the Abortion issue in Mississippi

jonny42

Posts: 6,202

Nov 8, 2011 -- 9:46PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Is it really your contention that a single diploid cell is a "child"?

As much as a collection of cells that drools and says "coo" is a person.

fodaoson

Posts: 10,064

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:03PM, jonny42 wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 9:46PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Is it really your contention that a single diploid cell is a "child"?

As much as a collection of cells that drools and says "coo" is a person.

The former has a parasitic relationship with a separate self-contained living human being. The latter is an independent being in need of nurturing from an independent human being.

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon

jonny42

Posts: 6,202

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:14PM, fodaoson wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:03PM, jonny42 wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 9:46PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Is it really your contention that a single diploid cell is a "child"?

As much as a collection of cells that drools and says "coo" is a person.

The former has a parasitic relationship with a separate self-contained living human being. The latter is an independent being in need of nurturing from an independent human being.

Yes, both are dependent on others for life.

rangerken

Posts: 13,714

This has to be said...

The topic is about the politics of a law and not...repeat NOT!!!...the whole abortion debate. If the thread continues the way it has been going I will have to move it to the Abortion Debate forum.

Rangerken, Beliefnet Community Moderator

PS. and yes, I am aware that some parts of one of my own posts, done in my 'Ken' pesonna, contributes to this...and apologies for that.

Conservative, Libertarian, Life member of the NRA and VFW

fodaoson

Posts: 10,064

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:23PM, jonny42 wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:14PM, fodaoson wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:03PM, jonny42 wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 9:46PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Is it really your contention that a single diploid cell is a "child"?

As much as a collection of cells that drools and says "coo" is a person.

The former has a parasitic relationship with a separate self-contained living human being. The latter is an independent being in need of nurturing from an independent human being.

Yes, both are dependent on others for life.

The cooing drooling collection of cells is dependent on any other human being and does not use life supporting asset or do harm to that person. The cells in a woman’s body uses her nutrients, her blood, her lungs, her excretory system and can, and often does, harm to th living woman. Tumors warts and certain disease causing bacteria are also dependent a human body .

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon

Wanderingal

Posts: 5,504

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:03PM, jonny42 wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 9:46PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Is it really your contention that a single diploid cell is a "child"?

As much as a collection of cells that drools and says "coo" is a person.

That's unscientific and NOT factual.

A single ilpind ceel is NIT comparable to BILLIONS of cells specialzed into tyopes that oare organized into tissues that are oganized into organs that are organized into ssmtes--

all of which scpecialization takes at least SEVEN MONTHS to occur.

ONE cell s NOT a person no matter how much anyone might wish it to be.

It's NOT faactual.

It's NOT scientific.

And it's NOT biblical.

That it miht be any of those is a figment of some very fevered imaginations.

TENAC

Posts: 20,602

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:14PM, fodaoson wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:03PM, jonny42 wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 9:46PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Is it really your contention that a single diploid cell is a "child"?

As much as a collection of cells that drools and says "coo" is a person.

The former has a parasitic relationship with a separate self-contained living human being. The latter is an independent being in need of nurturing from an independent human being.

Well, if thats true then you are in favor of abortion at any point along with the way?

So while in the womb, the host being need not nurture the parasite?

I would submit the nurturing begins immediately upon conception, realized or not.

Further, the dependence doesnt end upon exposure to the new environment of earth. A newborn would die as quickly as a third trimester child would, left to its own independence.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.

Wanderingal

Posts: 5,504

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:23PM, jonny42 wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:14PM, fodaoson wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:03PM, jonny42 wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 9:46PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Is it really your contention that a single diploid cell is a "child"?

As much as a collection of cells that drools and says "coo" is a person.

The former has a parasitic relationship with a separate self-contained living human being. The latter is an independent being in need of nurturing from an independent human being.

Yes, both are dependent on others for life.

Huh?

Not really. A woman is not "dependant on others for life."

More of that Sexist fevered imagination stuff.

And highly insulting towards women as fully formed and living individal human beings.

But very typical of a certain "religious" mindset that is hellbent on imposing ITS beliefs onto ALL women.

TENAC

Posts: 20,602

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:44PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:03PM, jonny42 wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 9:46PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Is it really your contention that a single diploid cell is a "child"?

As much as a collection of cells that drools and says "coo" is a person.

That's unscientific and NOT factual.

A single ilpind ceel is NIT comparable to BILLIONS of cells specialzed into tyopes that oare organized into tissues that are oganized into organs that are organized into ssmtes--

all of which scpecialization takes at least SEVEN MONTHS to occur.

ONE cell s NOT a person no matter how much anyone might wish it to be.

It's NOT faactual.

It's NOT scientific.

And it's NOT biblical.

That it miht be any of those is a figment of some very fevered imaginations.

Thats bogus. You are full of crap.

Show me the citiation.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.

Wanderingal

Posts: 5,504

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:48PM, TENAC wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:44PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 10:03PM, jonny42 wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 9:46PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Is it really your contention that a single diploid cell is a "child"?

As much as a collection of cells that drools and says "coo" is a person.

That's unscientific and NOT factual.

A single diploid cell is NOT comparable to BILLIONS of cells specialzed into types that are organized into tissues that are organized into organs that are organized into systems--

all of which specialization takes at least SEVEN MONTHS to occur.

ONE cell s NOT a person no matter how much anyone might wish it to be.

It's NOT faactual.

It's NOT scientific.

And it's NOT biblical.

That it miht be any of those is a figment of some very fevered imaginations.

Thats bogus. You are full of crap.

Show me the citiation.

No--I'm full of SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

Sorry--but that is what happens over a period of seven+ months.

No matter how many "religous" ideas try to say otherwise.

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot