[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder You are so wrapped up in your distortions that you are no longer addressing reality. You know quite well that all along I am referring to individual human lives. If you didn't grasp that simple fact, then I severely overestimated your intelligence. Are you one who must have each and every detail explained ad nausem in order to grasp a concept?

You lie even more. Your entire argument has been a conflation of life, human life and personhood. When people try to nail you down you shift from one to the other.

And your attempt to cloud the issue with "personhood" is pointless. The word person, at its root describes the body of a human. If that human is only one cell, then that cell comprises the person. When you attempt to play games with words you inherently become dishonest; and then you call me dishonest.

Now that is funny. I am attempting to "cloud the issue"? When I ask about "human life" you are the one that wants to conflate personhood with a human cell. I am trying to make clear the distinctions and you accuse me of being dishonest. It would be one thing if personhood was not germane to the discussion. This is a very lame and dishonest attempt on your part to exclude from the discussion points that are crucial but completely blow your lame arguments out of the water. It is yet more evidence of how dishonest you are.

An infant can not conceive of itself either, are you saying that newborns are also not persons? The reality is that your argument falls apart if it is not applied in a very specific way and all other reality is ignored. Such is the fate of a falicious argument.

I never said they were not persons. What dishonest tactic are you up to now. What I have said over and over again and what you completely ignore over and over again is that a single cell is not a person. That sometime after conception could the collection of cells be considered as a person. I have made no claims on what that point is but have said that the ruling in Roe v. Wade is fine with me.

Sloppy language? Are you kidding? My language is precice, without conflict, factual, and impervious to reinterpretation. There is not one single sentence in my argument that you can refute. (or at least you haven't so far, nor have any other pro choicers)

The mere fact that you claim such perfection should be enough for anyone to see that you are a lying sack of shit.

Perhaps you would like to try and refute any part of it. It is all basic biology that any 6th grader could understand. I can't, on the other hand, find any fact in your argument at all? Is there any part of your argument that you can substantiate via any scientific text? I have asked before, but you, so far, have failed to deliver. Is this to be a repeat performance?

Your points have nothing to do with biology. Your claim is simple. You want to make a single cell into a human being. We have been over this. Just as a sixth grader knows that a chicken egg is not a chicken they know that a human cell is not a human. A sixth grader knows how to at least count. They know that there must be at least billions of cells present for the possibility of it to be a human being. This is so rudimentary that the only way that it could be possible for you to ignore this blatant fact is if you are deliberately lying.

Unless you are prepared to offer up some fact to reinforce your opinion, I would suggest that you look in the mirror if you are looking for a sack.

Or people could just look at your posts.

And why do pro choicers retreat to death in order to attempt to make a point? I have never been dead. One doesn't have to come alive from the dead in order to be alive. Where would you get such an idea. Do you think that we all somehow come back from the dead in order to be born? Do you think we are dead while in utero? Do you even understand what you are saying any more?

And you claim that you are not conflating life with personhood? In the end this entire abortion conflict boils down to a legal issue. If what is in the womb is a legal person then aborting it would be killing a person and that would be murder. Just saying that it is alive or even that it has human life is not enough since in surgery we remove parts of humans that are living human cells and kill those parts all the time. We do this because the parts removed are not considered to be persons. So there is no legal problem with doing it. Unless you are going to tell me that the cells removed were not human life the mere presence of human life is not sufficient to say it is a human being.

I can trace my existence...my life, back to a singular moment in time, and if you understood basic biology, you could trace yours as well. The fact that you can't doesn't in any way change the line of your life. At the moment that the half set of chromosomes that were contributed by my father's sperm and the half set of chromosomes contributed by my mother's egg combined, they both ceased to exist and something new was created. Their potential was realized. The moment is called conception. I became, at that very moment a new individual; unique, alive, and my life has continued, unbroken until this very moment.

You keep saying this as if you actually understood something about biology. Okay dental biologist, when twins are born or triplets or quintuplets or quadruplets and so on, how many people exist at conception? They all came from the same genetic information are they all the same person? Is a single twin half a person? Is a single triplet one third of a person? Gee, how do they trace their human life back to that moment? Or are you indeed conflating life, human life and personhood?

I am sorry that you can't form a coherent argument to defeat me. I am sorry that you are frustrated to the point of incoherence If you were dealing in fact, perhaps you could, but then if you were dealing in fact, you would be making the same argument as I.

Oh great and perfect Rider. You are so perfect. Everyone should think that you are right because you so perfect. You make me want to vomit.

So do you have any actual science to bolster your position?

I keep posting it and you keep ignoring it. Most of it is common knowledge but you just ignore it and conflate terms so that you can repeat your mantra that "human life begins at conception".

The whole abortion issue is a human rights issue and unless you are able to somehow prove that the offspring of two humans is anything other than human, even at its earliest stages, you are doomed to lose the argument.

Now you change your mind? It is not a matter of science? It is a human rights issue? And then you do your conflation yet again. No one is saying that what is in the womb is not human. As usual you use the term human and conflate it with personhood. A single human cell is a human cell. You can call it human because that is the kind of cell it is. It is not a canine cell or an elephant cell, it is a human cell. But, it is not a human being. It is just a cell. At conception all you get is a human cell. It will take some time later before what results from that cell could be considered a human being. Nobody thinks a chicken egg is a chicken. Even sixth graders know this. But Christian anti-abortion dentists are clueless.

Starboy