More leftist hypocrisy, nicely illustrated

[glassjester]

This organism:

was previously a human and now it is not.

Yeah, it's a dead organism.
The zygote is objectively not dead.

But it is a human organism. Objectively.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Don't take it personal MrDante, as the vast majority of those that you are debating in this thread voted for Donald Trump who like Hillary Clinton is a very strong supporter of the organization that murderers hundreds of thousands of unborn babies a year:

Planned Parenthood.

Laugh at these supposed Christians' hypocrisy, I do.

You really should stick to your "I hate Homo's thread." That's your area of expertise.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That's right, you phony Christians want to keep it a secret that you're pro death. I'll keep talking and exposing you Libertarians, unless you're ready to debate me?

What's there to debate? You have a one track mind. We already know, you despise homosexuals. That's all we need to know about you.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

God isn't, why would I be?

Have you done your homework on Jewish ceremonial and civil laws and God's universal moral code/laws?

I didn't think so, but then exposing pro Trump lemmings for what they are has nothing to do with the death penalty.

Spoken like a true liberal Democrat.

 

[Town Heretic]

Is there a mind at conception? No.
Is there a personality at conception? No.
Memories? No.
Directed will? No
The ability to relate with anther? No.

I appreciate you have your litmus. Most people do. It isn't inherently evidence of anything other than your belief and/or the abilities and attributes noted by the litmus.

 

[ok doser]

The things that qualify as life for a human being are absent at conception....

and those would be?

a functioning brain for example.

this has a functioning brain

do you believe it is human?

wow you are a special kind of stupid aren't you

smart enough to demonstrate that your criteria of "a functioning brain" is inadequate :idunno:


and patient enough to try again

you said: "The things that qualify as life for a human being are absent at conception"

what do you think those things are?


and in case you were thinking of these:

...a mind...
...a personality...
Memories...
Directed will...
The ability to relate with anther...

the chimpanzee I posted has all of those

(eta - well, maybe not that "anther" part :idunno: )

 

[glassjester]

the chimpanzee I posted has all of those

"You want passion and truth? Ok. Teller and I would personally kill every chimp in the world with our bare hands to save one street junkie with aids."

- Penn Jilette

 

[ok doser]

awwww


even baby chimps?

 

[glassjester]

awwww


even baby chimps?

Even chimp zygotes.
Yes. Those, too, are chimps.

 

[ok doser]

if we're trying to determine universal principles, they must apply universally, whether one is suffering from aphasia, or is unborn (but has brain development) or is at the prime of life or is deteriorating in old age

I can't answer on the unborn aphasia example as I need more information. If the fetus is just vegetative then I wouldn't consider it human.

I've worked on newborns who were anacephalic - we had no problem identifying them as human :idunno:

But if it has already been human and then has broken down to a lower level of consciousness, that person still receives full rights. You don't lose rights once you have them, unless you go to prison

when you talk about rights, you're talking about the law

not my area of interest :idunno:


i'd prefer to keep it on a scientific basis at the moment

 

[Greg Jennings]

I've worked on newborns who were anacephalic - we had no problem identifying them as human :dunno:

From what I read online, anacephalic babies rarely make it to birth, let alone make it PAST birth. Anything that struggled so hard to hang on deserves a shot to live (if I was the doctor), even if it's only for a few minutes. I suppose that partially up to the mother, since she knows the child won't make it very far and perhaps opt to end the child's suffering slightly prematurely.

when you talk about rights, you're talking about the law

not my area of interest :idunno:


i'd prefer to keep it on a scientific basis at the moment

We were trying to define when something becomes "human" so I thought a legal point would be a good place to start. Since no one seems to agree here on WHAT constitutes humanity, it is proving difficult any other way

 

[ok doser]

From what I read online, anacephalic babies rarely make it to birth, let alone make it PAST birth. Anything that struggled so hard to hang on deserves a shot to live (if I was the doctor), even if it's only for a few minutes. I suppose that partially up to the mother, since she knows the child won't make it very far

my point was that, even absent normal brain development or activity, they were recognizably human

and no, they didn't survive

We were trying to define when something becomes "human" so I thought a legal point would be a good place to start. Since no one seems to agree here on WHAT constitutes humanity, it is proving difficult any other way

a unique living human organism is created at conception

that's my starting point

 

[glassjester]

We were trying to define when something becomes "human" so I thought a legal point would be a good place to start. Since no one seems to agree here on WHAT constitutes humanity, it is proving difficult any other way

How about defining "human being" as an individual member of the species homo sapiens?

 

[john w]

Show me anything backing your words that these guys had a super high IQ.

You can't, of course. We can't even prove that most existed. We just think it's highly likely

1.
https://www.scionofzion.com/kjvtransqual.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/The King James Bible/Translators/translators.htm


You/most can't touch them IQ/qualifications wise.

2.Show me anything backing your words that you have a super high IQ.

You can't, of course.

3. Slower-the LORD God is the author of the book-He has a very high IQ, droid.
Sit.

The Bible has well noted inaccuracies.
Can s woman turn to a pillar of salt?

How old is Earth?

See?

No, it does not-you made that up.

You, and other Christ rejecting, scripture rejecting drones, have tried to correct the book for years, and have failed, and cannot do it.

Show us your infallible source authority, for correcting any errors in the book.

Name it.


And correct the errors.

 

[MrDante]

Yeah, it's a dead organism.
The zygote is objectively not dead.

But it is a human organism. Objectively.

objectively it is just as human.

 

[glassjester]

objectively it is just as human.

Sure, yes.

So what?

One's a dead human, the other is a living human.
Obviously it's wrong to kill a living human, and impossible to kill a dead human.

 

[MrDante]

Why should people like you be allowed to spew ignorance?

Why are you allowed?

 

[MrDante]

smart enough to demonstrate that your criteria of "a functioning brain" is inadequate :idunno:

Still not smart enough to read and understand the words "for example"

 

[MrDante]

Sure, yes.

So what?

One's a dead human, the other is a living human.
Obviously it's wrong to kill a living human, and impossible to kill a dead human.

No, one is a bunch of cells and the other is...a bunch of cells

 

[This Charming Manc]

I put stock into what experts say. You're right, there is not a definite, consensus opinion to draw from. There is data suggesting that around 22 weeks is when "humanity" begins and that's based on science, which I wouldn't consider particularly arbitrary.

Could they be wrong? Could "humanity" begin before 22 weeks? I suppose it's possible, but based on what we know about our brain it's highly highly unlikely. And I don't think that a pregnant woman should have to care for a child that she neither wants nor has the means to care for if the science backs her up, and the only opposition is "what if"

You're right, this "line of humanity" is somewhat arbitrary. But we have to draw it somewhere, and we might as well base that on the objective and expert opinions of those who study it

Greg 22 weeks is about when a feutus has a fair chance at being able to survive outside the womb. It has nothing to do with a 'definition of human'.

The argument about what defines human is a moral one that falls outside the bounds of science.

However if you want some scientific fact to inform you musings, here is a link to a timeline of the development of a baby.

http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week

If you tell most parents that the baby they see on the 12 weeks scan isn't human, most will use a few words to tell you the equivalent of 'Go to hell' TM Nick.