EXPOSED: Komen VP Targeted Planned Parenthood

[koshergrl]

Arms means the people should always have access to the same sort of weaponry that the law keepers have.

 

[bodecea]

Fail!

yeah figured you would say that. Little hint, guns arent listed either...
nice try.

What do you think "arms" mean in the 2nd Amendment?

You tell me. I'm just going by the SAME rule of thumb as those who say there is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution because those specific words aren't there.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, nobody in the field of science denies that from zygote on, an unborn baby has life.

So yes, it is on you to prove the negative, since you are the one contesting the established fact that unborn babies are alive.

Most intelligent baby killers don't contest the life of the unborn, because they KNOW it's alive. They just contest the "humanity"...declaring that since it is not self-aware, it can't be human. Which is just as stupid as proclaiming it isn't alive.

Plants are life. Puppies are life. No one is contesting that a human embryo isn't life in some way. But, to claim it is a "human being" or a "person" is simply false. No Science has ever proven that, despite what you think in your head. Furthermore, to claim that collection of cells has rights that supersede an adult woman's, well, that's just insulting.

What kind of "life" is it, if not human?

My appendix is human life also....and does not have the ability to sustain itself. And this is where I draw the line......sustainable life.

 

[bodecea]

And abortion is their preferred method of birth control.

Which is why 3% of their funding goes to abortion services, and 35% to contraception. In your own words....

Again, you failed.

Yea 300,000+ innocent lives don't account for much huh? It's just numbers.

Do the math....if 3% = 300,000 abortions....that makes 3,500,000 that don't ever need to even consider abortion.

3,500,000 is a much better number.

 

[koshergrl]

Good grief. Talk about nuts.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'm not going to answer any of your silly questions until you can convince me that life does not begin at conception.

This just goes to show the ego-centric attitude behind the anti-abortion movement. There's no reason anyone should have to try to convince you that life doesn't start at conception. If that's what you believe, then fine. Don't have an abortion if that's how you feel about it. But there's not reason to legislate your personal beliefs over the rest of society, when YOU can't scientifically demonstrate your belief to be true.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Something to add to the list of things that make you go "hmm"


Everyone in favor of abortion has already been born.

I'll go on record and say that I wish I'd been aborted.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Actually, nobody in the field of science denies that from zygote on, an unborn baby has life.

A blade of grass is life. A bacterium is life. A virus is life. But none of these is a human being.

So yes, it is on you to prove the negative

If you're going to throw logic out the window, just stay silent.

since you are the one contesting the established fact that unborn babies are alive.

Again, life and human being are not synonymous, anymore than chicken and egg.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And abortion is their preferred method of birth control.

Which is why 3% of their funding goes to abortion services, and 35% to contraception. In your own words....

Again, you failed.

Yea 300,000+ innocent lives don't account for much huh? It's just numbers.

In other words, you're going to ignore your previous position, ignore the facts that were presented which rebuked it, you're going to make a completely irrelevant comment, and hope that the fact that you had something to say in reply will be mistaken for having something meaningful to say that might have supported your original comment. Again, you fail.

 

[koshergrl]

Again. Nobody contests that the babies are alive prior to abortion.

If your argument is that they aren't alive, kindly provide supporting evidence.

"
Embryo

Definition
noun, plural: embryos
(zoology) A multicellular organism that primarily undergoes extensive and rapid growth and differentiation between the time of fertilization and fetal stage in higher forms while larval stage in lower forms
(human biology) Baby in the early developmental stage, after the zygote phase (at fertilization) to week eight from the time of fertilization (note: week eight from the time of fertilization is equivalent to 10 weeks gestational age) "

Embryo - definition from Biology-Online.org

Let's look at organisms, shall we?

"
Organisms

Definition
noun, singular: organism
Living things that are capable of reacting to stimuli, reproduction, growth, and homeostasis.

Supplement
Plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms are examples of organisms."

Which is a zygote? Plant, animal or fungi? Is it dead?

Multicellular:

"Supplement
Examples of organisms that are multicellular are humans, animals and plants. "

Again, is an embryo (or a zygote) a human, animal or plant? I don't see anything here that says it's just tissue. Do you?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Again. Nobody contests that the babies are alive prior to abortion.

If your argument is that they aren't alive, kindly provide supporting evidence.

"
Embryo

Definition
noun, plural: embryos
(zoology) A multicellular organism that primarily undergoes extensive and rapid growth and differentiation between the time of fertilization and fetal stage in higher forms while larval stage in lower forms
(human biology) Baby in the early developmental stage, after the zygote phase (at fertilization) to week eight from the time of fertilization (note: week eight from the time of fertilization is equivalent to 10 weeks gestational age) "

Embryo - definition from Biology-Online.org

Let's look at organisms, shall we?

"
Organisms

Definition
noun, singular: organism
Living things that are capable of reacting to stimuli, reproduction, growth, and homeostasis.

Supplement
Plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms are examples of organisms."

Which is a zygote? Plant, animal or fungi? Is it dead?

Multicellular:

"Supplement
Examples of organisms that are multicellular are humans, animals and plants. "

Again, is an embryo (or a zygote) a human, animal or plant? I don't see anything here that says it's just tissue. Do you?

It's so very clear that you are simply unwilling to have an honest discussion. You insist on trying to frame the discussion in terms that pre-assume your own conclusions. You talk about "babies" being alive. This shows that you've already made the assumption, and that you're dogmatically unwilling to base your conclusion on anything else, that an embryo is a human being. Except IT'S NOT A HUMAN BEING. IT'S NOT A BABY. IT'S AN EMBRYO. Then, you run the issue in circles saying that since it is "life" then it must be a baby, and it must be a human being. It's a logically flawed position, based on false propositions. But then again, none of that matters to you. All you care about is preserving the dogma.

 

[koshergrl]

Hello. Read the definitions, nitwit.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I read the definitions. But you're so dishonest that you've now resorted to trying to inject word games. You know damn well that those definitions are a reflection of casual usage, and are NOT presentations of scientific data. But what do you care? Anything that preserves the dogma.

 

[koshergrl]

What word games? You insist that we "prove" that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are alive, then pretend that's not what the issue is. Who's playing the game here? You say it's not a human, but then balk and whine when the definitions are posted that prove it is human...and then pretend that we're just playing "word games" when you're the one who started with the word games.

Jeez. Grow the fuck up. If you can't support your idiocy, bail out now. Because so far you've just made yourself look stupid.

 

[Inthemiddle]

What word games? You insist that we "prove" that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are alive, then pretend that's not what the issue is.

No, I'm not insisting anything. All I said is that logically, the burden of proof is not on a person who denies that personhood begins at conception.

Who's playing the game here? You say it's not a human, but then balk and whine when the definitions are posted that prove it is human.

I'm not balking or whining about anything. I'm objecting to the fact that you know damn well that the definitions you posted don't prove anything. Definitions are not scientific facts. You fully well know that common language "definitions" are based on nothing more than the way people speak, and that they do NOTHING to establish scientific information. You know these things, yet you simply don't care. That is what I object to. The fact that you are so dishonest, that you will intentionally present an argument that you know is logically inadequate, because you are more concerned with preserving the dogma than having an honest discussion about the issue.

and then pretend that we're just playing "word games" when you're the one who started with the word games.

I started with word games? When did I do that? All I said was that if you want to claim that personhood starts at conception, then the burden of proof is on you. If you want to legislate that belief, then it is on you to demonstrate that scientifically.

Jeez. Grow the fuck up. If you can't support your idiocy, bail out now. Because so far you've just made yourself look stupid.

It's clear that you're buckling under the pressure to present honest and logically consistent arguments. Maybe the only "ace up your sleeve" is these silly little games you are trying to play here. I guess you don't like having to fact the music that your dogma is just that, nothing more than a dogma that cannot be rationally accepted or supported. But keep on with the name calling. I'm sure someone out there is simple minded enough to be convinced simply because you called me an idiot.

 

[koshergrl]

Sigh.

Prove that an embryo isn't a alive, or human. You made the claim, you support it.

I've supported that biologically speaking, using definitions directly from biology online, zygotes and embryos are human and alive. That's the proof you're whining about.

Now since you insist those definitions are lies, you go ahead and prove it. I'm dying to see what you come up with. Find me a definition, or a quote, or a reliable citation, that says that human embryos and zygotes are NOT human, and NOT alive.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh wait, you've switched out on me again..now we're arguing "personhood". Lol..once again, the dishonest baby killers prove their entire justification for killing babies lies in changing the argument, and the parameters of the discussion, in order to hide their ultimate intent...

Which is, of course, to wipe out as many babies as possible, under the auspices of "reproductive health" and "women's rights".

 

[Inthemiddle]

Prove that an embryo isn't a alive, or human. You made the claim, you support it.

Still going in circles, and returning to your previous nonsense that tries to incorrectly deflect the burden of proof. I have no burden to prove such a negative. It is on you to prove that personhood begins at conception for two reasons.

1) You're the one making an affirmative claim. Burden of proof rests on affirmative claims, not on those dismissing them for lack of evidence.

2) You are the one advocating that your personal beliefs be legislated over the rest of society. Nobody here is trying to pass any law that would force you to have an abortion. But you're trying to force other people to honor your own personal beliefs within their own lives.

I've supported that biologically speaking, using definitions directly from biology online, zygotes and embryos are human and alive.

No you haven't.

 

[koshergrl]

No, "personhood" has nothing to do with whether or not a baby is killed during an abortion. "Personhood" is not the definition of human life. It's just another play on words meant to divert the attention from what is happening.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not going to answer any of your silly questions until you can convince me that life does not begin at conception.

This just goes to show the ego-centric attitude behind the anti-abortion movement. There's no reason anyone should have to try to convince you that life doesn't start at conception. If that's what you believe, then fine. Don't have an abortion if that's how you feel about it. But there's not reason to legislate your personal beliefs over the rest of society, when YOU can't scientifically demonstrate your belief to be true.

You weren't arguing about personhood here. You stated that an unborn baby isn't alive, you retard. And you claimed there was no scientific proof otherwise.

I proved you wrong. Which is no great notch on my belt, since it's basic biology even my fourth grader understands.

What is interesting is the way now you are claiming the argument is something other than what it is. We started with you denying "life", and now you have changed the argument to some weird thing about "personhood". I've never argued "personhood". I don't recognize that life is without validity or purpose if "personhood" can't be established.

"Personhood" is not a scientific term, incidentally. It's just more garbled garbage that the left spews to justify killing babies, and to hide their intent...to kill babies, and hopefully, their mothers as well.