Thread: Planned Parenthood Bombed

Originally Posted by michael h

Nope ... no me then a 5 year old might. Can would be the function word you are looking for. Your near combo cannot.

Sperm/egg combos DO develop into adult humans. That's how human sexual reproduction generally works.

Originally Posted by Slon

Sperm/egg combos DO develop into adult humans. That's how human sexual reproduction generally works.

Zygotes do develop into humans ... Sperm / egg proximity cannot develop into a human. If your lucky your proximity ... might ... become a zygote.

Originally Posted by Slon

I haven't ignored that at all. It was in response to michael's post and you appear to be missing the context.

If they need a woman then they obviously can't act or function independently in any conventional form of the word. And hell, I suppose it is possible to create those conditions, like a test tube baby. We already do in vitro fertilization, after all. But then, why does a sperm cell next to an egg cell not fit the definition of a living human organism? It might eventually develop into an adult human, just as a zygote might. So where does a sperm cell next to an egg cell not meet the latest posted definition?

No need to worry about creating anything ... its all a function of "can".

the magical "or can develop"

Originally Posted by michael h

Zygotes do develop into humans ... Sperm / egg proximity cannot develop into a human. If your lucky your proximity ... might ... become a zygote.

In other words, a sperm/egg "proximity" can develop into a zygote, right?

Originally Posted by Slon

In other words, a sperm/egg "proximity" can develop into a zygote, right?

correct with fertilization. When your done leading it will still be might.

Originally Posted by michael h

correct with a fertilization. When your done leading it will still be might.

Well since a sperm/egg "proximity" can develop into a zygote, and since a zygote can develop into an adult human, then a sperm/egg "proximity" can develop into an adult human.

Originally Posted by Slon

Well since a sperm/egg "proximity" can develop into a zygote, and since a zygote can develop into an adult human, then a sperm/egg "proximity" can develop into an adult human.

A zygote is , proximity could. But I'm glad to see you actually understand what an organism is and are trying to rationally make your way around with word play.

A human organism is already human life and can grow to adulthood. If you proximity "does fertilize" becoming a zygote it will be an organism and is human life. Can it? Yes ... Is it ... no.

Just think you actually rationalized an attempt around what you "know" human life is. You already know and want inclusion of what you already know isn't.

Originally Posted by michael h

A zygote is , proximity could.

Quoting you, an organism is a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently.

Thus, this "proximity" you speak of is an organism. According to your definition.

But I'm glad to see you actually understand what an organism is and are trying to rationally make your way around with word play.

A human organism is already human life and can grow to adulthood. If you proximity "does fertilize" becoming a zygote it will be an organism and is human life. Can it? Yes ... Is it ... no.

Just think you actually rationalized an attempt around what you "know" human life is. You already know and want inclusion of what you already know isn't.

Originally Posted by Slon

Quoting you, an organism is a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently.

Thus, this "proximity" you speak of is an organism. According to your definition.

Nope it "isn't an organism that can. It is a possible combination that "if" made could. If could becomes did then it can. What is and what isn't. It's better to know you comprehend anyway. Maybe you can beat up on the other 3 definitions now.

Originally Posted by michael h

Nope it "isn't an organism that can. It is a possible combination that "if" made could. If could becomes did then it can. What is and what isn't. It's better to know you comprehend anyway. Maybe you can beat up on the other 3 definitions now.

So what you're saying is that, if there is an "if" in place before a thing can become independent, then it is not yet an organism?

Originally Posted by Slon

So what you're saying is that, if there is an "if" in place before a thing can become independent, then it is not yet an organism?

It is the combination of the 2 cells to create 1 new cell ... The new cell is the genesis of can. I gottah crash but I'd like to beat up the other 3 definitions later and see if they try to meet the same criteria described in this definition. IOW continuity.

I suppose we could try to come up with an on / off ... 0 1 if it was given some thought as I believe you like math. Not sure what to do for could ... maybe some nors ors nands ands

Originally Posted by michael h

It is the combination of the 2 cells to create 1 new cell ... The new cell is the genesis of can. I gottah crash but I'd like to beat up the other 3 definitions later and see if they try to meet the same criteria described in this definition. IOW continuity.

I suppose we could try to come up with an on / off ... 0 1 if it was given some thought as I believe you like math. Not sure what to do for could ... maybe some nors ors nands ands

Is answering my question really so much worse than posting these inanities of yours?