Is a Human Zygote an Organism?

[palerider]

As pointed out repeatedly before - my skin cells have human DNA in them. They're not a human organism.

I am starting to think that all of this really is way over your head. Which part of your skin cells are part of a larger system...and a zygote is the system is it that you are having trouble with. The concept seems crystal clear and quite simple to me...what is it that is giving you so much trouble....any cell that belongs to a human is a human cell but it is part of a larger system...a zygote doesn't belong to any larger system...it is the system...the system at its most immature, but the system none the less. How hard can that be to grasp?

It seems you're confusing "DNA when used to identify the species the DNA comes from" with "DNA when used to identify if something is an organism or not". The former is legitimate objective science - whereas the latter is what you are arguing for, despite its falsity.

The only one confused here is you...either you won't grasp the obvious because you can't bring yourself to admit that you are wrong...or this whole topic is waaaaaaaaayyyyy over your head. Which is it?

 

[palerider]

Again, what is YOUR definition of a human being?

The definition that Pale Rider gave me could include human skin cells too.

So now you are going to lie? One would have to either be pretty dense, or a deliberate liar to either think that my argument would make skin cells human beings or claim the same. Was there something there that would make you think a skin cell was a member of some particular species? Anyone with their head screwed on right would see a skin cell as a cell belonging to a member of a species....not a member of the species itself.

This specific definition could also apply to human skin cells too. Heck, it could apply to human hair. So his definition does not work. Can you provide a more better one?

Only if the topic is way over your head....or you are arguing with an agenda in mind and are wiling to overlook fact and fabricate your opponent's argument in an effort to win....Is that what you are doing?

I

 

[palerider]

This is what I am talking about. We need a definition of human being that does not also include human skin cells.

Are you really this stupid? Tell me now if you are and I will move on as talking to you is a waste of time. If you are that far behind the curve, then it will be decades before you can study enough to have even a basic grasp of the subject.

The definition I gave of a human being was : A member of the species Homo sapiens

So which part of that can you possibly construe to make hair or skin cells human beings? Maybe you don't grasp the meaning of member in context...could that be it? member:
any individual plant or animal in at a taxonomic group...does that clarify for you? maybe it is the word species that is giving you problems?.....species:
the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble o ne another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.....let me guess...you think skin cells can breed independently with skin cells from other human beings.

A human skin cells DNA would certainly identify it as being human. And it does exist in reality.

Yes, a skin cell does exist in reality...but is it a member of species homo sapiens? Really? I started out with a measure of respect for you....that has quickly evaporated. You are quickly becoming just another lying, disingenous pro lifer willing to say anything if you think it will get someone on board with you. Congratulations.

So is a human skin cell really a human being according to the definition that you guys provided me?

Are you 10? Do you really believe that statement? Do you really believe that a skin cell could, by any stretch of the imagination be considered a member of a species?

 

[palerider]

The definition quoted clearly referred to a complete and functioning being. It was not referring to just one component.

He is just another lying pro lifer unable to face the fact that his argument is a failure because it is not backed up by science....he is willing to lie, fabricate, distort, misrepresent, misstate, and or misinterpret whatever comes his way in order to not have to admit that he has lost the argument. Next he will start to ask why ad nauseum like a 5 year old. I don't really have time to talk to such people...more power to you if you do.

It does't take much effort to tell what sort of person you are talking to in this sort of conversation....when they can't win the argument based on facts, and start misrepresenting your own argument to you as if that were not laced with logical error, you know pretty quickly what sort of person they are. At this point, he is little better than a troll...not adding anything to the discussion...just swirling mud in the hopes that some later reader won't see how soundly is argument has been defeated. Pointless stupidity...the worst kind of stupidity if you ask me.

 

[palerider]

Correction: Lying pro choicer.

 

[fedor50]

Correction: Lying pro choicer.

Alright Pale Rider, I admit you have me beat on your scientific arguments. I admit it, I cannot compete with your scientific arguments. But I have ONE simple question: Do you believe a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if she is RAPED?

Remember, in this scenario, her actions did not cause her to become pregnant. Do you at least allow women who are RAPED to have an abortion? Are you willing to make any sort of compromise? Or is it just your way or the highway?

 

[palerider]

Alright Pale Rider, I admit you have me beat on your scientific arguments. I admit it, I cannot compete with your scientific arguments. But I have ONE simple question: Do you believe a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if she is RAPED?

Do you believe you should be executed for the crimes of your father?...especially if his was a non capital crime? I don't think she should be forced to keep the child or raise it, but no, I don't think that there is a rational argument for killing one person for the crime of another.

I can only guess that you are going to make some emotional appeal at this point rather than attempt to make a rational argument in favor of killing one human being for the crime of another when the one who committed the crime is not subject to death even if he is apprehended.

Of what value are emotional arguments? Emotion is absolutely the worst way to process information....rarely, if ever are sound decisions based on emotional responses.

 

[fedor50]

Do you believe you should be executed for the crimes of your father?...especially if his was a non capital crime? I don't think she should be forced to keep the child or raise it, but no, I don't think that there is a rational argument for killing one person for the crime of another.

I predicted you would answer the question in this way. So here is a question. Consider the following scenario:

As the result of an aggressive act by a third party, one person finds themselves with a second person biologically dependent on them for approximately nine months, such that the two cannot be separated without the second person's death. As a consequence of this dependence, the first person finds their bodily functions used by the second person, which obviously has a partially debilitating effect on the first person's health and general wellbeing. Furthermore, there is also the risk that the first person will be permanently physically damaged or even die, if the connection is allowed to continue for the full nine months.

Should the first person have the legal right to remove their connection to the second person, even though doing so will result in the second person's death? Note that only a simple 'yes'/'no' answer is required, although feel free to justify it if you can.

(This is a reference to the violinist analogy, phrased such that it is obviously an analogy to pregnancy by rape)

I can only guess that you are going to make some emotional appeal at this point rather than attempt to make a rational argument in favor of killing one human being for the crime of another when the one who committed the crime is not subject to death even if he is apprehended.

Were about to find out what happens when YOU are the one placed in a similar situation. Will you suddenly find yourself making emotional appeals or rational ones?

Of what value are emotional arguments? Emotion is absolutely the worst way to process information....rarely, if ever are sound decisions based on emotional responses.

I am trying out determine whether or not you are consistent. Consistency is the only thing that I personally value.

 

[palerider]

I predicted you would answer the question in this way. So here is a question. Consider the following scenario:

As the result of an aggressive act by a third party, one person finds themselves with a second person biologically dependent on them for approximately nine months, such that the two cannot be separated without the second person's death. As a consequence of this dependence, the first person finds their bodily functions used by the second person, which obviously has a partially debilitating effect on the first person's health and general wellbeing. Furthermore, there is also the risk that the first person will be permanently physically damaged or even die, if the connection is allowed to continue for the full nine months.

"Particularly debilitating" is an appeal to emotion....women continue on with their lives till the time of delivery for the most part these days....fragile females who were debilitated by pregnancy pretty much went out with the "vapors"....and do you not differentiate between debilitation and death?

Should the first person have the legal right to remove their connection to the second person, even though doing so will result in the second person's death? Note that only a simple 'yes'/'no' answer is required, although feel free to justify it if you can.

Since there is only one situation in which such a scenario can actually happen in the real world, it is pointless to try and make fantasy scenarios....you should look to real world analogies in which one person's life depends upon use of another's property....suppose someone knocks you on the head and puts you aboard a ship or airplane...you are then discovered in the plane or ship...a stow away through no fault of your own...the captain of the ship or plane is obligated to let you finish the ride and then deal with you....you can not simply be tossed overboard to die.

Further....the closest one can analogize pregnancy to real life is in the case of conjoined twins in which one can not live with the other...in such cases, they may only be separated if the weaker dependent twin represents an imminent threat to his or her sibling's life. The twin who possesses the good heart, or the viable kidneys may not simply have his or her sibling disconnected to die.

(This is a reference to the violinist analogy, phrased such that it is obviously an analogy to pregnancy by rape)

Today, if you found yourself plugged into the violinist, technology exists that would allow him to be unplugged. He could be permanently attached to a dialysis machine as easily as being permanently attached to you. Inconvenient yes, but still living. Abortion is not about unplugging one individual from another...it is about killing one for the convenience of another. When technology exists by which the child could be removed and not killed and allowed to continue on till such time as life outside was possible, then by all means, the woman should be allowed to opt for moving the child to another place. Large difference between deliberately killing the child. The violinist analogy fails because unplugging the violinist is different from killing him then removing him from your body.

You might also consider that while your kidney could possibly extract toxins from another's blood, it wasn't designed for such use....the woman's reproductive system, however, is designed for precisely the task of gestating a child.

Then there is the fact that the pregnancy in the case of the rape is not the violent act...the rape is while in the violinists case, the attachment is the violent act. Removing the violinist from your body restores you to the status quo...that is, it reverses the effect of having him attached to you in the first place and rectifies the violent act done to you. Killing the child in the case of rape does not return the woman to her previous status quo...it does not leave her un raped.....it is nothing more than killing a child because a man committed a violent act upon her and does nothing to undo the violent act itself.

No matter how you try, the fact remains that a child is being killed for the crimes of its father and no rational argument can be made for such a situation.

I am trying out determine whether or not you are consistent. Consistency is the only thing that I personally value.

I am consistent....you, on the other hand are not consistent and do not value consistency...if you did, you would be of the pro life position and not expend so much energy trying to get around your subconscious aversion to abortion. You lie to yourself and anyone who will listen in an effort to get them to join you in your self deception. That is hardly the act of someone who is consistent or who values consistancy.

 

[fedor50]

Today, if you found yourself plugged into the violinist, technology exists that would allow him to be unplugged. He could be permanently attached to a dialysis machine as easily as being permanently attached to you. Inconvenient yes, but still living.

In the violinist scenario, we are assuming that no such technology exists that would allow you to unplug him from you without killing him. Similar to a pregnancy.

The violinist analogy fails because unplugging the violinist is different from killing him then removing him from your body.

This is your inconsistency. You term removing yourself from the violinist (when you were not responsible for the attachment) to be 'justifiable self defense', but you term removing a woman from a fetus (when she is not responsible for the attachment) to be 'unjustifiable homicide'. There is no distinguishing difference from one to the other, but you are giving different responses to both.

Then there is the fact that the pregnancy in the case of the rape is not the violent act...the rape is while in the violinists case, the attachment is the violent act. Removing the violinist from your body restores you to the status quo...that is, it reverses the effect of having him attached to you in the first place and rectifies the violent act done to you. Killing the child in the case of rape does not return the woman to her previous status quo...it does not leave her un raped.....it is nothing more than killing a child because a man committed a violent act upon her and does nothing to undo the violent act itself.

Carrying out an action which directly causes a death is killing. Unplugging a life support machine directly causes death; even if YOU are the 'power source' that is being unplugged from.

No matter how you try, the fact remains that a child is being killed for the crimes of its father and no rational argument can be made for such a situation.

A fetus cannot survive being removed from the woman's body. An abortion is the separation of a fetus from a woman's body, not the killing of the fetus.

...is consistent with

"The violinist cannot survive being separated from you. You are separating your body from that of the violinist, not killing them".

I'm just being consistent with the arguments you have stated. That you don't think the conclusions makes sense just shows that your arguments are flawed.

I am consistent....you, on the other hand are not consistent and do not value consistency...if you did, you would be of the pro life position and not expend so much energy trying to get around your subconscious aversion to abortion. You lie to yourself and anyone who will listen in an effort to get them to join you in your self deception. That is hardly the act of someone who is consistent or who values consistancy.

You said and I quote:

Abortion is not about unplugging one individual from another...it is about killing one for the convenience of another.

Here, on the other hand, you have stated that you are perfectly happy to separate yourself from the violinist and kill him.

Here is exactly what you said:

Removing the violinist from your body restores you to the status quo...that is, it reverses the effect of having him attached to you in the first place and rectifies the violent act done to you.

So on the one hand you don't believe that a woman should be allowed to unplug herself from a fetus and cause its death but you do believe that you should be allowed to unplug yourself from the violinist and cause his death.

The two do not add up.

Remember Pale Rider, consistency is the only thing that I personally value and so far you have show yourself not to be a very consistent person.

 

[palerider]

In the violinist scenario, we are assuming that no such technology exists that would allow you to unplug him from you without killing him. Similar to a pregnancy.

Your whole argument is based on assumptions...most of them wrong.

This is your inconsistency. You term removing yourself from the violinist (when you were not responsible for the attachment) to be 'justifiable self defense', but you term removing a woman from a fetus (when she is not responsible for the attachment) to be 'unjustifiable homicide'. There is no distinguishing difference from one to the other, but you are giving different responses to both.

Again, making up my argument for me does not make it my argument. Either you can argue against what I said, or you can't. I am not going to argue against a rebuttal to an argument that I didn't make.

Carrying out an action which directly causes a death is killing. Unplugging a life support machine directly causes death; even if YOU are the 'power source' that is being unplugged from.

There is a profound difference between letting someone die and killing them. I am not surprised that you fail to make that differentiation, but the fact that that there is a vast difference remains. You have entirely abandoned logic in favor of lying to yourself, and anyone who will listen to you.

A fetus cannot survive being removed from the woman's body. An abortion is the separation of a fetus from a woman's body, not the killing of the fetus.

Clearly you are not aware of the abortion procedure. Familiarize yourself with it. When a later term child survives abortion, they don't say survived for no reason...abortion is in fact, killing the child first either by dismembering it or by killing it with caustic solutions...ie chemically burning it to death.

"The violinist cannot survive being separated from you. You are separating your body from that of the violinist, not killing them".

Again, failure to differentiate a difference between letting someone die who is hopelessly damaged and deliberately killing.

I'm just being consistent with the arguments you have stated. That you don't think the conclusions makes sense just shows that your arguments are flawed.

No you aren't...you are exhibiting the same logical failures and fundamental dishonesty that you have plied since the beginning of this discussion.

Here, on the other hand, you have stated that you are perfectly happy to separate yourself from the violinist and kill him.

Again, you are making up an argument to rail against....I clearly stated that technology exists that would allow the violinist to be separated from me and not die....it is your flawed assumption that he must die if not connected to me.

So on the one hand you don't believe that a woman should be allowed to unplug herself from a fetus and cause its death but you do believe that you should be allowed to unplug yourself from the violinist and cause his death.

She is not unplugging anything...she is killing the child. And the argument is always going to come back to the fact that the violinist is hopelessly damaged....there is a difference between letting someone die and killing them...you have a right to live...you do not have a right to endless extraordinary measures being taken on your part to keep you alive even though you are hopelessly damaged.

Every analogy on your part fails the logic test...you ignore everything except your emotion and it leads you further and further away from rationality.

two do not add up.

Because you are not rational. Do you believe that your right to live includes endless extraordinary measures taken on your behalf when there is no hope that you will eventually be able to function on your own? Do you believe that a person who is so profoundly damaged that they can not and will not be able to EVER survive on their own is a rational analogy to an unborn child?

Remember Pale Rider, consistency is the only thing that I personally value and so far you have show yourself not to be a very consistent person.

But like everything else you say, it is a lie. You do not value consistency...you apparently value failed logic and dishonesty since those are the only two qualities you exhibit. My position is rational and meets every test put to it...yours on the other hand does not. You make wild leaps and assumptions. In order for your position to be consistent a mortally injured person living on life support with no hope of ever recovering from the injury must be the same as an unborn child progressing along in its development. If the two things were the same, then you would be consistent...they are not, therefore you are not consistent and have failed your own stated goal of being consistent.

The child's situation is far more closely related to that of a conjoined twin (temporarily at least), and a conjoined twin who is unable to survive on their own can not be simply removed from his or her sibling who is supporting them unless they represent an imminent threat to the sibling who might survive on his own. The laws are quite clear on the issue and you never hear of two conjoined twins being separated where one is sure to die unless the weakness of one is going to kill both.

It is clear that you don't even have a grasp of what consistency is and fail to recognize inconsistency in yourself and therefore are not likely to recognize consistancy in others. A consistent position is one that passes the logic test for anything put to it...your failed analogies, and wild assumptions are not logical in the first place and certainly don't pass any logic test applied to them.

 

[fedor50]

Your whole argument is based on assumptions...most of them wrong.

Assumptions? Really Pale Rider? My arguments are based off of assumptions?

Here is what I explicitly stated in my scenario:

As the result of an aggressive act by a third party, one person finds themselves with a second person biologically dependent on them for approximately nine months, such that the two cannot be separated without the second person's death.

So now, who again is basing their arguments off of assumptions?

There is a profound difference between letting someone die and killing them. I am not surprised that you fail to make that differentiation, but the fact that that there is a vast difference remains. You have entirely abandoned logic in favor of lying to yourself, and anyone who will listen to you.

Removing yourself from the contraption is killing the violinist. Remember what I said:

As the result of an aggressive act by a third party, one person finds themselves with a second person biologically dependent on them for approximately nine months, such that the two cannot be separated without the second person's death.

The violinist is only dependent on you for nine months. Removing yourself from the contraption is killing him. If you had not acted, he would not have died. This means that your actions directly caused his death.

Again, failure to differentiate a difference between letting someone die who is hopelessly damaged and deliberately killing.

Actually I explicitly stated at the beginning that the violinist would only be biologically dependent on you for 9 months.

Either you know that my analogy is solid and you are desperately trying to avoid it... or you have a reading comprehension problem.

Which bad option would you like?

Again, you are making up an argument to rail against....I clearly stated that technology exists that would allow the violinist to be separated from me and not die....it is your flawed assumption that he must die if not connected to me.

In this scenario, no such technology or option exists. Either you stay connected to the violinist for 9 months and allow him to live or you unplug yourself from the violinist and kill him.

She is not unplugging anything...she is killing the child. And the argument is always going to come back to the fact that the violinist is hopelessly damaged....there is a difference between letting someone die and killing them...you have a right to live...you do not have a right to endless extraordinary measures being taken on your part to keep you alive even though you are hopelessly damaged.

The violinist being hopelessly damaged is YOUR argument. In my scenario he must only remained biologically attached to you for 9 months.

And again, unplugging yourself from the violinist is killing him. Your actions led directly to his death; that is, if you had not taken those actions (unplugging yourself), he would not have died. YOU killed him.

But like everything else you say, it is a lie. You do not value consistency...you apparently value failed logic and dishonesty since those are the only two qualities you exhibit. My position is rational and meets every test put to it...yours on the other hand does not. You make wild leaps and assumptions. In order for your position to be consistent a mortally injured person living on life support with no hope of ever recovering from the injury must be the same as an unborn child progressing along in its development. If the two things were the same, then you would be consistent...they are not, therefore you are not consistent and have failed your own stated goal of being consistent.

Again I am the consistent one and you are not. I never said that the violinist has no chance of EVER recovering. YOU said that.

Of course, we BOTH know why. Because my analogy is solid. In a pregnancy, the unborn is biologically dependent on the woman for 9 months. In the violinist scenario, he is biologically dependent on YOU for 9 months.

So how about you actually answer the question now instead of continuously try to avoid it?

Would you allow the violinist to remain biologically attached to you for 9 months in order to save his life?

The child's situation is far more closely related to that of a conjoined twin (temporarily at least), and a conjoined twin who is unable to survive on their own can not be simply removed from his or her sibling who is supporting them unless they represent an imminent threat to the sibling who might survive on his own. The laws are quite clear on the issue and you never hear of two conjoined twins being separated where one is sure to die unless the weakness of one is going to kill both.

Show me the laws or statues that prevents the separation of conjoined twins or retract your statement.

In fact, last I checked there is actually NO law that stops the separation of conjoined twins if it is desired.

It is clear that you don't even have a grasp of what consistency is and fail to recognize inconsistency in yourself and therefore are not likely to recognize consistancy in others. A consistent position is one that passes the logic test for anything put to it...your failed analogies, and wild assumptions are not logical in the first place and certainly don't pass any logic test applied to them.

I am still trying to determine whether or not you are really a consistent person. I guess only time will tell...

 

[palerider]

Assumptions? Really Pale Rider? My arguments are based off of assumptions?

Of course they are...assumptions, deceptions, dishonesty, and outright fabrications.

So now, who again is basing their arguments off of assumptions?

You are...your argument is a logical fallacy...appeal to emotion. You can not escape from the fact that the violinist was terminal when he was attached to you...he was at the end of his life and you are no more than life support. Again, you have a right to live, but no right to extraordinary measures (life support) being taken indefinitely on your behalf. In your emotional appeal, you consistently miss that fact. You fail to differentiate the difference between a terminal patient at the end of his life and a healthy patient just beginning his life.

Removing yourself from the contraption is killing the violinist. Remember what I said:

I remember what you said...and I pointed out that it was not true...big surprise. A terminal disease shutting down the violinists kidneys is what is killing him. Were he on a kidney machine rather than attached to me, he still would not be entitled to live indefinitely on the machine nor could he. People die waiting for kidneys because the kidneys are just the tip of the iceberg....failing kidneys, even with dialysis result in further system breakdowns. When your kidneys fail, you are terminal without a transplant. Now are you going to try and argue that it is also right to kill someone with healthy kidneys to allow the violinist to continue living?

Till you can separate yourself from the emotion this issue brings out in you, and logically think through the arguments, you are going to be trapped in an endless litany of logical fallacy. There is a difference between letting a terminal patient die and killing a healthy human being.

The violinist is only dependent on you for nine months. Removing yourself from the contraption is killing him. If you had not acted, he would not have died. This means that your actions directly caused his death.

Again, you are assuming that being connected to me is the only alternative for the violinist...more assumptions. And again, even if I remove myself from him, it is not me who is killing him, it is his terminal disease that is killing him. Failure to recognize the facts does not alter the facts. I am sure that frustrates you eliciting even more emotion which will prompt you to argue this logical fallacy even more fervently.

Actually I explicitly stated at the beginning that the violinist would only be biologically dependent on you for 9 months.

You explicitly stated your fantasy....nothing more. A fantasy which is not applicable in the real world in which we live. The violinist analogy is a logical fallacy from the get go but is is the best that the pro choicers can come up with....if you want to look at a real world analogy you must look at conjoined twins...they actually exist as contrasted to your violinist fallacy...and their situation demonstrates that the pro choice argument fails.

Either you know that my analogy is solid and you are desperately trying to avoid it... or you have a reading comprehension problem.

Your analogy is a fantasy, not applicable to the actual world. Emotionally you can not see this. Your frustration over its failure is leading you into suggesting that I have a reading comprehension problem when this clearly isn't the case. The difference between you and I is that I am able to rationally examine the topic free of the conflicting emotions raging within you...

Which bad option would you like?

Neither because neither is true. I prefer the actual answer which is that your analogy is fantasy and doesn't work in the real world. If you want to argue biological connections and the right of one to live at the expense of the other's life, why analogize at all when there are actual people living today with another person biologically dependent upon them other than pregnant women. Argue that a conjoined twin can cut his dependent sibling off and let him die. Make the argument.. It is a loser to, but at least you would not be arguing from a point of fantasy.

In this scenario, no such technology or option exists. Either you stay connected to the violinist for 9 months and allow him to live or you unplug yourself from the violinist and kill him.

Can you not see that your position is based on fantasy? Can you not see that it is the violinists kidney desease that is killing him? Can you not differentiate between an ailment killing a person and dismembering, or chemically burning a person to death? One is actual killing, the other is dying from natural causes. You are so rooted in fantasy that you can't bring yourself to accept reality.

The violinist being hopelessly damaged is YOUR argument. In my scenario he must only remained biologically attached to you for 9 months.

In your fantasy, the fact is that the violinist is dying...It is not my argument...I am merely pointing out the fatal flaw in your argument...the flaw that removes it from the realm of the pro choice argument.

And again, unplugging yourself from the violinist is killing him. Your actions led directly to his death; that is, if you had not taken those actions (unplugging yourself), he would not have died. YOU killed him.

No...his failing kidneys kill him. He is the product of fantasy and your inability to see that his kidneys are the result of his death only highlights your inconsistency. You can't see the facts because you are emotionally tied to what you want to believe. No matter how many times you claim that I am killing him, the fact remains that his kidneys are killing him...and the fact that your fantasy is disconnected from reality.

Again I am the consistent one and you are not. I never said that the violinist has no chance of EVER recovering. YOU said that.

Saying it doesn't make it so. You are all over the place...you admit that scientifically you can't win so you introduce a fantasy based on an appeal to emotion and not connected to the real world or real situations....and you claim that you are consistent? Well, I will concede that you are consistently wrong....Ill give you that.

Of course, we BOTH know why. Because my analogy is solid. In a pregnancy, the unborn is biologically dependent on the woman for 9 months. In the violinist scenario, he is biologically dependent on YOU for 9 months.

Your analogy is idiotic....it is fantasy not rooted in anything real. If you want a solid analogy...then analogize conjoined twins...people who actually exist...people who actually depend on a biological connection to another human being for their very lives....analogize something real if you must analogize. We both know you won't do that though because you know that argument would fail on its face.

So how about you actually answer the question now instead of continuously try to avoid it?

Show me the laws or statues that prevents the separation of conjoined twins or retract your statement.

They are called homicide laws. You want to prove me wrong...then show me an instance of conjoined twins being separated where one is sure to die when they were both healthy and no imminent threat was present to the life of either.

In fact, last I checked there is actually NO law that stops the separation of conjoined twins if it is desired.

Homicide...the same law that stops you from killing your neighbor because he is inconvenient to you...Of course you could kill him but then you would be in the same cell as the doctor who separated twins allowing one to die when no imminent threat to either was present....when conjoined twins are separated, even when both are likely to die, boards consisting of both doctors and lawyers make the medical decisions...lawyers are heavily present to avoid doctors being charged in homicide when one dies. You really aren't very well connected with reality are you?

I am still trying to determine whether or not you are really a consistent person. I guess only time will tell...

You don't know the meaning of the word...and certainly don't exhibit any consistent quality other than being consistently disconnected from reality. This is because if you face reality, you must face that you favor allowing one human being to kill another for reasons that rarely amount to more than convenience...a position that you can't bear to admit. It is an internal conflict that is the very definition of inconsistent.

 

[fedor50]

Of course they are...assumptions, deceptions, dishonesty, and outright fabrications.



You are...your argument is a logical fallacy...appeal to emotion. You can not escape from the fact that the violinist was terminal when he was attached to you...he was at the end of his life and you are no more than life support. Again, you have a right to live, but no right to extraordinary measures (life support) being taken indefinitely on your behalf. In your emotional appeal, you consistently miss that fact. You fail to differentiate the difference between a terminal patient at the end of his life and a healthy patient just beginning his life.



I remember what you said...and I pointed out that it was not true...big surprise. A terminal disease shutting down the violinists kidneys is what is killing him. Were he on a kidney machine rather than attached to me, he still would not be entitled to live indefinitely on the machine nor could he. People die waiting for kidneys because the kidneys are just the tip of the iceberg....failing kidneys, even with dialysis result in further system breakdowns. When your kidneys fail, you are terminal without a transplant. Now are you going to try and argue that it is also right to kill someone with healthy kidneys to allow the violinist to continue living?

Till you can separate yourself from the emotion this issue brings out in you, and logically think through the arguments, you are going to be trapped in an endless litany of logical fallacy. There is a difference between letting a terminal patient die and killing a healthy human being.



Again, you are assuming that being connected to me is the only alternative for the violinist...more assumptions. And again, even if I remove myself from him, it is not me who is killing him, it is his terminal disease that is killing him. Failure to recognize the facts does not alter the facts. I am sure that frustrates you eliciting even more emotion which will prompt you to argue this logical fallacy even more fervently.



You explicitly stated your fantasy....nothing more. A fantasy which is not applicable in the real world in which we live. The violinist analogy is a logical fallacy from the get go but is is the best that the pro choicers can come up with....if you want to look at a real world analogy you must look at conjoined twins...they actually exist as contrasted to your violinist fallacy...and their situation demonstrates that the pro choice argument fails.



Your analogy is a fantasy, not applicable to the actual world. Emotionally you can not see this. Your frustration over its failure is leading you into suggesting that I have a reading comprehension problem when this clearly isn't the case. The difference between you and I is that I am able to rationally examine the topic free of the conflicting emotions raging within you...



Neither because neither is true. I prefer the actual answer which is that your analogy is fantasy and doesn't work in the real world. If you want to argue biological connections and the right of one to live at the expense of the other's life, why analogize at all when there are actual people living today with another person biologically dependent upon them other than pregnant women. Argue that a conjoined twin can cut his dependent sibling off and let him die. Make the argument.. It is a loser to, but at least you would not be arguing from a point of fantasy.



Can you not see that your position is based on fantasy? Can you not see that it is the violinists kidney desease that is killing him? Can you not differentiate between an ailment killing a person and dismembering, or chemically burning a person to death? One is actual killing, the other is dying from natural causes. You are so rooted in fantasy that you can't bring yourself to accept reality.



In your fantasy, the fact is that the violinist is dying...It is not my argument...I am merely pointing out the fatal flaw in your argument...the flaw that removes it from the realm of the pro choice argument.



No...his failing kidneys kill him. He is the product of fantasy and your inability to see that his kidneys are the result of his death only highlights your inconsistency. You can't see the facts because you are emotionally tied to what you want to believe. No matter how many times you claim that I am killing him, the fact remains that his kidneys are killing him...and the fact that your fantasy is disconnected from reality.



Saying it doesn't make it so. You are all over the place...you admit that scientifically you can't win so you introduce a fantasy based on an appeal to emotion and not connected to the real world or real situations....and you claim that you are consistent? Well, I will concede that you are consistently wrong....Ill give you that.



Your analogy is idiotic....it is fantasy not rooted in anything real. If you want a solid analogy...then analogize conjoined twins...people who actually exist...people who actually depend on a biological connection to another human being for their very lives....analogize something real if you must analogize. We both know you won't do that though because you know that argument would fail on its face.

So how about you actually answer the question now instead of continuously try to avoid it?



They are called homicide laws. You want to prove me wrong...then show me an instance of conjoined twins being separated where one is sure to die when they were both healthy and no imminent threat was present to the life of either.



Homicide...the same law that stops you from killing your neighbor because he is inconvenient to you...Of course you could kill him but then you would be in the same cell as the doctor who separated twins allowing one to die when no imminent threat to either was present....when conjoined twins are separated, even when both are likely to die, boards consisting of both doctors and lawyers make the medical decisions...lawyers are heavily present to avoid doctors being charged in homicide when one dies. You really aren't very well connected with reality are you?



You don't know the meaning of the word...and certainly don't exhibit any consistent quality other than being consistently disconnected from reality. This is because if you face reality, you must face that you favor allowing one human being to kill another for reasons that rarely amount to more than convenience...a position that you can't bear to admit. It is an internal conflict that is the very definition of inconsistent.

Pale Rider, I do not have a rebuttal or counter argument to your response above. You win that point, I will give you that. You are correct, the violinist is already badly injured which makes it a poor analogy to a pregnancy. However earlier in the discussion, you said THIS:

Of course it is an organism...or are you going to argue that it is not capable of growth

Not only can I argue that a zygote is not capable of growth, I can actually PROVE IT...

Strictly speaking, zygotes do not grow until implantation (cleavage =/= growth; the zygote gains more cells but all those cells combined are no bigger than the zygote already was), and the Zygote as a whole is not capable of maintaining homeostasis until viability

If we are arguing cold hard science, growth is an increase in the size of an organism. Once a zygote has implanted, it does indeed grow - the new cells increase in size, etc. However, before that point the zygote gets no larger - it splits into several smaller cells, that's all.

 

[palerider]

Pale Rider, I do not have a rebuttal or counter argument to your response above. You win that point, I will give you that. You are correct, the violinist is already badly injured which makes it a poor analogy to a pregnancy. However earlier in the discussion, you said THIS:

Why can't you grasp the fact that any discussion of zygotes is pointless in the discussion of abortion. They are not being aborted...even by the morning after pill. If we were discussing a society that murdered 3 year olds, would discussing the relative development between 2 year olds and 3 year olds be important? Do 2 year olds even have a place in the discussion if they are not in danger?

Red Herring Fallacy:
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Zygotes are not aborted...even by the morning after pill...The are not relevant to either the pro life position, or the topic of abortion.

You keep harping on zygotes.

No, you keep harping on zygotes...I keep pointing out that they are irrelevant to the pro choice argument or the topic of abortion.

Strictly speaking, zygotes do not grow until implantation (cleavage =/= growth; the zygote gains more cells but all those cells combined are no bigger than the zygote already was), and the Zygote as a whole is not capable of maintaining homeostasis until viability

So are you going to argue that growth is the only factor that constitutes development? Development is the topic you know? You are just chock full of misunderstandings aren't you?

If we are arguing cold hard science, growth is an increase in the size of an organism. Once a zygote has implanted, it does indeed grow - the new cells increase in size, etc. However, before that point the zygote gets no larger - it splits into several smaller cells, that's all.

We aren't...you are. I am, and have been saying human development all along...You are the one that zeros in on one part of a definition as if that one part constituted all that the defintion has to say. When I talk about human development...I say human development because narrowing it down to something as specific as growth would not even come close to explaining the process. The unborn is much more highly developed when it implants into the uterus than it was as a zygote...in the abortion discussion, you are killing a much more developed being once it enters the uterus than you would if you killed a zygote...in either instance you are killing a human being.[/QUOTE]