I've got a bottle of Schnapps and I spent the day volunteering.

Time to get wrecked.

(July 29, 2013 at 9:54 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: I've got a bottle of Schnapps and I spent the day volunteering.

Time to get wrecked.

You got some serious issues besides being a blatant liar, eh?

(July 29, 2013 at 11:07 pm)catfish Wrote: You got some serious issues besides being a blatant liar, eh?

Like you're the one to talk.

Nobody has yet even attempted to justify how a brainless parasite can be considered to have more rights than its host. It's probably just because the foetus might be male and males should always have more rights than any female, right? Fuck letting her live her life, let's ruin the fuck out of that shit.

More irritating still is to see a female take such a view. Internalised sexism is bad, mmkay.

(July 30, 2013 at 4:57 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Nobody has yet even attempted to justify how a brainless parasite can be considered to have more rights than its host. It's probably just because the foetus might be male and males should always have more rights than any female, right? Fuck letting her live her life, let's ruin the fuck out of that shit.

More irritating still is to see a female take such a view. Internalised sexism is bad, mmkay.

No one participating in this thread believes that. Perhaps that's why no one has tried to justify it?

Creed of Heresy Wrote:I've read this thread from front to back TWICE now, Frodo, you haven't provided a single fucking source!

Ok so Frodo is just sidestepping my questions. I take that to meaning he's an intellectual coward who is refusing to let his points actually be challenged. I've asked him to clarify his stance, requested these so-called "scientific sources" THREE TIMES without any kind of answer whatsoever. NOTHING.

fr0d0 quoted a source here:

Quote:Every relevant biology source one can check, whether textbook or online, describes the biological life cycle of Homo sapiens as beginning with the fertilized egg or zygote (Saladin, 2001; Browder, 1991; Moore, 1982; see also “Human” in Wikipedia, specifically the biology section describing the human life cycle).

As for scientific sources that claim human life to begin at conception, I'll list off some for you:

B. Lewin, Genes III (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983), pp. 9-13; A. Emery, Elements of Medical Genetics (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1983), pp. 19, 93.

William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997), pp. 4, 8, 11.

Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994). See also, Bruce M. Carlson, Human Embryology and Developmental Biology (St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994), and Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998).

Clifford Grobstein, "The early development of human embryos," Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1985:10:213-236; and Richard McCormick, "Who or what is the preembryo?" Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1991:1:1-15.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Fetal
awareness: report of a working party. London: RCOG Press, 1997.

Biology of Gestation Volume One - Dr. Louis Fridhandler

“A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.” Encyclopedia Britannica

"...the individual animal begins with the fusion of male and female sex cells (gametes); it grows to reproductive maturity; and it then produces gametes, at which point the cycle begins anew (assuming that fertilization takes place)." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/340084/life-cycle

Browder, Leon W., Carol A. Erickson, and William R. Jeffery. Developmental Biology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Harcourt College Publishing, 1991.

Read more: http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Li...z2aWGe6C8C

http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/p...r11-27.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_devel...biology%29

Quote:This thread is a fuckfest. People keep saying they want only facts and not personal conjecture, forgetting very clearly that there is a philosophical element to the entire discussion which is that of personhood.

What is wrong with demanding facts and sources to support an outright claim in a debate? In this instance, fr0d0 and I have asked for sources from other posters here that claim human life does not begin at conception. No one yet has taken us to task.

Quote:I'm going to lay this out as clearly and simply as I possibly can. I'm at my wit's end trying to get any kind of point across to people who keep clamping their hands over their ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, BABY MURDERER, LALALA!" I am NOT a person given to stubbornly clinging to my points if I am shown to be in error. I've shown that on this forum four separate times, and I do so because I DO follow the evidence.

Thus, we have the claim being parroted by a select few: "Human life begins at conception, and personhood is not a part of this discussion, and I am not interested in personal conjecture, only facts, therefore I am siding with science which states that human life starts at conception!"

Human life begins at conception, yes. Check sources above.

Personhood (and lack of it as pro-abortionists have been arguing) as ethical grounds for abortion, cannot be argued in a debate dealing with strict biological science. Not that I haven't argued my stance on personhood already (including that of sentience and self-awareness, check my replies a few pages back dealing with that), and I welcome discussion about personhood, but the simple fact of the matter is personhood is a philosophical question still hotly debated and is not a direct refutation of the pro-life stance.

This is what I and others have been arguing all along, yet we are the ones stamping our feet and making noise?

Quote:Fuck EVERYONE claiming this shit. According to WHOM is this a solid, indisputable fact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_personhood

Diest Paladin thinks that personhood begins with the brain, as have others stated in this thread. They have claimed this as fact. I have not. Maybe you're arguing with the wrong people.

Quote:This article on wikipedia goes into GREAT detail describing the many viewpoints that conflict in regards to this. Personhood is NOT something so casually discarded except by those with a mind too narrow to look ahead and see the actual complexity of the argument. There are clearly quite a few in this thread who do understand it, and then there's a few who are sticking their heads up their own asses and calling their way the "scientifically-sound" way.

Get your heads out of your butt-puckers. Science does not agree with you any more than it agrees with itself on the matter. It's not so simply black-and-white as you make it out to be and every time I read a post by someone claiming exactly that I want to slap them with the business end of a salmon.

Science does not agree with personhood because it is not a scientific subject.

Science agrees with human biology, embryology and the human life cycle. If you can't understand that, that is your problem, not ours. I have cited sources and I am confident in my position that human life begins at conception.

People who have claimed to the contrary in this thread have not provided scientific sources that suggest otherwise. Who is sticking their head up their asses?

Deist Paladin even suggested that human rights belong to 'people' only, and I have refuted this. Human rights belong to humans. An embryo as it is defined is human.

I see a bunch of grown ass men getting angry and spouting unscientific rhetoric and calling me a stubborn parrot. Well done guys, you have argued your case flawlessly.

Quote:I'm not continuing any further discussions with people who insist on being stubborn jackholes

I agree.

Quote:You mean for your own intents and purposes. Because for OTHER intents and purposes, one could consider it as a form of just letting something...

Wow, so now a brain dead person is a 'something'? Is a brain dead human a human, or not? What is it if not human? Is it a fucking dolphin? Is it a meatsack? I stick to definitions that pertain to human biology because strict medical and scientific definitions of what constitutes human life and non-human life is being intellectually honest.

Go fuck off with your somethings and shit. I have no patience for thoughtless argumentation.

Quote:Seriously, why do you think they have all those machines hooked up to those who are brain-dead? Because those machines are the only things keeping those organs functioning. Narrow-minded claims. "It's still a human" ignores the moral, ethical, and philosophical concerns as well as the scientific point that a human being without a brain will not last on its own.

Did I even say that I thought euthanasia was murder? You have taken "someone could view it as murder" to "I VIEW IT AS MURDER" you piece of shit, and try to explain to me like I am some dumb child that humans can't live without a brain?

So you think that holding the view that euthanasia is not murder takes into account the moral, ethical and philosophical concerns while people who view it as murder do not?

Well fucking done man, you are so good at this!

Quote:A human being is more than just the parts that make it up, we are not just bags of flesh; we are beings capable of independent thought and action and self-sustenance, and if you remove that key element, you are no longer fully human.

Human being, person, personhood, are all variations on the same theme; they all pertain to humans. Because an embryo does not have a brain, and cannot think independently, does not make it 'something', a piece of flesh, a clump of cells, it is a fucking human, end of discussion.

I too am done with this thread. I have tried to have a rational discourse with you lot. Clearly that doesn't work here. Good day.

(July 30, 2013 at 5:11 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 30, 2013 at 4:57 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Nobody has yet even attempted to justify how a brainless parasite can be considered to have more rights than its host. It's probably just because the foetus might be male and males should always have more rights than any female, right? Fuck letting her live her life, let's ruin the fuck out of that shit.

More irritating still is to see a female take such a view. Internalised sexism is bad, mmkay.

No one participating in this thread believes that. Perhaps that's why no one has tried to justify it?

It doesn't have to be said. It's the entire basis of pro-life bullshit.

Yeah Nora, it's all about us women. Us poor little women with our poor little autonomy and our rights. You know, who cares about responsibility and owning up to the consequences of your actions. Who cares about human life. I am really just expressing my repressed misogyny by logically deducing a growing human to have inalienable human rights equal to that of an infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult and elder. We all just hate women and that's the only reason why we have a problem with abortion.

Listen to yourself moron. Do you even bother to read our posts?