| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
02 May 2004 06:36:40 PM |
| Object: |
Is a fetus innocent life? |
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
(Judeo) Christian Standard:
According to Paul in Romans 3 "all have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God". Despite numerous apologetics which try to explain that
Paul does not really mean what he says, the doctrine of original sin has
been adopted by many of the thousands of variant sects of xianity on
the basis of this and other statements in the new and old testament. By
this standard we all bear some sin, usually presumed to be inherited
through Adam's fall, which would imply that a fetus or even a zygote
carries the stain of sin (and death) with it. Furthermore, even if one
does not accept the doctrine of original sin, many Xians believe that
one must accept jesus during one's life in order to be saved from
damnation. It is quite clear that a fetus cannot accept or profess
faith in jesus due to its own cognitive inability, which suggests that
it better be guilty of something, for how could a just god punish it
otherwise? Finally, irrespective of these other standards, it could be
argued, for example, that the fetus may be guilty of offenses including
stealing food from the mother, not keeping the sabbath, not honoring or
obeying its parents, sexually violating its own mother (uncovering her
nakedness) and, in the extreme, causing serious injury or death to the
mother. BTW, I'm not suggesting that I believe any of this theological
piffle, but it should cast doubt on the idea that a fetus can be easily
judged innocent, by Judeo Xian religious standards.
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
Ethical Standard:
According to a number of ethical standards the fetus could be seen to be
physically imposing its will upon the mother by force. The fetus
attempts to assert its own rights above and beyond those of the mother.
A fetus has no regard for the utility or the consequences of pregnancy
and the impact that it has upon the mother as well as the society. The
fetus does not appear to follow principles such as the Golden Rule or
the Categorical Imperative. It recognizes no duty, nor does it have
concern about the happiness or survival of others. If it has an opinion
at all, it appears to believe that others owe it food and other forms of
free support.
Therefore, on none of these accounts can we state unequivocally that the
fetus is an "innocent" life. However, I'd be happy to entertain (and be
entertained by) any serious arguments for why a fetus should be
considered innocent despite the above statements. This is not to say
that I think that "innocence" is a particularly relevant standard to
apply to a fetus or an embryo or a zygote. But if anyone wants to
discuss the relevance of fetal innocence then I encourage them to do so.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
17 Jun 2004 10:33:06 AM |
|
|
(Noone Nowhere) wrote in message news:<40d0a621.100777345@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 16 Jun 2004 06:45:39 -0700, (david) wrote:
....
Paul Anderson's attempt at reasoning is ridiculous. For one, born
human babies have been thrown in the trash.....
Which is a crime. It is a crime to dispose of human remains in other
than a legally perscribed manner.
Second, when do prolifers throw human zygotes and embryos in the
trash?
Within the first month of their "children"'s lives, about halffail to
implant or fail to stay implanted. They are "born" rather prematurely
and are disposed of in the garbage
Where do all these crazy pcers come from? You are equating
intentionally throwing something into the trash with unintentional
miscarriages. Prolife women who miscarry aren't intentionally trying
to end the life of their child. Some children that are miscarried are
buried. Your arguments are laughable.
Third, how does it make sense to decide what something is based on
whether or how we dispose of it or not?
It is the other way around -- it is not not a human being because it
is tossed in the trash; it is tossed into the trash because it is not
a human being. If Pro-Lifers actually believed that the unborn are
human beings from conception they would show a little more concern
over their own "children."
How do prolifers not show concern for their own children? Please try
to post logical arguments instead of crazy accusations with no
explanation.
That's just ridiculous.
Would dogs cease to be dogs if people randomly shot with guns them?
Would you believe someone's claim that a stranger's dog is of immense
value if you knew they randomly killed their own dogs?
I was discussing what something is - not if it has value or not - you
failed to answer the question - We can't know whether something is
valuable unless we know what that something is.
Did the Jews cease to be human beings because the Nazi buried them in
mass graves? It makes absolutely no sense.
People are aghast at what was done to the Jews. The Pro-Lifers will
not even acknowledge that they are tossing their own "children" into
the trash. Either they even more heartless than the Nazis (who at
least were killing 'enemies of the state' rather than their own
children) or they do *not* believe that the life of a human being
begins at conception.
Please explain your "tossing in trash" line. You've yet say anything
that makes logical sense.
You are right. It makes no sense to claim that a precious human being
exists from conception while you carelessly toss your own precious
children into the trash -- their lives of so little importance that
you cannot be bothered to see if they even existed.
Did you just break out of an insane asylum? What is with these trash
argument?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
17 Jun 2004 10:16:52 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jun 2004 08:33:06 -0700, (david) wrote:
Noone@nowhere.com (Noone Nowhere) wrote in message news:<40d0a621.100777345@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 16 Jun 2004 06:45:39 -0700, (david) wrote:
....
Paul Anderson's attempt at reasoning is ridiculous. For one, born
human babies have been thrown in the trash.....
Which is a crime. It is a crime to dispose of human remains in other
than a legally perscribed manner.
Second, when do prolifers throw human zygotes and embryos in the
trash?
Within the first month of their "children"'s lives, about halffail to
implant or fail to stay implanted. They are "born" rather prematurely
and are disposed of in the garbage
Where do all these crazy pcers come from? You are equating
intentionally throwing something into the trash with unintentional
miscarriages.
The death of a human being is the death of a human being, no matter
how it occurs. Whether the death of the child is by a natural cause
or an accident or a deliberate killing we treat the body of the child
with the same respect. We do not toss the bodies of our dead children
into the trash.
Except that is exactly what Pro-Lifers do!
....
You are right. It makes no sense to claim that a precious human being
exists from conception while you carelessly toss your own precious
children into the trash -- their lives of so little importance that
you cannot be bothered to see if they even existed.
Did you just break out of an insane asylum? What is with these trash
argument?
Are you stupid or what? It is very simple:
Premise: The unborn child a real child, a human being with all the
rights thereof, from the moment of conception. (Pro-Lifers claim to
believe this and cite this as the reason to ban abortion.)
Fact: Some 50-75% of all conceptions fail to implant or wash out first
menses.
Fact: Any time that a woman menstrates following a month when she had
intercourse there is a possibility that a zygote or early embryo has
washed out also.
Fact: Any time that we even suspect a child is lost we go to great
lengths to either find that child or to verifiy that the child does
not exist.
Fact: Pro-Lifers do not search their Tampax or Kotex to see if *their
child* has been 'born' and died.
Conclusion: The premise is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
18 Jun 2004 10:36:43 AM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40d1ef53.7177295@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 17 Jun 2004 08:33:06 -0700, (david) wrote:
Noone@nowhere.com (Noone Nowhere) wrote in message news:<40d0a621.100777345@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 16 Jun 2004 06:45:39 -0700, (david) wrote:
....
Paul Anderson's attempt at reasoning is ridiculous. For one, born
human babies have been thrown in the trash.....
Which is a crime. It is a crime to dispose of human remains in other
than a legally perscribed manner.
Second, when do prolifers throw human zygotes and embryos in the
trash?
Within the first month of their "children"'s lives, about halffail to
implant or fail to stay implanted. They are "born" rather prematurely
and are disposed of in the garbage
Where do all these crazy pcers come from? You are equating
intentionally throwing something into the trash with unintentional
miscarriages.
The death of a human being is the death of a human being, no matter
how it occurs. Whether the death of the child is by a natural cause
or an accident or a deliberate killing we treat the body of the child
with the same respect. We do not toss the bodies of our dead children
into the trash.
Except that is exactly what Pro-Lifers do!
...
You are right. It makes no sense to claim that a precious human being
exists from conception while you carelessly toss your own precious
children into the trash -- their lives of so little importance that
you cannot be bothered to see if they even existed.
Did you just break out of an insane asylum? What is with these trash
argument?
Are you stupid or what? It is very simple:
Premise: The unborn child a real child, a human being with all the
rights thereof, from the moment of conception. (Pro-Lifers claim to
believe this and cite this as the reason to ban abortion.)
Fact: Some 50-75% of all conceptions fail to implant or wash out first
menses.
Fact: Any time that a woman menstrates following a month when she had
intercourse there is a possibility that a zygote or early embryo has
washed out also.
Fact: Any time that we even suspect a child is lost we go to great
lengths to either find that child or to verifiy that the child does
not exist.
Fact: Pro-Lifers do not search their Tampax or Kotex to see if *their
child* has been 'born' and died.
Conclusion: The premise is false.
This is one of the most ridiculous attempts at a logical argument that
I've ever seen. Somehow Paul thinks that because women don't look to
see if they've miscarried that means that the unborn aren't human
beings. This is just sad.
For one, if prolife women searched their tampoons they wouldn't be
able to tell if they had a miscarriage. So maybe that's why they
don't look.
Second, how does whether we look for something or not make that
something into a human being? It just makes no sense. What if women
carefully examined each tampoon - would the unborn suddenly be human
beings? Ridiculous.
What if only some women examined their tampoons? Would the unborn
children of the women who examined their tampoons be human beings
while the unborn children of the women who didn't check their tampoons
not be human beings?
Third, how do prolife women's supposed inconsistency change what the
unborn are factually? What if I said that Jews were human beings but
at the same time I killed 15 jews a night? Would the inconsistencies
of my actions actually change what Jews are? Would these Jews not be
human beings because I said they were human beings yet still killed 15
a night? Please try to come up with some actual evidence that the
unborn aren't human beings from science so I don't need to waste my
time destroying your ludicrous arguments.
The sad fact, Paul, is that you have no evidence from science so you
come up with these completely illogical ways to try to convince
yourself that the unborn aren't human beings. What is keeping you
from admitting the truth to yourself? What is holding you back from
embracing reality?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noone Nowhere" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
18 Jun 2004 11:53:20 AM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2004 08:36:43 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote ....
Premise: The unborn child a real child, a human being with all the
rights thereof, from the moment of conception. (Pro-Lifers claim to
believe this and cite this as the reason to ban abortion.)
Fact: Some 50-75% of all conceptions fail to implant or wash out first
menses.
Fact: Any time that a woman menstrates following a month when she had
intercourse there is a possibility that a zygote or early embryo has
washed out also.
Fact: Any time that we even suspect a child is lost we go to great
lengths to either find that child or to verifiy that the child does
not exist.
Fact: Pro-Lifers do not search their Tampax or Kotex to see if *their
child* has been 'born' and died.
Conclusion: The premise is false.
This is one of the most ridiculous attempts at a logical argument that
I've ever seen. Somehow Paul thinks that because women don't look to
see if they've miscarried that means that the unborn aren't human
beings. This is just sad.
No, I think that women don't look because the 'unborn child' is not a
human being from conception. That is what is meant by "The premise
is false."
For one, if prolife women searched their tampoons they wouldn't be
able to tell if they had a miscarriage. So maybe that's why they
don't look.
If they actually believed that they might have lost a child that they
would look.
Second, how does whether we look for something or not make that
something into a human being?
Other way around. IF it were a human being the mother would look.
It just makes no sense. What if women
carefully examined each tampoon - would the unborn suddenly be human
beings? Ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is thinking that Pro-Life women are so callous that
they cannot be bothered to see if they are tossing one of their
precious children into the trash.
What if only some women examined their tampoons?
Out of MILLIONS of Pro-Lifers in America I have not heard of *any*
women doing this.
....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
18 Jun 2004 08:01:07 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2004 08:36:43 -0700, (david) wrote:
[snip..
This is one of the most ridiculous attempts at a logical argument that
I've ever seen. Somehow Paul thinks that because women don't look to
see if they've miscarried that means that the unborn aren't human
beings. This is just sad.
I guess you never read any of your own posts.
[snip David's incoherent argument (it doesn't even rise to the level
of illogical.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
17 Jun 2004 10:33:22 AM |
|
|
(Noone Nowhere) wrote in message news:<40d0a621.100777345@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 16 Jun 2004 06:45:39 -0700, (david) wrote:
....
Paul Anderson's attempt at reasoning is ridiculous. For one, born
human babies have been thrown in the trash.....
Which is a crime. It is a crime to dispose of human remains in other
than a legally perscribed manner.
Second, when do prolifers throw human zygotes and embryos in the
trash?
Within the first month of their "children"'s lives, about halffail to
implant or fail to stay implanted. They are "born" rather prematurely
and are disposed of in the garbage
Where do all these crazy pcers come from? You are equating
intentionally throwing something into the trash with unintentional
miscarriages. Prolife women who miscarry aren't intentionally trying
to end the life of their child. Some children that are miscarried are
buried. Your arguments are laughable.
Third, how does it make sense to decide what something is based on
whether or how we dispose of it or not?
It is the other way around -- it is not not a human being because it
is tossed in the trash; it is tossed into the trash because it is not
a human being. If Pro-Lifers actually believed that the unborn are
human beings from conception they would show a little more concern
over their own "children."
How do prolifers not show concern for their own children? Please try
to post logical arguments instead of crazy accusations with no
explanation.
That's just ridiculous.
Would dogs cease to be dogs if people randomly shot with guns them?
Would you believe someone's claim that a stranger's dog is of immense
value if you knew they randomly killed their own dogs?
I was discussing what something is - not if it has value or not - you
failed to answer the question - We can't know whether something is
valuable unless we know what that something is.
Did the Jews cease to be human beings because the Nazi buried them in
mass graves? It makes absolutely no sense.
People are aghast at what was done to the Jews. The Pro-Lifers will
not even acknowledge that they are tossing their own "children" into
the trash. Either they even more heartless than the Nazis (who at
least were killing 'enemies of the state' rather than their own
children) or they do *not* believe that the life of a human being
begins at conception.
Please explain your "tossing in trash" line. You've yet say anything
that makes logical sense.
You are right. It makes no sense to claim that a precious human being
exists from conception while you carelessly toss your own precious
children into the trash -- their lives of so little importance that
you cannot be bothered to see if they even existed.
Did you just break out of an insane asylum? What is with this trash
argument?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
03 Jun 2004 12:48:20 PM |
|
|
On 3 Jun 2004 09:19:33 -0700, (david) wrote:
.....
How does it follow that because some of the unborn may not implant in
the uterus and die naturally that the unborn aren't human beings?
.....
How do we dispose of the bodies of dead human beings?
How do we treat the bodies of our dead children?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert B. Winn" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
03 Jun 2004 07:55:36 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40bf6429.1495674@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 3 Jun 2004 09:19:33 -0700, (david) wrote:
....
How does it follow that because some of the unborn may not implant in
the uterus and die naturally that the unborn aren't human beings?
....
How do we dispose of the bodies of dead human beings?
How do we treat the bodies of our dead children?
Matthew 8:22 Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
03 Jun 2004 09:01:29 PM |
|
|
On 3 Jun 2004 17:55:36 -0700, (Robert B.
Winn) in alt.abortion with message-id
<7943568.0406031655.6253c61@posting.google.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40bf6429.1495674@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 3 Jun 2004 09:19:33 -0700, (david) wrote:
....
How does it follow that because some of the unborn may not implant in
the uterus and die naturally that the unborn aren't human beings?
....
How do we dispose of the bodies of dead human beings?
How do we treat the bodies of our dead children?
Matthew 8:22 Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Robert B. Winn
Have you ever been able to prove your book of superstitions has any
validity outside of a few geographical locations or a few unimportant
people mentioned in passing?
Especially are you able to substantiate the more unbelievable
statements made?
If not, why to you continue to quote from an unproven and
unsubstantiated book of what appears to be nothing more than just
another collection of myths?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
21 May 2004 07:40:41 PM |
|
|
On 21 May 2004 06:07:10 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<brgqa0tt57g59hothc5jfuo5cioe2vldov@4ax.com>...
On 20 May 2004 10:14:27 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<j3lna01qqj9cu20quokahi0e7csm9kbka0@4ax.com>...
On 19 May 2004 10:16:54 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<uh8la05cju4grjtlk4e4k1oktgl7brp6mb@4ax.com>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? I don't need to make up my
own definition about what a human life is - science has proven the
unborn are human beings - so I don't need to come up with a bunch of
baloney definitions to prove my case - science has already proven it
for me. I probably wouldn't be able to come up with a definition that
would be perfect - but here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being) - I would also
like to say has two human parents but you'd probably bring up cloning
and then we'd get off the subject.
Tell us, please, where 'science' (whatever you mean by that word
here) has 'proven' that fetuses are human beings. Don't be shy, just
provide a reference from a peer-reviewed journal. If, on the other
hand, you really meant that you interpret your understanding of
'scientific facts' to lead YOU to the conclusion that fetuses are
'human beings', just admit that you are expressing your personal
belief and be done with it.
From Langman's Embryology, - T.W. Sadler 7th edition, ch. 1- "The
development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which
the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to
give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Gee, you must be a Clinton fan. I guess you have a dictionary in
which 'is' means 'development begins'.
Is that your response to evidence from an embryology textbook? That's
so convincing - note the sarcasm.
Well, you have convinced me of one thing... you ARE a fuckwit.
So you have no evidence? Not a shred to back up your beliefs. No
quotes from embryology textbook or quotes from leading scientists in
the field.
Well, you made the claim, and you posted several excerpts which didn't
support your claim. And you ask for evidence?
Profanity is the effort of a weak mind to express itself forcibly.
Attacking me personally doesn't refute my case or evidence.
No, it wasn't attacking you, it was giving you my candid opinion of
you.
I have many more quotes from embryology textbooks or from experts in
the field if you would like those as well.
Well, if any of them contain the sentence 'A fetus is a human being'
(which was your claim), go ahead and post them.
Hmm. No snappy comeback here? Wasn't I sarcastic enough for you?
In 1981 - the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearing about the
question of when does life begin -
Here are some quotes from various experts in the field -
Selected by the anti-abortion zealots on the committee.
Why can't you find the expert testimony from all the experts that the
Pro-choicers on the committee selected?
Ah, which ones were those? The anti-abortion Republicans running the
show didn't call any.
"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers:
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new
human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion
... it is plain experimental evidence."
This is close to the desired statement, but it is Lejeune making a
statement in a political forum, not in a peer reviewed journal.
Before you huff and puff, look up a few dozen lines where I asked you
from references from peer reviewed journals.
All these statements were taken under oath - they are experts in their
fields -
If they lied under oath - you should start a campaign to put these
individuals in jail for perjury.
They can't be charged with perjury. They stated their opinions. Now,
if they had claimed a certain statement appeared in peer-reviewed
journals, and it didn't, they could then be forced to defend
themselves against a perjury charge by claiming incomptence.
Peer reviewed journals don't have experiments trying to prove that the
unborn are human beings because every scientist worth two cents
already knows it - it has already been proven - thats like asking for
peer reviewed journal evidence that African Americans are humans - and
saying that if you can't provide any evidence from peer-reviewed
journals then you can't prove that African-Americans are human.
I didn't ask for an 'experiment'. I asked for a *statement* from a
peer-reviewed journal. You didn't provide one which supported your
original claim.
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,
concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages
represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the
child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human
being."
I am not quite sure what to make of that circumlocution.
Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot
be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."
Hmm. Doesn't come close to saying 'the fetus is a human being'.
Another one for you from Dr. Harold W. Manner, Chairman of the
Department of Biology at Loyola University (Chicago): "When a human
sperm fertilizes a human egg, the result is a human being -- from the
moment of conception. The killing of this human being must be
considered homicide."
Hmm. A statement from the a faculty member at a Catholic college,
with no indication of where the statement was made. Sounds like a
sound bite from a pro-life rally.
In response to the testimony of these experts - the committee found
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception
marks the beginning of life of a human being - a being that is alvie
and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement
on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific
writings."
Please provide any evidence to contradict these statements if you have
any - I doubt you will - I've yet to come across a PCer that has a
shred of actual evidence.
You really don't get the point, do you?
So, again you have no evidence, correct? Why do you continue to dodge
the question? Why can't you provide any evidence?
Actually, you were the one who was attempting to provide evidence. I
don't recall making any specific claim which required evidence.
Also, the scientific law of biogenesis states that life comes from
life and that being reproduce after their own kind. This means that
rats reproduce rats, cats reproduce cats, and human being reproduce
human beings. How can two human beings come together to produce an
entity that is not a human being but then later becomes a human being
when the law of biogenesis says this is impossible?
I think you have been 'learning' your biology from a creationist
web-site. You might want to provide references for this 'law of
biogenesis.
Yawn. This law was developed from the work of people like Pasteur -
it's a scientific law -
And your references are....?
Too lazy to Google yourself to disprove me. OK. I even didn't the
numerous sites from Christian web sites because these of course would
all be useless (again note the sarcasm) - the fact is that just
because Christians use some types of biology doesn't mean that their
biology is wrong -
Hmm. The fact that almost all the references were from Creationist
(note: Creationist, not Christian--- not all Christians are absolute
loonies) web site would be regarded as a Free Clue by most reasonable
people.
Plus I am not using the law to disprove evolution - I am using it to
prove the humanity of the unborn - the fact is that no one has yet to
prove the Law of Biogenesis incorrect or show an exception where two
beings of the same kind produce a different type of being - maybe in
all your wisdom you'll be the first -
In reality, Biogenesis doesn't disprove Evolution - evolution says
nothing about the origin of life or say that life doesn't come from
life but that over long periods of time species evolve/change.
www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/familyhealth/dict/pages/b/178.html
www2.asd.k12.ak.us/hauser/Links/html/biology/Class%20Notes/notes/Chapter14_notes.htm
http://www.lancaster.k12.oh.us/s_holt/chapter_onebio.htm
http://frontpage.kconline.com/tschriefer/Lecture%20Notes/chapter17.htm
(this one says that Biogenesis became the cornerstone of biology)
Hmm. I looked at this earlier, but right now my internet provider
seems to be having a severe case of the slows. IIRC, they were
outlines from high school text books, and from the way it was
presented, it might well be that they were discussing the so-called
law as discredited concept, especially since one seemed to mention it
in conjunction with other discarded theories.
If you want more just type in Redi and biogenesis, Pasteur and
biogenesis, or Spallanzani and biogenesis into any search engine.
Elementary school biology textbooks talk about this - why can't you
accept it?
Do you have any evidence that the unborn aren't human beings from
scientific literature? If so, I'd like to see it. I have yet to run
across a single PC
who has a scrap of actual evidence - and by evidence I don't mean
single sentence assertions or dictionary definitions - I mean actual
evidence that can be referenced and checked out.
You are the one who made the claim that they are 'human beings'. If I
make the claim that you are an idiot, is it assumed true unless you
can provide 'scientific evidence' that it is not?
Oh, so the answer would be "No" - you have no evidence - not a shred
to prove your point of view - interesting - you would think that if
the unborn aren't human beings - you could prove it - PCers can't -
hmmm......
You are a candidate for Fuckwit of the Month.
You have no evidence - not a shred - you can't refute any of mine -
you call me names, use profanity -
Do you realize how you look to any one who reads this? You seem to be
someone who is very angry for some reason - you seem to take out your
aggression and anger on individuals who provide solid evidence for the
humanity of the unborn. Why is this?
And you appear to be proud of your ignorance.
As for your definition, it sucks. Big time.
THanks for the opinion.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
24 May 2004 12:52:22 PM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<uh8la05cju4grjtlk4e4k1oktgl7brp6mb@4ax.com>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? I don't need to make up my
own definition about what a human life is - science has proven the
unborn are human beings - so I don't need to come up with a bunch of
baloney definitions to prove my case - science has already proven it
for me. I probably wouldn't be able to come up with a definition that
would be perfect - but here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being) - I would also
like to say has two human parents but you'd probably bring up cloning
and then we'd get off the subject.
Tell us, please, where 'science' (whatever you mean by that word
here) has 'proven' that fetuses are human beings. Don't be shy, just
provide a reference from a peer-reviewed journal. If, on the other
hand, you really meant that you interpret your understanding of
'scientific facts' to lead YOU to the conclusion that fetuses are
'human beings', just admit that you are expressing your personal
belief and be done with it.
From Langman's Embryology, - T.W. Sadler 7th edition, ch. 1- "The
development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which
the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to
give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Gee, you must be a Clinton fan. I guess you have a dictionary in
which 'is' means 'development begins'.
Is that your response to evidence from an embryology textbook? That's
so convincing - note the sarcasm.
Well, you have convinced me of one thing... you ARE a fuckwit.
So you have no evidence? Not a shred to back up your beliefs. No
quotes from embryology textbook or quotes from leading scientists in
the field.
Well, you made the claim, and you posted several excerpts which didn't
support your claim. And you ask for evidence?
And you are making the claim that the unborn aren't human beings yet
can't provide one scrap of evidence - arguing with you is a snooze -
you ask for evidence, I provide it, you deny it. I ask for evidence
and you provide nothing.
Profanity is the effort of a weak mind to express itself forcibly.
Attacking me personally doesn't refute my case or evidence.
No, it wasn't attacking you, it was giving you my candid opinion of
you.
Backpedaling from a personal attack. Candid opinion of someone you
know nothing about. Talk about judgemental. Why did you cut out your
personal attack and use of profanity? Trying to save face?
I have many more quotes from embryology textbooks or from experts in
the field if you would like those as well.
Well, if any of them contain the sentence 'A fetus is a human being'
(which was your claim), go ahead and post them.
Hmm. No snappy comeback here? Wasn't I sarcastic enough for you?
In 1981 - the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearing about the
question of when does life begin -
Here are some quotes from various experts in the field -
Selected by the anti-abortion zealots on the committee.
Why can't you find the expert testimony from all the experts that the
Pro-choicers on the committee selected?
Ah, which ones were those? The anti-abortion Republicans running the
show didn't call any.
But the pro-choice dems had the option/ability of calling experts to
testify. Where is their testimony? Why can't you provide that? If
the question of when does the life of a human being begin and is a
fetus a human being were not accepted realities of the scientific
community why didn't the PCers have as many experts as the pro-lifers?
For your info - Max Baucus got one individual to testify from the
basis of philosophy in favor of the pro-choice side.
"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers:
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new
human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion
... it is plain experimental evidence."
This is close to the desired statement, but it is Lejeune making a
statement in a political forum, not in a peer reviewed journal.
Before you huff and puff, look up a few dozen lines where I asked you
from references from peer reviewed journals.
All these statements were taken under oath - they are experts in their
fields -
If they lied under oath - you should start a campaign to put these
individuals in jail for perjury.
They can't be charged with perjury. They stated their opinions. Now,
if they had claimed a certain statement appeared in peer-reviewed
journals, and it didn't, they could then be forced to defend
themselves against a perjury charge by claiming incomptence.
Peer reviewed journals don't have experiments trying to prove that the
unborn are human beings because every scientist worth two cents
already knows it - it has already been proven - thats like asking for
peer reviewed journal evidence that African Americans are humans - and
saying that if you can't provide any evidence from peer-reviewed
journals then you can't prove that African-Americans are human.
I didn't ask for an 'experiment'. I asked for a *statement* from a
peer-reviewed journal. You didn't provide one which supported your
original claim.
While I guess I don't need an experiment either - just a statement
from a peer-reviewed journal that African-Americans are human beings.
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,
concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages
represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the
child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human
being."
I am not quite sure what to make of that circumlocution.
Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot
be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."
Hmm. Doesn't come close to saying 'the fetus is a human being'.
Another one for you from Dr. Harold W. Manner, Chairman of the
Department of Biology at Loyola University (Chicago): "When a human
sperm fertilizes a human egg, the result is a human being -- from the
moment of conception. The killing of this human being must be
considered homicide."
Hmm. A statement from the a faculty member at a Catholic college,
with no indication of where the statement was made.
It came during the same hearings as the other ones.
Sounds like a
sound bite from a pro-life rally.
Reality is beginning to set in - pro-lifers have the truth behind them
- pro-choicers have nothing but smoke and mirrors.
In response to the testimony of these experts - the committee found
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception
marks the beginning of life of a human being - a being that is alvie
and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement
on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific
writings."
Please provide any evidence to contradict these statements if you have
any - I doubt you will - I've yet to come across a PCer that has a
shred of actual evidence.
You really don't get the point, do you?
So, again you have no evidence, correct? Why do you continue to dodge
the question? Why can't you provide any evidence?
Actually, you were the one who was attempting to provide evidence. I
don't recall making any specific claim which required evidence.
So, again you have no evidence, correct? Why can't you provide any
evidence? You've claimed that the unborn aren't human beings, right?
Don't you have any evidence to back this up with? Or do you just say
things and have absolutely no evidence behind you?
Also, the scientific law of biogenesis states that life comes from
life and that being reproduce after their own kind. This means that
rats reproduce rats, cats reproduce cats, and human being reproduce
human beings. How can two human beings come together to produce an
entity that is not a human being but then later becomes a human being
when the law of biogenesis says this is impossible?
I think you have been 'learning' your biology from a creationist
web-site. You might want to provide references for this 'law of
biogenesis.
Yawn. This law was developed from the work of people like Pasteur -
it's a scientific law -
And your references are....?
Too lazy to Google yourself to disprove me. OK. I even didn't the
numerous sites from Christian web sites because these of course would
all be useless (again note the sarcasm) - the fact is that just
because Christians use some types of biology doesn't mean that their
biology is wrong -
Hmm. The fact that almost all the references were from Creationist
(note: Creationist, not Christian--- not all Christians are absolute
loonies) web site would be regarded as a Free Clue by most reasonable
people.
So all creationists are absolute loonies? Almost all the references?
So you checked all the thousands of them or just quickly skimmed the
first 25 or so?
Plus I am not using the law to disprove evolution - I am using it to
prove the humanity of the unborn - the fact is that no one has yet to
prove the Law of Biogenesis incorrect or show an exception where two
beings of the same kind produce a different type of being - maybe in
all your wisdom you'll be the first -
In reality, Biogenesis doesn't disprove Evolution - evolution says
nothing about the origin of life or say that life doesn't come from
life but that over long periods of time species evolve/change.
www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/familyhealth/dict/pages/b/178.html
www2.asd.k12.ak.us/hauser/Links/html/biology/Class%20Notes/notes/Chapter14_notes.htm
http://www.lancaster.k12.oh.us/s_holt/chapter_onebio.htm
http://frontpage.kconline.com/tschriefer/Lecture%20Notes/chapter17.htm
(this one says that Biogenesis became the cornerstone of biology)
Hmm. I looked at this earlier, but right now my internet provider
seems to be having a severe case of the slows. IIRC, they were
outlines from high school text books, and from the way it was
presented, it might well be that they were discussing the so-called
law as discredited concept, especially since one seemed to mention it
in conjunction with other discarded theories.
Is your internet working better now? Do you have a better answer to
any of the websites or any evidence that Biogenesis has been proven
wrong?
If you want more just type in Redi and biogenesis, Pasteur and
biogenesis, or Spallanzani and biogenesis into any search engine.
Elementary school biology textbooks talk about this - why can't you
accept it?
Do you have any evidence that the unborn aren't human beings from
scientific literature? If so, I'd like to see it. I have yet to run
across a single PC
who has a scrap of actual evidence - and by evidence I don't mean
single sentence assertions or dictionary definitions - I mean actual
evidence that can be referenced and checked out.
You are the one who made the claim that they are 'human beings'. If I
make the claim that you are an idiot, is it assumed true unless you
can provide 'scientific evidence' that it is not?
Oh, so the answer would be "No" - you have no evidence - not a shred
to prove your point of view - interesting - you would think that if
the unborn aren't human beings - you could prove it - PCers can't -
hmmm......
You are a candidate for Fuckwit of the Month.
You have no evidence - not a shred - you can't refute any of mine -
you call me names, use profanity -
Do you realize how you look to any one who reads this? You seem to be
someone who is very angry for some reason - you seem to take out your
aggression and anger on individuals who provide solid evidence for the
humanity of the unborn. Why is this?
And you appear to be proud of your ignorance.
My ignorance? I'm providing evidence - what are you providing? If I
am ignorant and you're enlightened why don't you provide some evidence
to enlighten me so I'm not so ignorant.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Teresa" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
24 May 2004 06:32:36 PM |
|
|
(david) wrote in message news:<279983a8.0405240952.483d834d@posting.google.com>...
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<uh8la05cju4grjtlk4e4k1oktgl7brp6mb@4ax.com>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? I don't need to make up my
own definition about what a human life is - science has proven the
unborn are human beings - so I don't need to come up with a bunch of
baloney definitions to prove my case - science has already proven it
for me. I probably wouldn't be able to come up with a definition that
would be perfect - but here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being) - I would also
like to say has two human parents but you'd probably bring up cloning
and then we'd get off the subject.
Tell us, please, where 'science' (whatever you mean by that word
here) has 'proven' that fetuses are human beings. Don't be shy, just
provide a reference from a peer-reviewed journal. If, on the other
hand, you really meant that you interpret your understanding of
'scientific facts' to lead YOU to the conclusion that fetuses are
'human beings', just admit that you are expressing your personal
belief and be done with it.
From Langman's Embryology, - T.W. Sadler 7th edition, ch. 1- "The
development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which
the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to
give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Gee, you must be a Clinton fan. I guess you have a dictionary in
which 'is' means 'development begins'.
Is that your response to evidence from an embryology textbook? That's
so convincing - note the sarcasm.
Well, you have convinced me of one thing... you ARE a fuckwit.
So you have no evidence? Not a shred to back up your beliefs. No
quotes from embryology textbook or quotes from leading scientists in
the field.
Well, you made the claim, and you posted several excerpts which didn't
support your claim. And you ask for evidence?
And you are making the claim that the unborn aren't human beings yet
can't provide one scrap of evidence - arguing with you is a snooze -
you ask for evidence, I provide it, you deny it. I ask for evidence
and you provide nothing.
Profanity is the effort of a weak mind to express itself forcibly.
Attacking me personally doesn't refute my case or evidence.
No, it wasn't attacking you, it was giving you my candid opinion of
you.
Backpedaling from a personal attack. Candid opinion of someone you
know nothing about. Talk about judgemental. Why did you cut out your
personal attack and use of profanity? Trying to save face?
I have many more quotes from embryology textbooks or from experts in
the field if you would like those as well.
Well, if any of them contain the sentence 'A fetus is a human being'
(which was your claim), go ahead and post them.
Hmm. No snappy comeback here? Wasn't I sarcastic enough for you?
In 1981 - the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearing about the
question of when does life begin -
Here are some quotes from various experts in the field -
Selected by the anti-abortion zealots on the committee.
Why can't you find the expert testimony from all the experts that the
Pro-choicers on the committee selected?
Ah, which ones were those? The anti-abortion Republicans running the
show didn't call any.
But the pro-choice dems had the option/ability of calling experts to
testify. Where is their testimony? Why can't you provide that? If
the question of when does the life of a human being begin and is a
fetus a human being were not accepted realities of the scientific
community why didn't the PCers have as many experts as the pro-lifers?
For your info - Max Baucus got one individual to testify from the
basis of philosophy in favor of the pro-choice side.
"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers:
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new
human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion
... it is plain experimental evidence."
This is close to the desired statement, but it is Lejeune making a
statement in a political forum, not in a peer reviewed journal.
Before you huff and puff, look up a few dozen lines where I asked you
from references from peer reviewed journals.
All these statements were taken under oath - they are experts in their
fields -
If they lied under oath - you should start a campaign to put these
individuals in jail for perjury.
They can't be charged with perjury. They stated their opinions. Now,
if they had claimed a certain statement appeared in peer-reviewed
journals, and it didn't, they could then be forced to defend
themselves against a perjury charge by claiming incomptence.
Peer reviewed journals don't have experiments trying to prove that the
unborn are human beings because every scientist worth two cents
already knows it - it has already been proven - thats like asking for
peer reviewed journal evidence that African Americans are humans - and
saying that if you can't provide any evidence from peer-reviewed
journals then you can't prove that African-Americans are human.
I didn't ask for an 'experiment'. I asked for a *statement* from a
peer-reviewed journal. You didn't provide one which supported your
original claim.
While I guess I don't need an experiment either - just a statement
from a peer-reviewed journal that African-Americans are human beings.
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,
concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages
represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the
child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human
being."
I am not quite sure what to make of that circumlocution.
Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot
be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."
Hmm. Doesn't come close to saying 'the fetus is a human being'.
Another one for you from Dr. Harold W. Manner, Chairman of the
Department of Biology at Loyola University (Chicago): "When a human
sperm fertilizes a human egg, the result is a human being -- from the
moment of conception. The killing of this human being must be
considered homicide."
Hmm. A statement from the a faculty member at a Catholic college,
with no indication of where the statement was made.
It came during the same hearings as the other ones.
Sounds like a
sound bite from a pro-life rally.
Reality is beginning to set in - pro-lifers have the truth behind them
- pro-choicers have nothing but smoke and mirrors.
In response to the testimony of these experts - the committee found
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception
marks the beginning of life of a human being - a being that is alvie
and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement
on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific
writings."
Please provide any evidence to contradict these statements if you have
any - I doubt you will - I've yet to come across a PCer that has a
shred of actual evidence.
You really don't get the point, do you?
So, again you have no evidence, correct? Why do you continue to dodge
the question? Why can't you provide any evidence?
Actually, you were the one who was attempting to provide evidence. I
don't recall making any specific claim which required evidence.
So, again you have no evidence, correct? Why can't you provide any
evidence? You've claimed that the unborn aren't human beings, right?
Don't you have any evidence to back this up with? Or do you just say
things and have absolutely no evidence behind you?
Also, the scientific law of biogenesis states that life comes from
life and that being reproduce after their own kind. This means that
rats reproduce rats, cats reproduce cats, and human being reproduce
human beings. How can two human beings come together to produce an
entity that is not a human being but then later becomes a human being
when the law of biogenesis says this is impossible?
I think you have been 'learning' your biology from a creationist
web-site. You might want to provide references for this 'law of
biogenesis.
Yawn. This law was developed from the work of people like Pasteur -
it's a scientific law -
And your references are....?
Too lazy to Google yourself to disprove me. OK. I even didn't the
numerous sites from Christian web sites because these of course would
all be useless (again note the sarcasm) - the fact is that just
because Christians use some types of biology doesn't mean that their
biology is wrong -
Hmm. The fact that almost all the references were from Creationist
(note: Creationist, not Christian--- not all Christians are absolute
loonies) web site would be regarded as a Free Clue by most reasonable
people.
So all creationists are absolute loonies? Almost all the references?
So you checked all the thousands of them or just quickly skimmed the
first 25 or so?
Plus I am not using the law to disprove evolution - I am using it to
prove the humanity of the unborn - the fact is that no one has yet to
prove the Law of Biogenesis incorrect or show an exception where two
beings of the same kind produce a different type of being - maybe in
all your wisdom you'll be the first -
In reality, Biogenesis doesn't disprove Evolution - evolution says
nothing about the origin of life or say that life doesn't come from
life but that over long periods of time species evolve/change.
www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/familyhealth/dict/pages/b/178.html
www2.asd.k12.ak.us/hauser/Links/html/biology/Class%20Notes/notes/Chapter14_notes.htm
http://www.lancaster.k12.oh.us/s_holt/chapter_onebio.htm
http://frontpage.kconline.com/tschriefer/Lecture%20Notes/chapter17.htm
(this one says that Biogenesis became the cornerstone of biology)
Hmm. I looked at this earlier, but right now my internet provider
seems to be having a severe case of the slows. IIRC, they were
outlines from high school text books, and from the way it was
presented, it might well be that they were discussing the so-called
law as discredited concept, especially since one seemed to mention it
in conjunction with other discarded theories.
Is your internet working better now? Do you have a better answer to
any of the websites or any evidence that Biogenesis has been proven
wrong?
If you want more just type in Redi and biogenesis, Pasteur and
biogenesis, or Spallanzani and biogenesis into any search engine.
Elementary school biology textbooks talk about this - why can't you
accept it?
Do you have any evidence that the unborn aren't human beings from
scientific literature? If so, I'd like to see it. I have yet to run
across a single PC
who has a scrap of actual evidence - and by evidence I don't mean
single sentence assertions or dictionary definitions - I mean actual
evidence that can be referenced and checked out.
You are the one who made the claim that they are 'human beings'. If I
make the claim that you are an idiot, is it assumed true unless you
can provide 'scientific evidence' that it is not?
Oh, so the answer would be "No" - you have no evidence - not a shred
to prove your point of view - interesting - you would think that if
the unborn aren't human beings - you could prove it - PCers can't -
hmmm......
You are a candidate for Fuckwit of the Month.
You have no evidence - not a shred - you can't refute any of mine -
you call me names, use profanity -
Do you realize how you look to any one who reads this? You seem to be
someone who is very angry for some reason - you seem to take out your
aggression and anger on individuals who provide solid evidence for the
humanity of the unborn. Why is this?
And you appear to be proud of your ignorance.
My ignorance? I'm providing evidence - what are you providing? If I
am ignorant and you're enlightened why don't you provide some evidence
to enlighten me so I'm not so ignorant.
IF the human embryo is not part of the human family, why do we
refer to it as a HUMAN embryo? If you did not exist as a human before
you were born, then what made you human? Obviously not the any
contribution from your human mother and father. Their contribution was
made months before you were born. > >
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
24 May 2004 07:14:38 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2004 16:32:36 -0700, (Teresa) in
alt.abortion with message-id
<9b2b4e36.0405241532.29d29d56@posting.google.com> wrote:
IF the human embryo is not part of the human family, why do we
refer to it as a HUMAN embryo? If you did not exist as a human before
you were born, then what made you human? Obviously not the any
contribution from your human mother and father. Their contribution was
made months before you were born. > >
No one said a fetus is not human. It does not have the socio-legal
status of human being, which required live birth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
24 May 2004 06:40:21 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2004 10:52:22 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<uh8la05cju4grjtlk4e4k1oktgl7brp6mb@4ax.com>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
[snip...
Well, you made the claim, and you posted several excerpts which didn't
support your claim. And you ask for evidence?
And you are making the claim that the unborn aren't human beings yet
can't provide one scrap of evidence - arguing with you is a snooze -
you ask for evidence, I provide it, you deny it. I ask for evidence
and you provide nothing.
But I didn't make any claim- I was asking you to substantiate yours.
Profanity is the effort of a weak mind to express itself forcibly.
Attacking me personally doesn't refute my case or evidence.
No, it wasn't attacking you, it was giving you my candid opinion of
you.
Backpedaling from a personal attack. Candid opinion of someone you
know nothing about. Talk about judgemental. Why did you cut out your
personal attack and use of profanity? Trying to save face?
OK, you are still a fuckwit.
[snip...
Why can't you find the expert testimony from all the experts that the
Pro-choicers on the committee selected?
Ah, which ones were those? The anti-abortion Republicans running the
show didn't call any.
But the pro-choice dems had the option/ability of calling experts to
testify. Where is their testimony? Why can't you provide that? If
the question of when does the life of a human being begin and is a
fetus a human being were not accepted realities of the scientific
community why didn't the PCers have as many experts as the pro-lifers?
For your info - Max Baucus got one individual to testify from the
basis of philosophy in favor of the pro-choice side.
It was rammed through by the anti-abortion republicans, and was a
foregone conclusion. Don't you understand the legislative process.
While I guess I don't need an experiment either - just a statement
from a peer-reviewed journal that African-Americans are human beings.
Well, such things were necessary back in the old days, when some did
regard Africans as a separate species. And it was provided. Now, you
want to change the long standing view of the status of fetuses, so you
have to provide evidence.
Hmm. The fact that almost all the references were from Creationist
(note: Creationist, not Christian--- not all Christians are absolute
loonies) web site would be regarded as a Free Clue by most reasonable
people.
So all creationists are absolute loonies? Almost all the references?
So you checked all the thousands of them or just quickly skimmed the
first 25 or so?
You were the one complaining that most of the references were from
Creationist sites (actually, you said Christian sites). And yes, all
creationists are absolute loonies.
Hmm. I looked at this earlier, but right now my internet provider
seems to be having a severe case of the slows. IIRC, they were
outlines from high school text books, and from the way it was
presented, it might well be that they were discussing the so-called
law as discredited concept, especially since one seemed to mention it
in conjunction with other discarded theories.
Is your internet working better now? Do you have a better answer to
any of the websites or any evidence that Biogenesis has been proven
wrong?
Well, you have been unable to provide a non-creationist reference to
it, so I am assuming that if there is such a thing, you are reading a
mischaracterization of it, just the the loonies mischaracterize the
2nd law of thermodynamics.
[snip..
And you appear to be proud of your ignorance.
My ignorance? I'm providing evidence - what are you providing? If I
am ignorant and you're enlightened why don't you provide some evidence
to enlighten me so I'm not so ignorant.
What evidence have you provided?
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
25 May 2004 11:31:05 AM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<nd15b05amr62b6k1jnq3nk39pljf3lfpna@4ax.com>...
On 24 May 2004 10:52:22 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<uh8la05cju4grjtlk4e4k1oktgl7brp6mb@4ax.com>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
[snip...
Well, you made the claim, and you posted several excerpts which didn't
support your claim. And you ask for evidence?
And you are making the claim that the unborn aren't human beings yet
can't provide one scrap of evidence - arguing with you is a snooze -
you ask for evidence, I provide it, you deny it. I ask for evidence
and you provide nothing.
But I didn't make any claim- I was asking you to substantiate yours.
You have claimed that my claim is false - therefore saying that the
unborn are not human beings - do you deny this? Or do you now
recognize the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings? I
substantiate mine with quote from embryology textbooks and from
experts in the fields of biology and embryology. You provided
nothing.
Profanity is the effort of a weak mind to express itself forcibly.
Attacking me personally doesn't refute my case or evidence.
No, it wasn't attacking you, it was giving you my candid opinion of
you.
Backpedaling from a personal attack. Candid opinion of someone you
know nothing about. Talk about judgemental. Why did you cut out your
personal attack and use of profanity? Trying to save face?
OK, you are still a fuckwit.
[snip...
Why'd you snip? Did want to read the expert testimony any longer?
Sick of staring in the face of evidence when you obviously have none.
Why can't you find the expert testimony from all the experts that the
Pro-choicers on the committee selected?
Ah, which ones were those? The anti-abortion Republicans running the
show didn't call any.
But the pro-choice dems had the option/ability of calling experts to
testify. Where is their testimony? Why can't you provide that? If
the question of when does the life of a human being begin and is a
fetus a human being were not accepted realities of the scientific
community why didn't the PCers have as many experts as the pro-lifers?
For your info - Max Baucus got one individual to testify from the
basis of philosophy in favor of the pro-choice side.
It was rammed through by the anti-abortion republicans, and was a
foregone conclusion. Don't you understand the legislative process.
Good argument. Too lazy to google. Make a lame untrue assertion.
The pro-choicers could have gotten many experts to testify but they
couldn't find any who would say that scientifically a human
embryo/fetus isn't a human being.
While I guess I don't need an experiment either - just a statement
from a peer-reviewed journal that African-Americans are human beings.
Well, such things were necessary back in the old days, when some did
regard Africans as a separate species. And it was provided. Now, you
want to change the long standing view of the status of fetuses, so you
have to provide evidence.
So you don't have any peer-reviewed journals saying African-Americans
are human beings. OK. Then according to your need for evidence from
peer-reviewed journals - I guess you think that African-Americans
aren't human being. You have absolutely nothing - you have completely
lost this debate and are embarassing yourself more and more each time
you post.
Hmm. The fact that almost all the references were from Creationist
(note: Creationist, not Christian--- not all Christians are absolute
loonies) web site would be regarded as a Free Clue by most reasonable
people.
So all creationists are absolute loonies? Almost all the references?
So you checked all the thousands of them or just quickly skimmed the
first 25 or so?
You were the one complaining that most of the references were from
Creationist sites (actually, you said Christian sites). And yes, all
creationists are absolute loonies.
I never complained about the creationists - you attempt to defeat my
evidence from the Law of Biogenesis by implying that only creationists
talk about it - in response - I provided four websites that had
nothing to do with Christianity or creationism and talked about the
Law of Biogenesis, one of which said that Biogenesis became the
cornerstone of biology. I also showed you how you could find more of
the same by typing in various phrases into any search engine.
Hmm. I looked at this earlier, but right now my internet provider
seems to be having a severe case of the slows. IIRC, they were
outlines from high school text books, and from the way it was
presented, it might well be that they were discussing the so-called
law as discredited concept, especially since one seemed to mention it
in conjunction with other discarded theories.
Is your internet working better now? Do you have a better answer to
any of the websites or any evidence that Biogenesis has been proven
wrong?
Well, you have been unable to provide a non-creationist reference to
it, so I am assuming that if there is such a thing, you are reading a
mischaracterization of it, just the the loonies mischaracterize the
2nd law of thermodynamics.
Why'd you cut the sites? You are sad. I provide evidence from
non-creationist websites - most of the sites were from public school
textbook biology lessons and then you cut them and say that I was
unable to provide a non-creationist reference. Were you too lazy to
read the sites or did you read them and realize how wrong and ignorant
you are?
Here they are again for anyone who wants to see that Larry - unable to
provide evidence or prove mine wrong or false, simply lies and calls
me names. Is this what the pro-choice movement has to offer?
www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/familyhealth/dict/pages/b/178.html
www2.asd.k12.ak.us/hauser/Links/html/biology/Class%20Notes/notes/Chapter14_notes.htm
http://www.lancaster.k12.oh.us/s_holt/chapter_onebio.htm
http://frontpage.kconline.com/tschriefer/Lecture%20Notes/chapter17.htm
(this one says that Biogenesis became the cornerstone of biology)
[snip..
And you appear to be proud of your ignorance.
My ignorance? I'm providing evidence - what are you providing? If I
am ignorant and you're enlightened why don't you provide some evidence
to enlighten me so I'm not so ignorant.
What evidence have you provided?
So again you have no evidence. Why can't you enlighten my ignorance
with your evidence. Please enlighten me with something more than
profanity and name-calling.
Some of my evidence is below - where's yours?
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of
a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with
the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and
ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This
fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is
the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C.
Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process
by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male
and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism,
the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore:
Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr.
zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born:
Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition.
Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
In his book entitled Introduction to Evolution (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1953), p. 52, Paul Amos Moody (professor of natural history
and zoology at the University of Vermont) stated, "Each human being
begins life as a single cell, the fertilized ovum."
In his book entitled The Biology of Man (New York: The Blakiston Co.,
Inc., 1954), p. 2, John S. Hensill (associate professor of biology at
San Francisco State College) stated, "A human life begins its
existence as a single cell, the fertilized egg or zygote."
In his book entitled Evolution, Genetics and Man (New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1955), p. 10, Theodosius Dobzhansky (professor of
zoology at Columbia University) stated, "A human being begins his
existence when a spermatozoon fertilizes an egg cell."
In his book entitled The Wellsprings of Life (New York:
Abelard-Schuman Ltd., 1960), p. 121, Isaac Asimov (associate professor
of biochemistry at the Boston University School of Medicine from
1949-1958) stated, "For instance, the human being begins life as a
fertilized ovum, a single cell resembling, in that respect, the
one-celled creatures that swarmed in the primordial ocean."
In the case of Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 329
N.Y.S.2d 722, 729 (1972), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, stated, "The medical affidavits submitted by the guardian
have not been factually disputed and New York courts have already
acknowledged that, in the contemporary medical view, the child begins
a separate life from the moment of conception...."
In the case of Constitutional Right to Life Committee v. Cannon, 363
A.2d 215, 219 (1976), the Rhode Island Supreme Court stated, "There is
no disagreement that the evidence presented to the trial court
conclusively established that human life commences from the moment of
conception."
Gray's Anatomy (Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1985), p. 7, states,
"Every human being begins life as a single cell, the fertilized ovum."
In his book entitled The Human Genome (San Diego: Academic Press,
1999), pp. 3-4, R. Scott Hawley (professor of genetics at the
University of California) stated, "Indeed, the development of a human
being from conception to death is the result of a complex program of
expressing genes in some cell types and not in others at specific
times during development."
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
25 May 2004 02:02:39 PM |
|
|
On 25 May 2004 09:31:05 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote ....
Well, you made the claim, and you posted several excerpts which didn't
support your claim. And you ask for evidence?
And you are making the claim that the unborn aren't human beings...
But I didn't make any claim- I was asking you to substantiate yours.
You have claimed that my claim is false - therefore saying that the
unborn are not human beings - do you deny this?
He should. Law, language, religion and tradition all hold that a
human being is that which is born, human, and alive. Lawrence has no
need to claim anything and has not claimed anything. You wish to
change what is universally accepted -- claiming that the unborn are
human beings. You make the extrordinary claim and thus you need to
substantiate it. You have failed to do so.
Or do you now
recognize the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings? I
substantiate mine with quote from embryology textbooks and from
experts in the fields of biology and embryology.
You have not provided any scientific text that defined a human being
nor have you provided any scientific text that said the unborn *is* a
human being.
You provided nothing.
He is not trying to prove anything. You are the one who is making the
claim that is contrary to accepted usage. You are the one who needs
to provide the proof.
.....
...cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
Just as a hole in the ground is the beginning of a house. The hole is
not a house. This text does not say that the cell *is* a human being.
..."The development of a human being begins ....
The development of a housing tract begins with grading the site. The
graded site is not a housing tract.
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr.
zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."
A hole is the beginning of a house, the hole is not a house.
"Each human being begins life as a single cell, the fertilized ovum."
Each house begins as a hole. (Actually neither statement is true.
Not all human beings begin development as a single cell.)
.....
delete more of the same.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
26 May 2004 08:30:49 AM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40b392f4.6128555@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 25 May 2004 09:31:05 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote ....
Well, you made the claim, and you posted several excerpts which didn't
support your claim. And you ask for evidence?
And you are making the claim that the unborn aren't human beings...
But I didn't make any claim- I was asking you to substantiate yours.
You have claimed that my claim is false - therefore saying that the
unborn are not human beings - do you deny this?
He should. Law, language, religion and tradition all hold that a
human being is that which is born, human, and alive. Lawrence has no
need to claim anything and has not claimed anything. You wish to
change what is universally accepted -- claiming that the unborn are
human beings. You make the extrordinary claim and thus you need to
substantiate it. You have failed to do so.
Thanks for boring everyone with your assertion diatribe - you don't
have any evidence either which is why you continue to run from our
other discussions and jump into my discussions with others.
Universally accepted? That takes the cake for the stupidest thing
I've ever read on a posting board - the fact that we are arguing, that
their is a large prolife movement in this country, that more than half
of Congress is prolife, all show that your claim about the unborn not
being human beings is far from being universally accepted.
Or do you now
recognize the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings? I
substantiate mine with quote from embryology textbooks and from
experts in the fields of biology and embryology.
You have not provided any scientific text that defined a human being
nor have you provided any scientific text that said the unborn *is* a
human being.
You bore me with your lack of evidence and lame word games.
You provided nothing.
He is not trying to prove anything. You are the one who is making the
claim that is contrary to accepted usage. You are the one who needs
to provide the proof.
....
...cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
Just as a hole in the ground is the be | | | | | | |
