Real Simple 2

Monkey Mind · 02-16-07, 03:26 PM

Lets tenderize this mofo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by FutureIncoming

And Monkey Mind is cowardly failing to respond to Msg 413 (Real simple) (Real simple:) and Msg 412 (Real simple) (Real simple:).

I knew I could count on you to dig up the point in the thread where we left off. Good doggy. Notice how it was almost 600 posts ago! Contrary to your delusions of my cowardice, I got busy with work, then came back & spent about 20 minutes looking for it, then finally decided it wasn't worth the trouble. I had guessed you might dredge it up for me.

So, if I recall correctly I stated my position that a person is a living human. You countered that with your standard copy-paste ream of garbage attempting to change the subject, which I ignored. You said the census was grounds for your position that fetuses aren't persons, I countered by noting that the census recognizes newborns. Your entire position relies on the premise that newborns are not persons, yet you refused to acknowledge your inconsistency. AFAIK you still assert that newborns are not persons.

Which brings us to post 413:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MM

if a newborn is a person then by what stretch of the imagination can that same newborn not still be a person 5 minutes before birth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FI

Simple. Before birth the survival mode of a human is parasitic; it takes what it wants from the host, regardless of any inclinations of the host. After birth, a human isn't parasitic...

Here you appear to be agreeing with me and retracting your earlier assertion that newborns are not persons. Please confirm. Are newborns persons or not?

I also asked what your definition of person is, and you had none. Still in progress, you say. I pointed out that it was unethical to base legal life and death policies on a position which you acknowledge is partially formed and unproven. You didn't seem to care.

Next you uttered this, which is astounding in its ignorance of biology. I didn't deem it worthy of a response, but since you've whined so desperately I'll grant you just this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FI

No, I compared a parasite to an unborn human animal nonperson, and not to an always-exists-outside-the-womb child/person. I notice that your remark fails to provide any data that might indicate that the comparison is faulty, of unborn human to parasite. Do you have any such data? If not, then why did you worthlessly blather so?

The biological definition of a parasitic relationship involves two organisms of different species. Your comparison is worthless in a debate. It's just an analogy that you use to try and evoke emotional responses from Noah's Hammer et al. If fetuses are parasites, then so are breastfeeding infants and toddlers. If your definition of personhood is somehow related to what is or isn't a parasite, then you have quite a mess to straighten out. Let's see what you come up with. You can start by answering my question above.

Jerry · 02-16-07, 03:28 PM

.....oh Christ....

talloulou · 02-16-07, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by futureincoming

You fail to answer pertinent questions, just like all the other pro-lifers. Some of these I know you have seen before:
1. "What makes an unborn human life more special/valuable/etc than a bug's life?" You seem to want us to think that the answer is obvious, but the only obvious answer is "Prejudice". A worthless answer, that.

The idea that human life is more valuable than the life of a bugs is universally accepted by most humans. In fact mammals are also universally given higher status than insects.

Quote:

2. "If it is claimed that potentials need not be fulfilled, such as the potential for pro-lifers to fall down staircases and break their necks, then why do pro-lifers claim that the potentials of an unborn human should be fulfilled?" Prejudice, again? A worthless answer, that. Especially since in this overpopulated world, it increases the potential arrival of a Malthusian Catastrophe.

I don't claim there is a potential that need be fulfilled. I claim that it is wrong to take a human life and terminate it without just cause. I feel the respect we generally give human life should be extended to the unborn on the basis that they are equally human and I believe in equal rights for all humans and object to the idea of non-person humans.

Quote:

3. "We almost have the technology to cut someone's head off and keep both pieces alive for years. If this happens to some normal adult human person, and the parts are widely separated, then do you think that the 'person' will thereafter be associated with the head, because of the very capable brain, or with the mere animal body? --and based on the answer to that, should brain-dead humans on life-support be called persons, and why should any humans having no more than animal-class brains be called persons?"

Answered already previously.

Quote:

4. "Why do you keep calling an unborn human a 'human being' when doing so is as provably illogical as calling an average rock a 'rock being'?" (Do you enjoy telling irrational lies?)

Being is a word that can have many implied meanings or just suggest any creature that exists. Thus it's not, in my opinion, worth quibbling over. I think there is merit to both the argument that the unborn are human beings and that they're not. I think the latter is harder to swallow but that's my bias. The idea that the unborn may be compared to a "rock" or that calling the unborn human beings is akin to calling rocks rock beings is intellectually dishonest, unfair, crude, and absurd.

Quote:

5. For those "into" Religion, consider this: There is no aspect of human biology that requires the presence of a soul in order to function, just as all the other zillions of ordinary biological organisms out there in the Universe, like bacteria, don't require the presence of souls in order to function. A soul is just an add-on; it and biology are independent of each other. Which means a human fetus can exist and grow just fine with no soul present. AND which means it doesn't deserve to be loved as much as an already-ensouled woman, until a soul is added to the fetus. Therefore this Question: "How does a so-called 'loving' God demonstrate this by condemning women who obtain abortions, after Omnisciently knowing they would seek abortions, and creating souls for those to-be-aborted unborn humans anyway?"

Religion is an "unknown" as it entails a variety of beliefs for a variety of people even those who supposedly belong to the same religion. Thus it's pointless to bring it into the discussion.

Quote:

6. The Law of Supply and Demand has never exhibited any slightest chink of invalidity. It clearly states that the more common something is, the less value is assigned to it, and vice-versa. Therefore these Questions: "How can 'value of human life' be considered a constant in an increasingly-overpopulated world, especially when such dismissive lines as 'There's plenty more where you came from!' can become more and more common (because it's becoming more and more true)?" "Why do pro-lifers deny the Reality of the Law of Supply and Demand, and work to exacerbate the preceding problem?"

The demand for healthy newborns up for adoption in our country is extremely high. Many wait years and years and others give up waiting all together and spend large amounts of money to adopt babies from other countries. The law of supply and demand, if it were applicable, would only aid the prolife argument. However we don't treat human life as "business." Certainly we could deal with the homeless problem by killing the homeless but that goes against the respect for human life we hold dear. As soon as other groups of humans are also devalued, considered non-persons, and terminated based on their usefulness, worth, stage of development, or intelligence then I'll reconsider my stance but as long as we are attempting to respect human life and not kill without just cause I believe that should be extended to the unborn who are humans.

Noah's Hammer · 02-16-07, 04:01 PM

Where is the original "Real Simple" thread?

The one where what's-his-name-proabortionist thought the idea that a pregnancy could go 39 weeks was histerical?

Jerry · 02-16-07, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noah's Hammer

Where is the original "Real Simple" thread?

The one where what's-his-name-proabortionist thought the idea that a pregnancy could go 39 weeks was histerical?

Threads are closed and placed in the Archive forum when they grow beyond 1,000 posts.

OKgrannie · 02-16-07, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noah's Hammer

Where is the original "Real Simple" thread?

The one where what's-his-name-proabortionist thought the idea that a pregnancy could go 39 weeks was histerical?

The actual duration of pregnancy is 38 weeks. I've had some experience with it myself.

Pregnancy Due Date Months Weeks Days Count Down Calculator - JavaScript code

"It's hard to predict exactly, but our calculator can give you an idea.
An average human pregnancy lasts for about 280 days or 40 weeks from the date of the last menstrual period (LMP). Traditionally, it has been calculated as 10 lunar months, or in terms of the modern calendar - 9 months and 7 days. Fertilisation however, occurs (considering an average menstrual cycle of 28 days) 14 days after the last periods. Thus, the actual duration of a human pregnancy (gestation period) is 280 - 14 = 266 days."

jallman · 02-16-07, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noah's Hammer

Where is the original "Real Simple" thread?

The one where what's-his-name-proabortionist thought the idea that a pregnancy could go 39 weeks was histerical?

It's time to get a new schtick. This has already been addressed and readdressed but you seem to be the only one unable to keep up...not surprised though, considering...

C Foster · 02-16-07, 06:16 PM

What happened to real simple?

Noah's Hammer · 02-18-07, 12:18 AM

Right. And you've already proven how quick you are.

It's funny how most liberals and atheists and the like have a great tendancy to accuse others of that which they themselves are most guilty.

Your condescension here is a product of your arrogance. The only more common product of arrogance is ignorance.

This is the root of the haphazard attitude that purports it's OK to murder the unborn.

FutureIncoming · 02-19-07, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Mind, in Msg #288 of original "Real Simple" thread

A person is a person, which is a living human.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Mind, in Msg #1 of this Thread

So, if I recall correctly I stated my position that a person is a living human. You countered that with your standard copy-paste ream of garbage attempting to change the subject, which I ignored.

Copy/pasting is easier than re-typing from scratch. Do you have a problem with that? Furthermore I do not "change the subject" so much as bring outside and relevant data TO the subject. And your ignoring of that data neither makes it invalid nor makes it disappear.

Appropriate links appear to be:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/475530-post288.html (Real simple:) (#288 by you)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/475791-post297.html (Real simple:) (part 1 of my reply)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/475796-post298.html (Real simple:) (useful data unrelated to the debate)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/475937-post331.html (Real simple:) (part 2 of my reply)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/476066-post342.html (Real simple:) (a promise YOU made)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/477989-post412.html (Real simple:) (part 3 of my reply)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/478003-post413.html (Real simple:) (part 4 of my reply)

In pointing out that you had not responded to #412 and #413, I didn't notice, and neglected to remember, that there were other messages also awaiting a response from you. But that would not have been a problem if you had actually responded to them, right?

#297 contains a response to to the above quote from #288, along with this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Mind, in Msg #288 of the original "Real Simple" thread

Other entities may have person-like qualities but that doesn't make them persons.

My response points out a logical conundrum for you, involving banning churches. Have fun replying to that!

Next, I did not happen to respond to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Mind, in Msg #288 of the original "Real Simple" thread

As I said before I won't discuss mythical entities here. The thread is cumbersome enough as it is. Start a new thread, then lets both try to stay on topic in that one. It could be interesting.

I had pointed out in some earlier message that you were wrong in specifying that a person had to be a human, since traditional expressions exist, such as "little people", which are most certainly about nonhuman persons. Your ignoring of that data does not make it invalid, nor does the data disappear. Furthermore, you are wrong for another reason in claiming that persons have to be humans, since in legal fact corporations are granted person status, too. (I did not present this reason to you in a prior message.)

Anyway, since you were already ignoring valid facts to suit your own agenda, there didn't seem much reason at that time to respond to that piece of #288. NOW, however, since you seem to be bringing that persons=humans nonsense again, I can now ask you to explain why the data I have presented, that proves your statement to be nonsense, must be ignored?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Mind, continuing Msg #1 of this thread

You said the census was grounds for your position that fetuses aren't persons, I countered by noting that the census recognizes newborns. Your entire position relies on the premise that newborns are not persons, yet you refused to acknowledge your inconsistency. AFAIK you still assert that newborns are not persons.

I am not inconsistent at all, and this was explained in Msg #297 of the other thread. I recommend you re-read it. And respond to it! (But in a nutshell, a true generic definition of person will almost certainly exclude newborn humans. I do not dispute the current legal definition that includes newborn humans, nor do I especially seek to overthrow it. There is no need. However, there is a need to recognize that that legal definition is at odds with Scientific Fact regarding differences between generic persons and generic animals, just to prevent that legal definition from being stupidly extended in further defiance of Scientific Fact.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Mind, in Msg #1 of this thread

I also asked what your definition of person is, and you had none. Still in progress, you say. I pointed out that it was unethical to base legal life and death policies on a position which you acknowledge is partially formed and unproven. You didn't seem to care.

This appears to have been mostly answered in #331 of the other Message thread. I see you have slightly rephrased the "life and death decisions" thing. Remember we are concentrating on abortions in this Debate; we are mostly not talking about life-and-death decisions for born humans. And since the Scientific Facts are that no unborn human has any ability to exhibit any of the traits that distinguish generic persons from generic animals, it logically follows that unborn humans are fully in the category of generic animals. NO ONE needs a fully accurate generic definition of person to be able to make the preceding factual observation and deduction. That's why I "didn't seem to care"; do you understand, now? Therefore life-and-death decisions can be made for unborn humans in exactly the same way that we make such decisions for ordinary animals. Simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Mind, in Msg #1 of this thread

Next you uttered this, which is astounding in its ignorance of biology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FutureIncoming, in Msg #413 of the original "Real Simple" thread

I compared a parasite to an unborn human animal nonperson, and not to an always-exists-outside-the-womb child/person. I notice that your remark fails to provide any data that might indicate that the comparison is faulty, of unborn human to parasite. Do you have any such data?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Mind, in Msg #1 of this thread

The biological definition of a parasitic relationship involves two organisms of different species. Your comparison is worthless in a debate.

FALSE, because the word "parasitic" is not limited to the biological realm, which means that the biological definition isn't the only one that matters. How many times have you heard criminals called "parasites upon society", for example? I fully agree that biologically, a parasite must be a different species than the host, but the word "parasitic" does not at all require that particular biological fact to apply.
American Prospect Online - ViewWeb
Project MUSE
Dean's Tribute to Public Enemy
Battery Tutorial | Batterystuff.com
Exorcism New York - Spirit Depossession, Etheric Clensing, Parasite Removal, Spirit Releasement in NYC, Possession

Therefore, when I say that the survival mode of an unborn human is parasitic, I am not wrong, not at all. I notice you didn't offer an alternate description of its survival mode, despite your claims that "parasitic" is not applicable!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Mind, in Msg #1 of this thread

If fetuses are parasites, then so are breastfeeding infants and toddlers.

FALSE. Especially false after you quoted part of this in Msg #1, and apparently ignored all of it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FutureIncoming, in Msg #297 of the original "Real Simple" thread

Before birth the survival mode of a human is parasitic; it takes what it wants from the host, regardless of any inclinations of the host. After birth, a human isn't parasitic. Everything it receives in order to survive can be a voluntary gift.

Do you see the difference between "takes ... regardless of any inclinations" and "everything ... can be a voluntary gift"??? Only the first is "parasitic"!!! The breast-feeding infant is always given access to a breast; it cannot take access on its own.