Thread: Planned Parenthood Bombed

Originally Posted by michael h

I should mention I'm prochoice. A one year old had the use of the womb. A 1 year old now requires the care of other humans ... without this care the one year old potential will not be realized.

There's a difference, the one year old has a functioning brain that houses the mind of a person.
A one year old is a person, and has rights.
And Democrats feel that it's fine to tax people to pay for taking care of abandoned babies, whereas som Republicans who were so concerned about the zygote, now feel that at one, it's someone else's responsibility and they don't want to be taxed to feed it.

Anyways....any word on what the deal was with the guy that was arrested suspected of doing it?

Originally Posted by Slon

It's not my position that an unfertilized egg or a zygote are human organisms worthy of standard legal protection. So why should I look for such a source? It's merely my position that based on some of the criteria provided here by the people desperately trying to assign standard legal protection/conventional personhood to the zygote, a sperm/egg combo is also human OR a zygote isn't human either.

Since the basis of opposing debate is scientific concerning organisms / zygotes, on this specific part of the debate ... you are not able to provide a scientific support for proximity, sperm cells, egg cells, capacitation, and marbles as organisms. We shall have to move on to philosophy.

Originally Posted by Slon

But why isn't the sperm egg combo already human if the zygote is? That's the debate at this point. You seem to be assuming the conclusion/begging the question.

We can determine the beginning of the organism ... a unique individual. Yous question is philosophical ... which is why we use science to address it ... avoiding the food, and the foods food, and that foods food, ... because we have no desire to deal with the silliness of precursors deserving the respect of humans. Which if you notice was the whole point of the scientific source I provided to dispense with non-science.

Originally Posted by goober

There's a difference, the one year old has a functioning brain that houses the mind of a person.
A one year old is a person, and has rights.
And Democrats feel that it's fine to tax people to pay for taking care of abandoned babies, whereas som Republicans who were so concerned about the zygote, now feel that at one, it's someone else's responsibility and they don't want to be taxed to feed it.

Well I'll admit the one year old is at a different stage of brain development ... this is scientific fact. Rights are granted based upon consensus ... in my opinion less relevant, ... for example race and sex have been used to deny rights. Nor do I ignore the consequences of forced responsibility for birth ... when its undesired, and also recognize many conservatives are unwilling to pay the cost of these forced choices. I can see the hypocrisy of that position. In the end the real basis of my support for choice is one point only ... despite any other circumstances ... choice over ones own body.

As to brain development ... I view it as one of many things that need development to reach adulthood. All growths capable ... but one singled out for its lack of development at a particular time. Little is developed early on ... really even no need to single out the brain ... but the brain ... will be more relevant when considering human births and the qualities that babies "do have" while still needing growth. I kind of find it strange that this respect of babies is placed there by liberal viewpoints in debate. This would be the opposing hypocrisy of the left in my opinion.

Originally Posted by michael h

Since the basis of opposing debate is scientific concerning organisms / zygotes, on this specific part of the debate ... you are not able to provide a scientific support for proximity, sperm cells, egg cells, capacitation, and marbles as organisms. We shall have to move on to philosophy.

I don't have to. I don't consider them to be human beings for the standard legal sense. So why would I have to prove it using scientific support? All I need to do is prove it using michael h/fishjoel criteria. That's enough for these purposes, as I have explained a few times.

Originally Posted by michael h

We can determine the beginning of the organism ... a unique individual. Yous question is philosophical ... which is why we use science to address it ... avoiding the food, and the foods food, and that foods food, ... because we have no desire to deal with the silliness of precursors deserving the respect of humans. Which if you notice was the whole point of the scientific source I provided to dispense with non-science.

The sperm/egg combo is a unique individual if we treat it as a 2-celled being. I already posted support from CR Austin for this in the sense that genetic uniqueness is already in place prior to fertilization.

Originally Posted by Slon

I don't have to. I don't consider them to be human beings for the standard legal sense. So why would I have to prove it using scientific support? All I need to do is prove it using michael h/fishjoel criteria. That's enough for these purposes, as I have explained a few times.



The sperm/egg combo is a unique individual if we treat it as a 2-celled being. I already posted support from CR Austin for this in the sense that genetic uniqueness is already in place prior to fertilization.

Genetic uniqueness is not an organism. How you meet the criteria of an organism with a legal sense is not science. Science isn't morality.

Originally Posted by michael h

Genetic uniqueness is not an organism. How you meet the criteria of an organism with a legal sense is not science. Science isn't morality.

So once again, what is your criteria for a living human being?

Originally Posted by Slon

So once again, what is your criteria for a living human being?

My criteria is to be an human organism with hope for a future.

Originally Posted by michael h

My criteria is to be an human organism with hope for a future.

ROFL! You do realize that you're using the word your trying to define in the definition, right? Okay, let me rephrase: what is a human organism?

Of course if we use food for a criteria I'm eating a philly cheese steak human being.

Originally Posted by Slon

ROFL! You do realize that you're using the word your trying to define in the definition, right? Okay, let me rephrase: what is a human organism?

We have already defined the human organism. That's not philosophy ... its science. I for one am not trying to redefine science and fact ... on the other hand you attempt to create new science and magic to agree with your philosophical viewpoint. I manage a philosophical support for choice ... without an attempt to be an emotional and irrational person about my philosophy of choice.

You cannot find scientific support for your imaginary thoughts and instead attempt wordplay. Why? Because your magical science has no foot work in the realm of logical and rational thought.

Is the boogeyman a human organism? Are the items on the menu at Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken human organisms? Is sunlight a human organism?

This is the insanity of thinking rational thought should be dispensed with to support your magical universe of marbles and proximity. BTW are marbles a human organism?