Ben Carson: It was OK for me to do research on aborted fetuses

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-15-2015, 10:25 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I have already stated the point multiple times. You're too "obtuse" to understand.

No, I don't understand because this is probably the most idiotic argument I've ever read on the internet, not because I'm obtuse. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-15-2015, 10:21 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, it's not. 

A sperm on it's own is not human life.  Neither is an egg.  Neither are capable of creating human life on their own. 

Even if this ridiculous argument were correct, can you get to the point?  Do you even have one?  One that makes sense?

Skin cells are alive as well, I don't think that anyone is dumb enough to tie that into the abortion discussion.

If this is the best you've got, you've got nothing here, but please don't let me get in the way of what you think is some kind of "gotcha" position.  

It's the same tired argument. Folks will try so hard that they will try to lead you to believe that you cannot be against abortion if you remove bacteria. Rest easy in the fact that you know that human life begins at conception. Most Pro-choice folk try to argue that life starts far after conception (ie separate life); yet, apparently some feel they can make a point by asserting it starts before conception.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-15-2015, 10:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's the same tired argument. Folks will try so hard that they will try to lead you to believe that you cannot be against abortion if you remove bacteria. Rest easy in the fact that you know that human life begins at conception. Most Pro-life folk try to argue that life starts far after conception (ie separate life); yet, apparently some feel they can make a point by asserting it starts before conception.

Yeah, I've had a lot of abortion debates in my life, and this is the first time I've ever encountered this sort of argument. 

#spermlivesmatter

[Shake n Blake]

(08-15-2015, 10:23 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Those cells are alive. They are part of the human life cycle. They were produced by living humans.

Do you believe in a creator?  If you do, can anything other than a creator create living cells?

Yes I believe in God. God has created everything that we know. The cells of the tree in my backyard are alive as well, but that doesn't make it a human life. 

As JakeFromStateFarm (love that name) pointed out, skin cells are also alive, yet I don't think anyone would consider that a human life on it's own. It's just part of a human being, as is a sperm or egg cell. A sperm fertilizing an egg and the combination of genes from a man and a woman is what makes a "human life". It's not all that complicated. 

One question: Can a sperm grow into a human being on it's own? 

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-15-2015, 10:54 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yes I believe in God. God has created everything that we know. The cells of the tree in my backyard are alive as well, but that doesn't make it a human life. 

As JakeFromStateFarm (love that name) pointed out, skin cells are also alive, yet I don't think anyone would consider that a human life on it's own. It's just part of a human being, as is a sperm or egg cell. A sperm fertilizing an egg and the combination of genes from a man and a woman is what makes a "human life". It's not all that complicated. 

One question: Can a sperm grow into a human being on it's own? 

You guys just aren't getting his point.

The point is, even though a fetus is, technically, "living", just like sperm cells or skin cells, it has not developed enough to be considered a human being. So the question being raised is, "Just because something is technically living, just like skin cells, bacteria, etc., does that mean it has rights?"

[*bfine32*]

(08-15-2015, 11:15 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: You guys just aren't getting his point.

The point is, even though a fetus is, technically, "living", just like sperm cells or skin cells, it has not developed enough to be considered a human being. So the question being raised is, "Just because something is technically living, just like skin cells, bacteria, etc., does that mean it has rights?"

..and you guys aren't getting how ridiculous the assertion is. Let's try a test:

Which one of these living things can become a newborn human if left unaltered or unmolested?

A. Sperm Cell
B. Skin Cell
C. Bacteria
D. Fertilized Egg

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-15-2015, 11:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and you guys aren't getting how ridiculous the assertion is. Let's try a test:

Which one of these living things can become a newborn human if left unaltered or unmolested?

A. Sperm Cell
B. Skin Cell
C. Bacteria
D. Fertilized Egg

And you aren't getting that it really doesn't matter whether something "will" eventually become something else.

[Shake n Blake]

(08-15-2015, 11:15 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: You guys just aren't getting his point.

The point is, even though a fetus is, technically, "living", just like sperm cells or skin cells, it has not developed enough to be considered a human being. So the question being raised is, "Just because something is technically living, just like skin cells, bacteria, etc., does that mean it has rights?"

I was guessing he may be driving that way, but if that's his point, it's not a good one. I don't consider sperm cells or bacteria to be similar in importance to a "fetus". 

As a human myself, maybe I'm biased. Sperm cells (on their own) and bacteria don't develop into human beings, whereas fetuses actually are human beings in the first stages of life.

In short, I really don't care too much about the lives of bacteria. I do think unborn human beings should have rights. I don't dehumanize them and think of them as being on a similar level to bacteria. You say that a fetus isn't developed enough to be considered a human being. What is "developed enough"? In my view, once the egg is fertilized and the genes of two humans are combined, it's a human life. Development in the womb is just part of the process of growing into an adult human.

[*bfine32*]

(08-15-2015, 11:27 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: And you aren't getting that it really doesn't matter whether something "will" eventually become something else.

Believe me, I get that. I just think it does matter

[Benton]

This is depressing. This could have been a dozen or so pages about masturbation jokes. Instead, we get skin cells vs sperm cells.

In the end, it's semantics. The definition of life is where you place it. Will a skin cell grow into a person if left unattended? No. Will an egg? No. Both require some form of outside factor to support it. You can take — and they have taken — skin cells and fertilized eggs. And they were just as alive as bacteria which we have no problem eradicating, species of animals we are harvesting to extinction or people, who we have no problem treating horribly.

BTW, if left unmolested, a fertilized egg will perish. It requires intervention, albeit of an organic nature. Skin cells and brain cells likewise perish without intervention. Take any from their host and they will break down.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2015, 10:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I am not claiming the Bible is wrong. I am asserting it is not a textbook. The believer will read, develop a personal relationship, and grow in it. The non-believer will ridicule it and look for inconsistencies out of fear.

There is quite a bit you could learn about the "unclean" meat. Start with Acts

Actually, I will start with Leviticus which states God told Moses blah, blah, blah. . . God established those laws, not society.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2015, 10:29 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, I don't understand because this is probably the most idiotic argument I've ever read on the internet, not because I'm obtuse. 

You're right.  You're not obtuse.  Calling you obtuse is insulting to obtuse people.  You're IQ would need to increase an entire standard deviation for you to increase your current level of intelligence in order to become obtuse.

Here's an example...

(08-11-2015, 09:50 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I have a very open-mind.  Believe it or not, this isn't the first time I've ever discussed abortion in my life.  

I know what I know, and it's not likely to change.  

(08-12-2015, 02:39 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Obviously on abortion, I'm not open-minded.  

When I was discussing me being open-minded, I wasn't referring to abortion, OBVIOUSLY.  

I was speaking in general.  

That's obviously a tough concept to grasp for some, for whatever reason.  

Yes, obviously on abortion you're not open minded except at the beginning of our conversation you specifically told me you were open minded regarding abortion.

(08-12-2015, 02:13 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, you couldn't be more wrong.

Being open-minded doesn't mean that I have to be willing to reconsider my thoughts and opinions on specific things.

Am I being closed-minded if I say that I believe that child molestation is wrong? 

I'm open-minded on a great deal of subjects.  Abortion is not one of them.  That doesn't make me less open-minded.  

You don't even know what open minded means.  If you aren't open minded about one thing that makes less open minded than you could be by at least one subject!

Dude, WTF?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2015, 10:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's the same tired argument. Folks will try so hard that they will try to lead you to believe that you cannot be against abortion if you remove bacteria. Rest easy in the fact that you know that human life begins at conception. Most Pro-choice folk try to argue that life starts far after conception (ie separate life); yet, apparently some feel they can make a point by asserting it starts before conception.

I'm not attempting to make you believe you can't be against abortion.  My stance has nothing to do with bacteria.  Thanks you for making shit up.  As usual.

You can oppose abortion all you want.  You just don't have the right to tell other people to live their lives according to your morals, values, and beliefs based upon some Iron Age goat herder's delusions.

A cycle is a series of steps which reoccur repeatedly without end.  A cycle is circular, it doesn't have a beginning or an end.  That's why a life cycle is called a cycle and not a line.  That's why most biologist will tell you life is continuous without a start point.  But, don't let the scientist ruin your bullshit narrative.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-16-2015, 02:07 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You're right.  You're not obtuse.  Calling you obtuse is insulting to obtuse people.  You're IQ would need to increase an entire standard deviation for you to increase your current level of intelligence in order to become obtuse.

Here's an example...




Yes, obviously on abortion you're not open minded except at the beginning of our conversation you specifically told me you were open minded regarding abortion.



You don't even know what open minded means.  If you aren't open minded about one thing that makes less open minded than you could be by at least one subject!

Dude, WTF?

So you've lost the argument, and decided to attack the poster instead.

How original.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2015, 10:54 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yes I believe in God. God has created everything that we know.

 
There you go.  God created everything.  Including life.  Can anyone or anything create life other than God?

Quote:The cells of the tree in my backyard are alive as well, but that doesn't make it a human life. 

Those tree cells aren't human.  I never claimed they were.  But, they are alive.  Who created everything? Including life?

Quote:As JakeFromStateFarm (love that name) pointed out, skin cells are also alive,

Yes, those skin cells are alive.  Glad we agree.  Who created those skin cells and who animated those skin cells with life?  Who created everything? Including life?

Quote:yet I don't think anyone would consider that a human life on it's own. 

I should hope no one would consider skin cells human life.  I'm glad I didn't make that argument.  You would have to be "obtuse" to believe that BS.  (I'm looking at you, jakefromstatefarm.)  But, if similar cells were found on Mars would you consider them "life" or not?

Quote:It's just part of a human being, as is a sperm or egg cell.

Correct.  I think we're about to hug it out.

Quote:A sperm fertilizing an egg and the combination of genes from a man and a woman is what makes a "human life". It's not all that complicated. 

You need a sperm to fertilize an egg to create a human, but the life part is a bit more complicated than you believe.  We know from in vitro fertilization that fertilization (conception) can occur, but there is no life.  Can you explain that to me?

Quote:One question: Can a sperm grow into a human being on it's own?

 
No.  I never claimed it could.  But, that doesn't mean it isn't alive or "life".  Every time I mention life several of you always have to attach the adjective "human" to it.  As if "life" doesn't count as life, unless it is "human life."  I disagree.  Who did you write created everything? God?  Can anyone or anything create life other than your God?  No.  Even the tiniest little sperm cell is so complicated only your God could create it.  Correct?

Life is life.  It doesn't matter if it is a grown adult or a single cell.  Doesn't matter if it is a human, animal, or vegetable.  It is life.  That thing all of you think is a miracle.  I doesn't require "human" attached to it in order to have meaning.

A human embryo is life.  A human ovum and a spermatozoa are life.  They are alive because they came from live, adult humans.  Who came from children who came from babies who came from fetuses who came from embryos who came from sperm and eggs who came from adults who came from children, etc, etc, etc.

Conception is the beginning of a potential new human, but it isn't new "life" because of everything I just explained.  You may be intelligent enough to understand my point, but I know ol' jakefromstatefarm was lost since jump street.

Which brings me back to the beginning, the logical fallacy that life begins at conception.  Life continues at conception, it doesn't begin there.  So at what point does a life have individual rights?  At birth?  At 24 weeks when the chance of survival outside the uterus is 50/50?  At conception?  Before conception?

As you can see on this message board and across the world's different countries, religions, cultures, ethnicities, etcetera there isn't a single universal answer.  The best anyone can hope for is to follow their own conscience rather than be forced to follow the idiotic ramblings of someone like jakefromstatefarm who can't even decide if he is open minded or not over the course of a 4 hour conversation.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-16-2015, 03:23 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: So you've lost the argument, and decided to attack the poster instead.

How original.  

Really?  I didn't realize quoting you was an attack.  I'll try not to use your statements against you in the future.

(08-15-2015, 10:07 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: You must have been sick during sex education class, or you're intentionally being obtuse.  

I'm pretty sure we're discussing HUMAN LIFE here, not living sperm or eggs.  There is a difference, correct? 

You started the insults five hours ago.  I'm just returning the favor.  You're too obtuse to realize you initiated the insults.

[BmorePat87]

The same debate in a third thread? Who woulda thunk it?

[*bfine32*]

(08-15-2015, 10:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's the same tired argument. Folks will try so hard that they will try to lead you to believe that you cannot be against abortion if you remove bacteria. Rest easy in the fact that you know that human life begins at conception. Most Pro-choice folk try to argue that life starts far after conception (ie separate life); yet, apparently some feel they can make a point by asserting it starts before conception.

(08-16-2015, 01:32 AM)Benton Wrote: This is depressing. This could have been a dozen or so pages about masturbation jokes. Instead, we get skin cells vs sperm cells.

In the end, it's semantics. The definition of life is where you place it. Will a skin cell grow into a person if left unattended? No. Will an egg? No. Both require some form of outside factor to support it. You can  take — and they have taken — skin cells and fertilized eggs. And they were just as alive as bacteria which we have no problem eradicating, species of animals we are harvesting to extinction or people, who we have no problem treating horribly.

BTW, if left unmolested, a fertilized egg will perish. It requires intervention, albeit of an organic nature. Skin cells and brain cells likewise perish without intervention. Take any from their host and they will break down.

Can I call it or can I call it?

oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:My stance has nothing to do with bacteria. Thanks you for making shit up. As usual.

I'm sorry. I didn't get that. You were saying?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-16-2015, 09:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Can I call it or can I call it?



I'm sorry. I didn't get that. You were saying?

You can't call shit, but I give you credit for making up more shit.

Benton has posted once and didn't try to make you feel like you couldn't be against abortion.  If anything, he expressed frustration about both sides of the argument which I can understand.  As I have already stated, I haven't tried to make you believe you can't be against abortion.  You can be against anything you like.  You don't have the right to tell anyone how to live their life based upon your religion.  Despite your opposition to living your life under sharia law, that hasn't deterred your efforts to impose your beliefs upon others.  My stance still doesn't have anything to do with bacteria.  However, I recognized the irony that you believe the complexity of life is evidence of divine creation, but when I recognized the complexity of life you dismiss it as evidence of life.

You were saying?

[*bfine32*]

(08-16-2015, 10:44 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You can't call shit, but I give you credit for making up more shit.

Ut oh, you must be angry.