo or an unwanted tumour, it is identical in scope for the purpose of this discussion.
It would help your Biblical "conscience" and "morality" Â infinitely more if you learn to defend your religious pep-talk with logical analysis, and not profanities.
Spock, you'll see that is only one of many fallacies our friend jethro here committs. You'll also see that your particular argument has already been presented, proven, and summarily ignored by our religious absolutist bigot here
Ad Hominems get your argument nowhere.
I am not trying to get anywhere with you. It is not possible to convince the morally depraved that they are morally depraved.
The reference was about an unwantedmulticellular tissue.Only the morally depraved could attempt to pass that off as a serious statement.
Whether it is an unwanted embryo or an unwanted tumour, it is identical in scope for the purpose of this discussion. Only to the morally depraved. The morally depraved can justify anything. It is real easy to do if you just ignore certain facts.
It would help your Biblical "conscience" and "morality"  infinitely more if you learn to defend your religious pep-talk with logical analysis, and not profanities. F*** you. I have no respect for you or your kind. You lie to yourselves and call it logic.  I defend the right of the unborn to live on logical grounds and I always have. Life begins at conception because it is the first step in life. Everyone walking around had to go through that stage. It is people like you that say it is just fine to end that life at an early stage just because you want to. Using the logic of the morally depraved such as yourself, you could end anyones life at anytime just because it is convenient to do so.Â
jethro lends further credence to the theory that religion and science along with logic will never mix. leaving no further doubt he lives in a fantasy world
Spock, you'll see that is only one of many fallacies our friend jethro here committs. You prove over an over that you are an ignorant SOB, Demon. You try to make yourself look intelligent but you fail miserably because you have no clue what you are talking about. It must the inferority complex coming out. The
fact is that people like you ignore logic and reality to justify the butchery. Becuase it is all about selfishness with you. You are disgusting filth, Demon.  You'll also see that your particular argument has already been presented, proven, and summarily ignored by our religious absolutist bigot here. Nothing has been proven, dip shit. You saying it has doesn't change anything. You lie to yourselves over and over and over. Because in your soul, which apparently has been sold, you know you are wrong.
heh, would you like a wiper for your monitor?
it's not butchery, murder, or what have you, if the organism in question has no rights
jethro lends further credence to the theory that religion and science along with logic will never mix. leaving no further doubt he lives in a fantasy world.
Logic says that abortion is the killing of a human being. Science says the unborn child is human life, too.  You just ignore those facts. You simply want the ability to kill the child because it allows you to fuck around as much as you want with out being responsible. Furthermore, I have presented no religious basis for being against abotion despite what you want to believe. You deny the truth again and again.
it's not butchery, murder, or what have you, if the organism in question has no rights
It might not be murder because that is a legal term but it is butchery. Do you enjoy showing your ignorance over and over and over? No, of course not. You are just to damn ignorant to know that is what you are doing.
Good to know what drives your mind.
Really ?
Are the sperm and ovum, that creates a zygote at conception, living or non-living ?
If they are living, how does "life" beginat conception ?
So, if a zygote is merely an accidental combination of factors - just like a carcinogenic tumour is - what's so special about the unwantedembryo ?
Science also says that "life" is merely an organisational complexityof hydrocarbon molecules, and that there is very little difference between Glycine (an Amino Acid ) and Vinegar.
If you understand Science, Glycine(NH2-CH2-COOH) is one H-bond replacement in the Vinegar(Acetic Acid) molecule with a NH2Het group.
And
all
that "life" does is to break down "ordered" packets of energy ( food ) into "disordered" packets ( change in entropy ) through the process of metabolism and "activity".
So why are you so uppity about "life" and "human" life in particular ?
un-f Spock
Life beginsat conception because it is the first step in life.
Really ? Yeah really. If there is no conception there is no life. Even you were conceived, Spock. All I can say is to bad your mother didn't abort you. It was legal then wasn't it?
Are the sperm and ovum, that creates a zygote at conception, living or non-living?
The sperm and ovum
individual cells and are not human BEINGS. Once conception occurs there is something totally different, something that did not exist before. Something, if left along may become something like you. That would be unfortunate but it does happen. But hey I am for defending all human life even that of the chronically stupid.
If they are living, how does "life" beginat conception ? You really aren't that stupid are you? Well you just might be. I am not sure why I bother with such idiots.
So, if a zygote is merely an accidental combination of factors - just like a carcinogenic tumour is - what's so special about the unwantedembryo ? I can see you have zero respect for human life. But in order to help the intellectually challenged I will tell you the zygote is a human being that has began its life journey. What happens if the process is left alone? That's right, you have a life that could go on 90 or 100 years.  Sure there could be a miscarriage but that is not human intervention. And the human intervention is really what we are talking about. It is no different to abort the child after conception than it was or OJ to abort Nicole.Â
Science also says that "life" is merely an organizational complexityof hydrocarbon molecules, and that there is very little difference between Glycine (an Amino Acid ) and Vinegar.
Then you should have no problem with me aborting you or anyone else.
So why are you so uppity about "life" and "human" life in particular? Would YOU mind if I rearranged your hydrocarbon molecules by slitting YOUR throat? Or do you think there should be laws against killing human beings? Or is it just a matter of rearranging hydrocarbon molecules and it is no big deal?
un-f Spock
No. But you can add yourself to the list, Demon.
spock is kicking your ass all over the place
best addition to the board since myself
spock is kicking your ass all over the place If you had a brain in your head you would know otherwise. He hasn't pointed out any distinction between a person walking around and one in the womb. In fact, it appears that he believes they are the same. The question for him is where can he draw the line that justifies the butchery of the unborn but not for the born. He can't do it on any logical basis and neither can you. The only thing you have to offer is arbitrariness. I suppose if you say it is okay to kill those walking around on their mother's whim then at least you are consistent. But you know that would only encourage matricide.
I see.
Do Virus, Bacteria and other Microbes have "conception" too ?
How about Chlamydomonas and Amoeba ?
Are they living or non-living ?
The last I heard, the Zygote too is an individual cell, with a nucleus, mitochondrion and cell membrane.
Poor logic.
If you mix Acid and Alkali, you get a Salt. Something different, something that did not exist before.
If you mix and Organic Acid and an Organic Alcohol, you get an Organic Aldehyde. Something different, something that did not exist before.
That's hardly the point, and is not even a consideration here.
What Science says is that the constitutent C,H,O,N atoms ( along with the other elements ) didexist prior to conception, only the complexityof organisationchanged.
Just like a cancer tumour.
Why should the Zygote be treated differently ?
If left along ( alone, perhaps, is what you mean ), it will be a dead duck in a matter of seconds.
It needs constant exchange of Hydrocarbon compounds, water molecules and dissolved oxygen, by Osmosis with the adjacent environment, in order to continue Mitosis and DNA replication.
Just as cancer cells in a tumour die if left alone in an environment where blood supply ( nutrient source ) is cut off, and surrounding cells are left dead from irradiation and chemotherapy.
It is the woman's placental environment that allows the Zygote to form and remain "alive".
It is therefore herchoice to sustain or terminate it.
Why is humanintervention any different from intervention by Bacteria(Meningitis), Virus(HIV) or Predatory(Lion/Tiger/Crocodile/Shark) intervention ?
Silly question.
In a game of the Survival of the Fittest, such duels would indeed come to pass.
Why shouldit be a big deal ?
What's so specialabout human "beings" ?
Simple, o religious fanatic.
The line is called the umbilical cord.
Once the Amniotic sac breaks, the passage through the birth canal ( or Caesarian birth ) is complete, and the umbilical cord tied to the mother's placental sac is disconnected from the "foetus" , it has an existence independent of the placenta,- it is a "born".
Until then, it hasnoindependent existence,- it is an "unborn".
All the molecules that go into creating the "foetus" from the Zygote came from the Woman carrying it, through the Placental Barrier.
So, until then, the carrying woman decideswhether she would sustain it or abort it.
Comprende ?
electronically bitch slapped!
Why do you bother, Jethro?
It's all just a matter of "matter" to them.
exactly, at least at that point and time
Do Virus, Bacteria and other Microbes have "conception" too ? We are talking human beings here, dingleberry.
Are they living or non-living ? They aren't human beings, now are they? Or are you that damn stupid that you think they are?
The last I heard, the Zygote too is an individual cell, with a nucleus, mitochondrion and cell membrane.
And how long does that last before it divides?Â
Â
Poor logic.
Poor logic? It is factually true. Another example of someone that denies the truth.
If you mix Acid and Alkali, you get a Salt. Something different, something that did not exist before.
Is it human life? It is you that has no logic.
If you mix and Organic Acid and an Organic Alcohol, you get an Organic Aldehyde. Something different, something that did not exist before.
Is it human life? Your words are meaningless and are incomparable to the human life process.
What Science says is that the constituent C,H,O,N atoms ( along with the other elements ) didexist prior to conception, only the complexityof organisationchanged. Exactly my point, the complexity of human life. Human life that starts at conception. Without conception you have no human life.
Just like a cancer tumour. No not just like cancer.
There may be some similarities as to how the cells develop but cancer and human beings are not the same. Only a fool would argue human development is the same as cancer. Â
Why should the Zygote be treated differently ? Why should a 10 year old be treated differently?Â
Because the child is a human BEING just as the zygote and every stage of development thereafter.  You can use semantics all you want but you are still saying that it is okay to stop that process. And you offer no logical reason to as to why?
If left alone, it will be a dead duck in a matter of seconds.
No it won't. Because if you leave it alone it will become attached and develop as it is meant to. No you are talking about intervening, not I
It needs constant exchange of Hydrocarbon compounds, water molecules and dissolved oxygen, by Osmosis with the adjacent environment, in order to continue Mitosis and DNA replication. Then you propose to kill the mother to stop that process? Because as long as the mother continues the child will most likely continue.Â
Just as cancer cells in a tumour die if left alone in an environment where blood supply ( nutrient source ) is cut off, and surrounding cells are left dead from irradiation and chemotherapy. Cutting the cancer out or using chemotherapy or radiation is not leaving it alone, now is it?
It is the woman's placental environment that allows the Zygote to form and remain "alive". So?
It is therefore herchoice to sustain or terminate it. Now there is a lack of logic for you. T
Why is humanintervention any different from intervention by Bacteria(Meningitis), Virus(HIV) or Predatory(Lion/Tiger/Crocodile/Shark) intervention ? So you doapprove of murder, rape and assault. You are more mentally disturbed and morally depraved than I first thought.
Why shouldit be a big deal ? It is clear that you aren't worth the time.
You won't answer the key question because it undermines every nonsensical thing you have written.
What's so specialabout human "beings" ?
Damn you are one f****** up SOB.
Â
Why do you bother, Jethro?
It's all just a matter of "matter" to them.
I want to see just how morally depraved they really are, JT. Spock I think is a psychopath.Â
you realize when pressed for a defintion of "human" you ran away like a young choir boy from the castradi.
so, you wouldn't recognize your own maral depravity either, would you bodine?
The question for him is where can he draw the line that justifies the butchery of the unborn but not for the born.Â
Simple, o religious fanatic.
The line is called the umbilical cord.
Once the Amniotic sac breaks, the passage through the birth canal ( or Caesarian birth ) is complete, and the umbilical cord tied to the mother's placental sac is disconnected from the "foetus" , it has an existence independent of the placenta,- it is a "born".
Physically independent but the child was a human being since conception. Your line is not based on logic it arbitrary.
Until then, it hasnoindependent existence,- it is an "unborn". It has an independent existence. It is separate and distinct and readily identifiable. And before birth occurs a child can be viable and live separate from its mother.
So, until then, the carrying woman decideswhether she would sustain it or abort it.
Comprende ? I understand that you are morally corrupt. A disgusting example of a human being. Your line is arbitrary. Simple expediency is your rule. When a woman aborts her child by definition she is killing a human being. That is fact. And a another fact is that you don't care that a child is dismembered. You don't care about the pain and suffering that child goes through. You don't care and that really is the definition of a sociopath.
you realize when pressed for a defintion of "human" you ran away like a young choir boy from the castradi.
Well since I haven't been "pressed" for a definiton then your accusation is false. Just like everything else you post.
One definition of human is a member of the genus Homoand especially of the species homo sapiens.Another is simply of, or belonging to, or typical of mankind.Â
Now being is defined as the state or fact of existing or living; existence or life or that which exists, can exist or can be logically conceived.
I'll help you if you need it. But I think you can even understand it.
And what is specialabout human beings ?
It is nothing other than a slightly more complexorganisation of hydrocarbon molecules when compared to a Microbe.
About the same time as an unicellular organism takes to complete Mitosis of its nucleus, and the required DNA replication.
Nothingspecial about a human.
The difference is just the levelof genetic mutation in the tumour.
It is a matter of degree, notkind.
Simply because it is nolonger INSIDE the woman's amniotic sac.
It is the "environment" with which the "being" exchanges molecules and energy packets ( ingestion, respiration, excretion ) that matters.
Simple reason.
The one that is carrying the foetus has decided not to sustain that "growth" INSIDE her body with molecules from her OWN body.
Just like the one with the cancerous tumour decides not to sustain that "growth" INSIDE the body.
The woman has no problems in allowing the "foetus" to grow OUTSIDE her body, if it can, after the D&C is complete.
Just like one has no problems in allowing the cancerous tumour to grow OUTSIDE one's body, if it can, after the Lumpectomy.
Mark the word "alone".
Maybe that's what the woman wants,- for the "foetus" to leaveher body, and grow "alone".
Does thatwork for you ?
Of course it is.
That's precisely what is meant by leaving it "alone".
Two is company, you know.
The companyof healthy cells is prevented by Lumpectomy, Chemo or Radiation.
Irrelevant distractions.
All of the above are examples of acts done POST Partum, between Individuals with nodependencies for basic survival on each other.
AFAIK, I have answered all your questions, and then some.
What exactly is the "key" question here ?
so owned
Contradictions galore.
If the "foetus" is viable and can lead "separate" life "independently", perhaps you can harvest the unwanted foetus from the D&C suction tubes , once the Abortion is complete, and given "life" OUTSIDE the woman's body.
The woman who doesn't want to continue carrying the "foetus" is to be left alone.
Incorrect.
She is merely disconnecting her OWN body from a "growth" within her OWN amniotic sac.
Pain is an electrochemical process,- when a cancer tumour reacts to Chemotherapy, it exhibits much of the same.
Suffering is a "mental" thought,- a fluctuation in the EM field. No different than the Electromagnetic side-effects of Radiation Therapy on Cancer cells.
Wonderful.
Please specify as to why we shouldcare.
Â
We are talking human beings here, dingleberry.
And what is specialabout human beings ?
I guess nothing to a sociopath. But for normal people human beings are special.
It is nothing other than a slightly more complexorganisation of hydrocarbon molecules when compared to a Microbe. Then you should have no problem with someone slitting yout throat. With an attitude like that maybe you engage in it yourself.
About the same time as an unicellular organism takes to complete Mitosis of its nucleus, and the required DNA replication.
Not long right. But we are talking about human beings that are a lot further along than the zygote stage.
Â
The difference is just the levelof genetic mutation in the tumour.
No there is a lot more difference. Only a sociopath. wouldn't understand it.
Simply because it is nolonger INSIDE the woman's amniotic sac.
That is not a logical reason that is an arbitrary reason.
It is the "environment" with which the "being" exchanges molecules and energy packets ( ingestion, respiration, excretion ) that matters. Spoken just like a true sociopath.
The one that is carrying the foetus has decided not to sustain that "growth" INSIDE her body with molecules from her OWN body.
That is not logical. That is simple fact. The decision not to continue is usually quite arbitrary.
Just like the one with the cancerous tumour decides not to sustain that "growth" INSIDE the body. The cells are not the same. And you equating them shows an intellectual dishonesty.
Mark the word "alone".
Maybe that's what the woman wants,- for the "foetus" to leaveher body, and grow "alone".
But aborting the child isn't leaving it alone. Maybe you need to look it up. It is interfering with its development. And it isn't the same as destroying cancer cells as the cells aren't t human beings. One is human life and the other is destroying human life.
Does thatwork for you ? No because what you are saying isn't logical.
Of course it is.
Of course it isn't fool. Anyone knows that.
That's precisely what is meant by leaving it "alone".Â
Leaving it alone would be to let it runs its course.
Irrelevant distractions.
Ah more words of a sociopath. Have you sought help?
All of the above are examples of acts done POST Partum, between Individuals with nodependecies for basic survival on each other. These acts that interfere with another human being. Abortion interferes with a human being. Abortion ends that life just like murder except that it is legal.
AFAIK, I have answered all your questions, and then some.
No you haven't. You said that they were irrelevant distractions. They maybe irrelevant to a sociopath. but not the rest of us.
The woman who doesn't want to continue carrying the "foetus" is to be left alone.
Exactly why? The value of human life should outweigh the convenience of the mother. But a sociopath. that respects no human life wouldn't understand that.
Incorrect.
No that is absolutely correct.
She is merely disconnecting her OWN body from a "growth" within her OWN amniotic sac.
Semantics to justify the killing. But these words may indicate that you aren't so far gone that you cannot be saved from your illness. But then you write things like what there is nothing special about human beings. Dude, you are on the edge. Get help now.
Pain is an electrochemical process,- when a cancer tumour reacts to Chemotherapy, it exhibits much of the same. If someone were to disembowel you would you think of it the same way?
Please specify as to why we shouldcare.
Because it is the right thing to do. If you were capable of empathy you would understand. It is obvious you aren't.Â
Normalcy of people isn't the subject matter of this discussion,- the "speciality" of human beings are.
Obviously, you either cannotspecify, or do notknow, what the aforementioned "speciality" is.
Thanks for playing.
The foetal growth is dissociated from the company of the woman's placenta.
Logically, it is leaving it "alone".
Most certainly.
As is killing cancer cells.
What isthe difference ?
Both are elimination of unwanted"living cells".
You are yet to specify why a human is "special".
What is it that ends?
The C,H,O,N and other atoms that constitute the "life" still remain.
Only the association with the woman's amniotic sac ends.
Big deal.
They are.
Murder, rape, assault are just a few among the numerous "Survival of the Fittest" games.
Abortion is more of the "Natural Selection" stage.
I see.
The endgame has begun.
What is the valueof "human" life ? Is that based on Biblical nonsense, or a logical reasoning ?
Let me probe your puny Biblical argument a little further.
What is the needto "live" ?
Normalcy of people isn't the subject matter of this discussion,- the "specialty" of human beings are.
Any normal human being understands so it is no wonder you don't.
The foetal growth is dissociated from the company of the woman's placenta.
Logically, it is leaving it "alone". You don't understand what "leaving alone" means, all do you?
As is killing cancer cells. Cancer cells are not human beings. The fact that you keep insisting there is no difference shows everyone, except people just like you, how depraved you are.
What isthe difference ?
uh one is a human being and the other are cells that have gone haywire
Both are elimination of unwanted"living cells".Â
And you see no difference between the human being and the cells that are killing a human being. There is no help for you.Â
You are yet to specify why a human is "special". Because as a human being, which you are in form only, we expect each to look out for each other.
What is it that ends?life.
The C,H,O,N and other atoms that constitute the "life" still remain. Fine. Put a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger and see if it does.
They are.
Only to a sociopath.
Abortion is more of the "Natural Selection" stage. But there isn't nothing natural about it. It is human intervention. Letting nature take its course then you may have natural selection. Or are you saying something about basic human nature?
I see.
The endgame has begun.
What is the valueof "human" life ? Is that based on Biblical nonsense, or a logical reasoning ?
Logical reason. Conception is an essential part of everyone's life. By allowing abortion you are saying life doesn't matter. If that is the case the life of 10, 30, 50 80 year old doesn't matter. Let's just all of us kill each other.
Let me probe your puny Biblical argument a little further. I haven't asserted a biblical argument. I
asserted a logical argument. Life begins at conception because it is essential to all human life. People like you say it is okay to end that life on a whim and draw an arbitrary line. There is no reason in that line just convenience.
What is the needto "live" ?
I have no idea what you are talking about, you pointy eared hobgoblin.
The cancer cells are mutated human cells that replicate under favourable conditions.
So does "human" cells in a zygote.
Are they both "haywire" ?
Vacuous statement.
WHYÂ should you expect that ?
Even more vacuous statement.
What ends when "life" ends ? Just some electrochemical activity of recombination of hydrocarbons in your body. The constituent atoms remain until the body disintegrates.
Next time, try logic and science, not Biblical nonsense.
Lest you haven't discerned it yet, humans ARE a partof Nature.
Doesit matter ?
Why ?
The typical problem with haldf-baked religious fanatics,- no idea about the basics.
Explain whylife matters.
In other words, WHY do you needto live ?
That would clear all the hogwash you swim in.
Are they both "haywire" ? No.
Vacuous statement.
You should know about vacuous statements. That is all you have in that pea brain of yours.
Next time, try logic and science, not Biblical nonsense.
I haven't. You accuse me of something that I haven't done. It is your bigotry peeking out.
Lest you haven't discerned it yet, humans ARE a partof Nature.
Humans are a part of nature but many human actions are done with deliberation as is abortion. It is a choice and choices have consequences.Â
The typical problem with half-baked religious fanatics,- no idea about the basics.
No it is you that are 1/4 baked, a lunatic even.
Explain whylife matters.
It matters to most people. I can't help it that you don't understand. Even our quasi lunatic crabs understands that. At least that would be the logical conclusion to his rantings about rights.
In other words, WHY do you needto live ?
I don't need to live. I want to like most people. Why are you so full of yourself?
That would clear all the hogwash you swim in. I have no idea what it is you mean, probably because you are a lunatic. Have you been huffing spray paint? I hear silver is the favorite.
jethro, just give up and let everyone know you have no idea what you are talking about.