• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Truth about Planned Parenthood[W:283]

scatt said:
So you are saying a mole is a human?
Click to expand...
SEE #365. There is a difference between "a human" and "a human entity". Read #365 very carefully....

I said what I said. I need not repeat it since I can link it and otherwise reference it. Do you have a problem understanding simple English? (time for me to catch some ZZZs and do other stuff for a bunch of hours)
 
Last edited:
scatt said:
Why are you talking about human entities?
Click to expand...
ACCURACY. Both you and a hydatidiform mole are human entities, but you are a person (also known as "a human being") because of your mind while the other isn't (lacks a mind). There are a lot of types of human entities in the world, but as far as science is concerned, only one type of human being (any human entity with a mind having at least the Objectively Measurable characteristics referenced elsewhere) --and only one type of human being as far as the Law is concerned (any human entity that gets born and continues to survive).
 
scatt said:
But a mole is not a human.
Click to expand...
DEPENDING ON YOUR DEFINITION OF "A HUMAN", a hydatidiform mole could be called "a mass of humans". Remember, each cell in it has the same DNA as an original zygote --and abortion opponents are very fond of claiming every zygote qualifies as "a human".

I should expand what I previously wrote about "accuracy". One of the words sometimes used to describe the unborn is "organism". Unfortunately, the definition of an organism includes the requirement of possessing an internal organization. A zygote qualifies as an organism. Every cell in your body that has complete DNA qualifies as an organism. But a morula, which begins to exist when a zygote starts dividing, and a blastocyst seeking to implant in a womb, and a successfully-implanted embryo, are NOT organized --the first two are simple masses of cells and the third is in the process of getting organized, but it is not actually organized until that process is done (at which time it now qualifies to be called "fetus" instead of "embryo"). And so I use the word "entity" partly because it is completely generic and can correctly be applied to any stage of human existence --including hydatidiform moles, which also are disorganized masses of cells (even though each of those cells still qualifies as an organism!, just as much "a human" as the original zygote).
 
sangha said:
As the OP proves once again, the truth about PP is that the freedom and rights hating right wing will continue to tell lies about PP no matter how many investigations prove that PP committed no wrongdoing because the freedom haters are despicable and immoral bigots...
Click to expand...

....who must have their freedom and rights violated and taken away. Right? That sounds like where you're heading next.
 
FutureIncoming said:
DEPENDING ON YOUR DEFINITION OF "A HUMAN", a hydatidiform mole could be called "a mass of humans". Remember, each cell in it has the same DNA as an original zygote --and abortion opponents are very fond of claiming every zygote qualifies as "a human".

I should expand what I previously wrote about "accuracy". One of the words sometimes used to describe the unborn is "organism". Unfortunately, the definition of an organism includes the requirement of possessing an internal organization. A zygote qualifies as an organism. Every cell in your body that has complete DNA qualifies as an organism. But a morula, which begins to exist when a zygote starts dividing, and a blastocyst seeking to implant in a womb, and a successfully-implanted embryo, are NOT organized --the first two are simple masses of cells and the third is in the process of getting organized, but it is not actually organized until that process is done (at which time it now qualifies to be called "fetus" instead of "embryo"). And so I use the word "entity" partly because it is completely generic and can correctly be applied to any stage of human existence --including hydatidiform moles, which also are disorganized masses of cells (even though each of those cells still qualifies as an organism!, just as much "a human" as the original zygote).
Click to expand...

8b5078aa051dbc6ad799950cd5f052ba.jpg
 
truthatallcost said:
"I can't wait to meet the nonliving expanding lump of cells in your tummy."
Click to expand...
NOT AT ALL HOW I DESCRIBE MOST UNBORN HUMANS. For starters, I fully recognize they are alive. Next, when talking about a zygote, it fails to qualify as anything other than a single cell ("lump of cells" would be a Stupid Lie). Only the morula, blastocyst, and embryo stages can qualify as a "lump of cells", and it is only partly true for the embryo stage, since that is the stage in which the lump starts to get itself organized. The fetal stage, by far the longest-lasting stage prior to birth, begins when the organization process is finished, and so the phrase "lump of cells" cannot be correctly applied to the fetal stage.

Therefore I do not see how what you presented qualifies as a valid response to what I wrote, that you quoted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom