Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethereal  Just for future reference, do not concern yourself with space. Please isolate my points and adress them seperately in order to retain the continuity of our argument. Look at the format Granny and I have been using. It's much easier that way. I'm not making fun or scolding you. Simply a suggestion to consider if you want people to debate you. |
Very well, I can do that.
Quote:
|
Did you ever consider the possibility that your logic simply didn't make any sense?
|
I have, have you?
Quote:
|
Definitions found in the dictionary are not meant to be used in a categoricaly specific context. Furthermore, the unborn do neet meet the criteria set forth by this defintion as the unborn are not a different organism than their mother.
|
OK then, if is part of the mother then it can be excised as a tumor. After all one person can not be part of another, right? But wait, the fetus has its own DNA and the pregnant woman her own. One organism with two sets of DNA. You did say that biology was your specialty. I can see that now.
Quote:
What you don't seem to understand is that adaptation and development are not characterisitics which are unique to parasites, and as such they are immaterial to their classification.
What you and Granny are doing is taking characteristics generally shared by two different organisms, but which are not material to their classification, and using this linkage as validation for their comparison.
That would be like saying this...
Both the unborn and prokaryotes exhibit the properties of life, therefore, due to their commonality in this regard, the unborn are prokaryotic. |
I did not say that anything about uniqueness. That is your picking and choosing to support you failed argument. When more than one characteristic is common to two or more of anything, is is not unreasonable to refer to that commonality.
Quote:
|
Obtaining nourishment and shelter from an organism is not a characteristic unique to a parasite.
|
But it is unique to one, when one lives inside another. What aspect of biology do you specialize in?
Quote:
|
Severely challenged? Do you really want to start exchanging insults, young Padawon?
|
You were insulted by that? I was merely trying to highlight what I suspected was your willful ignorance of basic biology. I hope I did not strike a nerve.
Quote:
|
Yes, they are like them in ways that are immaterial to the nature of parasites. Just because two organisms share a similar characteristic does not mean it is accurate to equate them to one another in a specific context.
|
Thank you. So they are alike in some ways. If so,then as a biology specialist dispute the validity of the context not the accuracy. By the way I did not attribute any merit to the comparison, only that it was accurate.
Quote:
|
In debates about abortion it is a common practice for both sides to assume, for the sake of argument, that the unborn have rights. In this way we can then discuss the moral and ethical implications of abortion in a different context.
|
Fair enough, than say that you assume or believe and do not inject something that implies any form of approval or agreement from the opposing side.
Quote:
|
This is why I don't like debating people who jump in on the ***-end of a thread. They lack an understanding of the discussion's context and ask silly questions like this.
|
No, just trying to keep accuracy.
Quote:
|
In the realm of science it doesn't matter what society thinks, only what can be proven. If science can be used to prove that a fetus is a person then society must change its perception or deny the facts.
|
That is true, say in the dispute over the Earth being flat or round. But I repeat, personhood is a human construct. It does change with with societal values and percepts. Not very often but it does none-the-less. On the other hand science is more precise and as you say not subject to societal perceptions.
Your insistence of scientifically defining something that should not be, is akin to trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Quote:
|
Do you know how frustrating it is when someone totally ignores a point you've made? I did provide you with a definition of a person. Did you even bother reading my whole response?
|
Yes, I did. It made no sense then as it makes no sense now and repeating it will not help.
Quote:
|
You truly are a beginner. I never said that, ever I asked why the characterisitcs a person must possess have to be absent in a fetus. There's a big difference.
|
You are right, I misread and understood, I am sorry.
Quote:
|
Where do you get off talking down to me? You show up out of no where with a disorganized jumble of nonsensical blather and then accuse me of failing to understand your simple sentences? Let's just stick to the facts, shall we?
|
I am sorry, I did not know I had to come from some specific place, but I did get a welcome to the forum message from the mods. Does that make a difference? Yes lets just stick to the facts. The fact was that I did not say what you attributed to me, but what I repeated.
Quote:
|
There isn't a scientific definition of a person. That's why I'm trying to establish one. This is really very annoying.
|
I will not hold by breath, but you can if you wish till it is widely accepted. Till then why don't we stick to what is commonly recognized as a person and debate why that should or should not be changed.
Quote:
|
This is truly, truly unbelievable. The Declaration of Independence is a legal document. It was enacted by the Second Continental Congress and is the document upon which our entire country's belief system was founded. The Declaration of Independence established the concept of inalieble rights, so how can you even speak of rights and say it isn't relevant? And it doesn't make any reference to white men. Good grief.
|
Well it is not part of any law, has no enforceable clauses in it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US as in most other parts of the world, their respective constitutions. Yea, those inalienable rights, of course not the rights of the slaves, or of women or children. How about the inalienable rights to life of the British soldiers killed as a result of the DOI? How about the inalienable rights to life of the people who die because some HMO denies treatment? How about the inalienable right to life of the infants that die because the US is 23 in the world in infant mortality rate right behind Cuba? Do you even know what inalienable means?
Quote:
|
That wording is derived directly from the Declaration of Independence which established the concept of inalieble rights. Do you have even the slightest understanding of American law?
|
It is clear that you do not.
Quote:
|
I find it truly disturbing that you lend more weight to a declaration made by the UN than you do to the Declaration of Independence. And I find it even more disturbing that you require permission from a legal document to admit there exists a right to life. I figured to anyone with half a brain the right to life would be self-evident.
|
That may be self-evident to all with half a brain, to the rest of us with whole brains it is evident that it does not exist.