RE: Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...
March 17, 2013 at 11:49 am
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2013 at 11:55 am by catfish.)
(March 17, 2013 at 10:52 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, I guess. Whatever. It doesn't alter my main point, which is that cellular life, human or not, does not equal a fully functioning and alive human being. You're trying to add some extra special significance to what's really just a lump of cells like any other in your body, and that's what you can't justify, because that's not basic biology.Your "point" is to deny basic biology by muddling the definition of a human with the legal definition of a person. You are trying to force some additional requirement to the definition of a human (fully functioning). That is not a requirement for basic biology and you know it.
(March 17, 2013 at 10:52 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, I guess. I never said it wasn't. I'm just, quite correctly pointing out that, if you were to take that cellular life and place it outside of the mother's body, it would die. It's not a person. It's a form of human life, but that doesn't make it a living human."Correctly" pointing out? Then I'll correctly point out that if I deprive you of oxygen and nutrients, you would die. That's irrelevant except for you to deny basic biology facts...
(March 17, 2013 at 10:52 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, I guess. It's human life, but just saying that is too vague for the discussion we're having. And you know this. The problem is that your position thrives in emotions and vagueness, rather than in facts, which is why the moment anyone has the audacity to go into their position in greater detail you try to drag us all back into this rudimentary bullshit.It's an individual human life, stop adding adjectives like "basic". You incorrectly equivocate an individual human life with a body part of a separate individual human life. There's no comparison except for size so try again.
So, let's just establish this: the species classification of a human embryo is human. Does this help anyone make their case? No, because it's only human by the most basic definitions of such: genetically it's human, but so's your kidney. Biologically it's human, but so's your hair.
(March 17, 2013 at 10:52 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, I guess. I There's more that goes into a human life than genes and cells, catfish. That's where the divide is; there's something valuable about human lives, but not about their genetics and individual cells.
Bullshit! The "more" that you're claiming is required for "human life" is bullshit as prenatal developement is a requirement for all humans and is a stage of life. Stop trying to change science to suit your comfort level, science does NOT deny facts.
(March 17, 2013 at 11:34 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Right... OK. So you don't think it's a person. That's good. Now, what, in your opinion, is so important about "an individual human lifeform" during its time as a foetus or zygote that you feel entitles it to more rights than its mother?
Really? A loaded question?
What gives you the right to tear the heads off of kittens?
