Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...

[catfish]

It figures you would try assigning the legal definition of a person to "cells". Think deeper next time...

Shit. The list of things you don't understand just gets longer and longer. *Adds stem cells to list*

And aren't aren't you the one who's been arguing that a bunch of "cells" is a person for the last few days? Isn't that your entire point in this thread?

To quote you:
"WHAT SPECIES IS IT?"

You people...
No, you and other have been the ones to assign the claim of "person", not me. I've been saying over and over again "an individual human lifeform". (created at conception) How fucking hard is that to see?

---

So... no, I'd say that human life doesn't begin at conception...

^^^^^ This is denial of basic scientific facts.

[Esquilax]

I don't know if you're intentionally doing this or what... At conception, the sperm and egg combine to create a new human lifeform. Basic biology, I'm not "defining" it, science is. It is not equivelant to a hair, a sperm, an egg or a fucking fish. It's human and has it's own unique human DNA.

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.

Again, you're assigning adjectives to something which you use to deny what you wrote below. You're concerned with appearances to establish species classification. The "body" starts as a single cell and is "alive" at conception. This is basic biology man, embrace it.

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.

And this is what is funny. You say this and think you can be right?
If those "certain metrics" say that life itself starts, WHAT FUCKING SPECIES IS IT?!?!?!

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.

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.

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.

[NoraBrimstone]

Shit. The list of things you don't understand just gets longer and longer. *Adds stem cells to list*

And aren't aren't you the one who's been arguing that a bunch of "cells" is a person for the last few days? Isn't that your entire point in this thread?

To quote you:
"WHAT SPECIES IS IT?"

You people... :-/
No, you and other have been the ones to assign the claim of "person", not me. I've been saying over and over again "an individual human lifeform". (created at conception) How fucking hard is that to see?

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?

[catfish]

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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?

[CleanShavenJesus]

How far will you go to deny basic scientific facts?

[Esquilax]

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.

Catfish, do you even remember what fucking argument you're having? This is a debate about abortion; if I'm adding definitions beyond the strictly biological, it's to gently remind you that even if we were to one hundred percent agree with every one of your definitions as you dictate them it wouldn't advance your case even a single iota. Mostly because the issue isn't that we even disagree with you; it's that we think your definition is far too vague and far reaching, but again, you like that because having to go with the actual biology would force you to admit you're equating a real person with a bunch of cells.

What's actually happening is that we're going around and around on this point because you won't let it go until we all are locked into your vague little definition rather than what we actually think. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. How do you think this will help your case?

It's an individual human life, stop adding adjectives like "basic".

The moment you stop making arguments that are so excruciatingly basic, I wouldn't have to add anything.

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.

Well, you know, you're trying to get us to say individual human life, so you can latch onto the word life and call us murderers. I'm onto your semantic game, we all are. That's why you've got such a hard on for this point. I'm not equivocating, because I'm not working from a simply biological point of view, as I mentioned later in my post. This issue has more components than just biological ones.

See, I thought for a change we could actually talk about the issue at hand, rather than play "how does catfish want to define irrelevant shit?" for the fiftieth consecutive year.

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.

You do understand that there's more to human beings than just their bodies, right?

[catfish]

Catfish, do you even remember what fucking argument you're having? This is a debate about abortion; if I'm adding definitions beyond the strictly biological, it's to gently remind you that even if we were to one hundred percent agree with every one of your definitions as you dictate them it wouldn't advance your case even a single iota.

Seriously dude, re-read the thread. This isn't about abortion. It's about hypocritical morality.
Don't believe me? Check for youself. Don't believe yourself? Deal with it...
.

[Esquilax]

Catfish, do you even remember what fucking argument you're having? This is a debate about abortion; if I'm adding definitions beyond the strictly biological, it's to gently remind you that even if we were to one hundred percent agree with every one of your definitions as you dictate them it wouldn't advance your case even a single iota.

Seriously dude, re-read the thread. This isn't about abortion. It's about hypocritical morality.
Don't believe me? Check for youself. Don't believe yourself? Deal with it...
.

You'd have a point if you hadn't spent the last what feels like a million pages harping on about biology instead of dealing with morality. We left behind that thread of conversation about eighty billion poorly thought out catfish-grams ago.

[NoraBrimstone]

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?

If it was living off me, stealing my oxygen and nutrients, I'd have every right.

[catfish]

Seriously dude, re-read the thread. This isn't about abortion. It's about hypocritical morality.
Don't believe me? Check for youself. Don't believe yourself? Deal with it...
.

You'd have a point if you hadn't spent the last what feels like a million pages harping on about biology instead of dealing with morality. We left behind that thread of conversation about eighty billion poorly thought out catfish-grams ago.

Are you that dense? Why would I be arguing morality when you guys can't even admit that a human fetus is an individual human?

As long as you guys keep arguing that it's a fish, or a hair, or toenail, there's no fucking reason to discuss morality. You need to concede what it is before you can discuss the morailty of whacking it, understand?

---

Really? A loaded question?
What gives you the right to tear the heads off of kittens?

If it was living off me, stealing my oxygen and nutrients, I'd have every right.

And you didn't even need to duck, nice!