Political Crossfire Forums

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: Actually, I would say that a seed is just the same to as plant as an embryo is to a human, because the genetic make-up of a plant is already embedded into the seed. The seed's DNA does not change when you add water, it only grows. Just as an embryo will grow within the mother's womb.
Youre missing one very important fact. The seed isnt necessarily growing. An embryo has already began to develop the new life. It is not just a seed for a mindless plant, it is the beginning of a sentient beings life.

Quote: What of those born with more, or less, than 64 chromosomes? The process is nothing more than a chemical reaction, that is the process of life. This process can screw up and does so quite often, that does not begin to detract from what the being growing inside the mother is.

Quote: Just as the seed contains the DNA and the genetic make-up of the plant See above.

Quote: I'm assuming that you mean to say that someone chooses to have a child when that individual chooses to have sex, but correct me if I am wrong.

Many people have sex for many different reasons, often times for reasons other than reproduction. Beyond that, someone's sexual behavior, and sexual intentions, are none of your business.
People have a brain with complex functions which enables them to do anything they want to for any list of possible reasons. That does not change the biological purpose of reproduction. WHen 2 people have sex, they are knowingly taking the chance of creating offspring, regardless of whatever petty motivations they might have.

Quote: Correction: It could be ending the life of another potential human individual No its a potential ADULT not a potential human, it is a human life that requires an abortion to end.

Quote: Then a seed is equivalent to a plant I really could care less the whole topic is irrelevant. You cant compare the biological process of reproduction of a plant to that of ahuman.
Especially since we arent concerned about the fate of a flower, we care about the life of a human.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: How utterly ignorant. The plant analogy to sperm is the pollen. Don't you know ANYTHING? Seeds are indeed the embryo. Good heavens. Why are pro-lifers always so incredibly ignorant of even basic science? Where you all home-schooled by fundie parents who didn't teach you any science because that was seen as "the Devil's work"?
I would agree except youre mixxing 2 completely different biological processes together. In one case the seed does not forma complex life and is not growing immediately upon conception.
The human however is one continuous process that begins upon conception.
A humans seed is very much a sperm because the sperm will not grow into a human on its own, just as the seed of a plant isnt growing until planted.

Quote: So a hydatidiform mole is an individual now? How silly.
The mole will never grow into an adult human, so no of course not. Any logical thinking individual clearly sees the difference.

Quote: And if you squash a fly, that individual life will end. And if you remove a tumor, then that individual life will end and if..... etc, with irrelevant and ignorant drivel.
We arent talking about killing a tumor or a fly, were talking about people. try to stay on topic.

Quote: So the woman withholding her bodily resources won't affect the embryo? More ignorant blabber.
I have no clue what youre talking about here. The only conscious decision the mother makes before giving birth is having sex.
She doesnt control the babies food supply at all after that.

Quote: Well, there is always IVF. And. of course, many people have sex without wanting to give birth. So that's another irrelevant point.
You havent begun to debunk the point. The last conscious decision a mother makes in creating a child is having sex.

Quote: And the embryo is not "people." The embryo is a person. It was conceived by a male and female of the human species, and will grow or not on its own into a new born baby.

gaiadman · Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject:

Personally, I don't agree with abortion, that is just my personal view. I however, respect, the fact that it is a decision of a personal nature and society as a whole has no need nor responsibility to interfere. Regardless of whether abortion is legal or illegal, it is and will happen. By making it illegal all that does is make it that much more dangerous and potentially lethal. Just because people have the ability to reproduce does not imply that they have the ability to raise a child. It is much more of a dynamic question than what has been previously mentioned. Some people, don't have the financial ability, some don't have the mental capacity, and some just don't have the emotional desire. To me it is also about the quality of life, and it the parents decide that they could not currently provide for the potential child in such a manner that they see fit, so be it, that is their choice not ours.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

AllAmericanMan wrote: Youre missing one very important fact. The seed isnt necessarily growing. An embryo has already began to develop the new life.

Sure the seed is growing. I place it in the groud, and add water, just as an embryo is within the mother's womb, and nuitrients as transfered from the mother.

AllAmericanMan wrote: It is not just a seed for a mindless plant, it is the beginning of a sentient beings life.

Are you now saying that sentience is a requirement of life?

AllAmericanMan wrote: The process is nothing more than a chemical reaction, that is the process of life. This process can screw up and does so quite often, that does not begin to detract from what the being growing inside the mother is.

So abortion is the equivalent of preventing/terminating a chemical reaction?

AllAmericanMan wrote: People have a brain with complex functions which enables them to do anything they want to for any list of possible reasons. That does not change the biological purpose of reproduction. WHen 2 people have sex, they are knowingly taking the chance of creating offspring, regardless of whatever petty motivations they might have.

Oh course it is a chance, but it is often not the intention. That is why birth control is used. Now, if there was no contraceptives used during intercourse, and they still did not want a child, then I could understand your point. But condoms, birth control pills, and countless other forms of contraceptives are common place in today's society.

However, I will say this again:

The sexual relations of others is none of your business.

AllAmericanMan wrote: No its a potential ADULT not a potential human, it is a human life that requires an abortion to end.

Just as a seed is a potential plant, which is a potential flower. Pull the seed out of the ground, and no flower will bloom. However, the seed and the flower are not equals. The flower reproduces, the flower uses photosynthesis. The seed remains in the ground.

AllAmericanMan wrote: I really could care less the whole topic is irrelevant. You cant compare the biological process of reproduction of a plant to that of ahuman.
Especially since we arent concerned about the fate of a flower, we care about the life of a human.

I thought we were concerned with the fate of life? In my opinion, a flower is a living being, just as a human being is. A seed is the potential to become a flower, just as an embryo is the potential to become a human. The relationship between the two is that they are the same thing for difference species. So, if you argue that the embryo is already a human, then I ask if you believe if the seed is already a flower. So...

Is the seed already a flower?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

gaiadman wrote: Personally, I don't agree with abortion, that is just my personal view. I however, respect, the fact that it is a decision of a personal nature and society as a whole has no need nor responsibility to interfere. Regardless of whether abortion is legal or illegal, it is and will happen. By making it illegal all that does is make it that much more dangerous and potentially lethal. Just because people have the ability to reproduce does not imply that they have the ability to raise a child. It is much more of a dynamic question than what has been previously mentioned. Some people, don't have the financial ability, some don't have the mental capacity, and some just don't have the emotional desire. To me it is also about the quality of life, and it the parents decide that they could not currently provide for the potential child in such a manner that they see fit, so be it, that is their choice not ours.

:tu:

My thoughts exactly.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: Sure the seed is growing. I place it in the groud, and add water, just as an embryo is within the mother's womb, and nuitrients as transfered from the mother.

You just said a seed you didnt make any mention to aseed that is growing, in which case it would be a newly conceived plant not a seed.
Just as an embryo is a newly conceived human, not a seed.

Quote: Are you now saying that sentience is a requirement of life?
Im demonstarting the difference between a seed and an embryo. The embryo will obtain sentience as it grows into a newborn baby. Basically Im supporting my statement that the seed of a flower does not hold the value of an embryo.

Quote: So abortion is the equivalent of preventing/terminating a chemical reaction? Life is a chemical reaction. You sitting at your computer is a result of chemicals reacting with one another. You would not be alive without your metabolism.

Quote: Oh course it is a chance, but it is often not the intention Intention is irrelevent. Reality is reality. They have knowingly created a new life and want to kill it.

Quote: The sexual relations of others is none of your business.
Im not asking to video tape you having sex. Sex is very rellevent to the abortion debate as it is the point in which a new life is conceived. Saying sex is none of your business is a small minded retort the complexity of the issue.

Quote: Just as a seed is a potential plant, which is a potential flower. Pull the seed out of the ground, and no flower will bloom. However, the seed and the flower are not equals. The flower reproduces, the flower uses photosynthesis. The seed remains in the ground.
irrelevent, plants are not people. people are people. an embryo is a newly conceived person.

Quote: thought we were concerned with the fate of life? HUMAN life.

Quote: an embryo is the potential to become a human What species would you classify the embryo as if not human? It will grow into a newborn baby on its own.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

AllAmericanMan wrote: You just said a seed you didnt make any mention to aseed that is growing, in which case it would be a newly conceived plant not a seed.
Just as an embryo is a newly conceived human, not a seed.

So does the seed equal the flower?

AllAmericanMan wrote: Im demonstarting the difference between a seed and an embryo. The embryo will obtain sentience as it grows into a newborn baby. Basically Im supporting my statement that the seed of a flower does not hold the value of an embryo.

Exactly! The sentience of the embryo does not come until after the embryo is born, then it becomes a child.

AllAmericanMan wrote: Life is a chemical reaction. You sitting at your computer is a result of chemicals reacting with one another. You would not be alive without your metabolism.

Salt is formed by a chemical reaction between chlorine and sodium molecules, so is salt a form of life?

AllAmericanMan wrote: Intention is irrelevent. Reality is reality. They have knowingly created a new life and want to kill it.

Since intention is irrelevent, then is the mother's intention to have an abortion irrevelent as well?

AllAmericanMan wrote: Im not asking to video tape you having sex. Sex is very rellevent to the abortion debate as it is the point in which a new life is conceived. Saying sex is none of your business is a small minded retort the complexity of the issue.

And saying that the sexual relations of another individual is your business is a flagrant invasion of another's privacy and personal life. Neither you, or I, have any right to bring the sexual relation of others into question. That is their business, not ours. What happens in a bedroom between two consenting adults is between those two consenting adults.

AllAmericanMan wrote: irrelevent, plants are not people. people are people. an embryo is a newly conceived person.

So is the life of a plant some how less than the life of a person?

AllAmericanMan wrote: HUMAN life.

Why is human life so much more valuable than life of any other species? Life in its basic nature is just that, life. There is not species attachment to that word. Life is life. Human life and plant life are the same in terms of life. A human is not "more life" than a plant is, just as a plant is not "less life" than a human is.

AllAmericanMan wrote: What species would you classify the embryo as if not human? It will grow into a newborn baby on its own.

The embryo is a potential human. Just as a flower seed is a potential flower. For species purposes, let me use the example of a rose flower. A rose seed is still a part of the rose species, but it is not already a rose. Just the same, an embryo is a member of the human species, but is not already a human.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: So does the seed equal the flower?
I think you need to go back and read everything, never said it did.

Quote: Exactly! The sentience of the embryo does not come until after the embryo is born, then it becomes a child.
Sentience does not equal human. Humans are conceived before they become sentient. We dont shoot out of the penis with a fully formed brain. Sentience comes with age. Sentience does not equal the start of a human beings life.

Quote: Salt is formed by a chemical reaction between chlorine and sodium molecules, so is salt a form of life?
Did I say life is a chemical reaction or chemical reactions are life?

Quote: Since intention is irrelevent, then is the mother's intention to have an abortion irrevelent as well?
The intention to kill her baby has no more relevence over the morality of it than a serial killers intention to murder you.

Quote: And saying that the sexual relations of another individual is your business is a flagrant invasion of another's privacy and personal life. Neither you, or I, have any right to bring the sexual relation of others into question. That is their business, not ours. What happens in a bedroom between two consenting adults is between those two consenting adults.
It seems amazing to me that you can not graps this concept. Im not asking to make your sex life my business. Im not asking to video tape you having sex or know when you do have sex. Sex however is the act that causes a new human life to form. This whole debate is about ending that life. This whole debate is about when that life begins. Asking to remove sex from the debate makes absolutely no sense. Im not asking what positions you used during sex. Im using sex and conception as the start of a humans life. Sex is the last concious decision a parent makes before bringing a child into the world. Asking to remove it from the debate is insanity. Ill say this one last time, its not about sex its about when the new life is created. If youre nto mature enough to handle sex in the debate then debate elsewhere.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: So does the seed equal the flower?
I think you need to go back and read everything, never said it did.

That is why I asked the question, so that I could clarify your points.

AllAmericanMan wrote: Sentience does not equal human. Humans are conceived before they become sentient. We dont shoot out of the penis with a fully formed brain. Sentience comes with age. Sentience does not equal the start of a human beings life.

What is a human without sentience, but a flab of mindless tissue?

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: Salt is formed by a chemical reaction between chlorine and sodium molecules, so is salt a form of life?
Did I say life is a chemical reaction or chemical reactions are life?

My apologies, I did not understand you point. Allow me to rephrase:

Is the process of creating salt, life?

AllAmericanMan wrote: The intention to kill her baby has no more relevence over the morality of it than a serial killers intention to murder you.

If a mother's intention to "kill her baby" is not important, then what is the issue here? If abortion remains legal, then the intention of a mother to utilize that option is not relevant, as you have just stated. You have just said yourself that you do not care whether or not a mother chooses to abort an embryo, so what is the issue of this debate?

AllAmericanMan wrote: It seems amazing to me that you can not graps this concept. Im not asking to make your sex life my business. Im not asking to video tape you having sex or know when you do have sex. Sex however is the act that causes a new human life to form. This whole debate is about ending that life. This whole debate is about when that life begins. Asking to remove sex from the debate makes absolutely no sense. Im not asking what positions you used during sex. Im using sex and conception as the start of a humans life. Sex is the last concious decision a parent makes before bringing a child into the world. Asking to remove it from the debate is insanity. Ill say this one last time, its not about sex its about when the new life is created. If youre nto mature enough to handle sex in the debate then debate elsewhere.

While video taping, and inquiring are certainly violations of an individual's sex life, so is bringing into question. Also, I find your arguments contradicting themselves, since you are not concerned with when a couple has intercourse, but you argue that this is the moment that life is created. Even if that life is created at that moment, that is still none of your business. The embryo that is created through a couple's actions is none of your business, it is theirs. An embryo that is not your partial creation is none of your business. To violate that, is to say that you are a better parent than the biological mother and father of that embryo, and that is an extremely arrogant, and ignorant, claim to make. The potential life inside of another individual's womb is none of your business, none of your concern, and none of your cause of debate.

I apologize that removing sex from this debate will hurt your arguments, but that is not my concern here. My concern is the privacy of the individual to their own life, and the privacy of a bedroom. If you are not mature enough to handle that, then perhaps you should find a different forum for your claims.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: How utterly ignorant. The plant analogy to sperm is the pollen. Don't you know ANYTHING? Seeds are indeed the embryo. Good heavens. Why are pro-lifers always so incredibly ignorant of even basic science? Where you all home-schooled by fundie parents who didn't teach you any science because that was seen as "the Devil's work"? I would agree except youre mixxing 2 completely different biological processes together. Like fertilization and... fertilization?

Quote: In one case the seed does not forma complex life The seed IS the complex life.

Quote: and is not growing immediately upon conception. The pollen fertilizes the ovum and it immediately grows and turns into a seed, which is the biological equivalent to an embryo. Your claims to the contrary are evidence of extreme ignorance on your behalf, nothing else.

Quote: The human however is one continuous process that begins upon conception. So the development that happens in the human egg before fertilization, that is a collective figment of the imagination of those who study such? Your arguments again exposes you as ignorant.

Quote: A humans seed is very much a sperm Nope. Human sperm is the male gamete. In plants, the male gamete is known as "pollen." Look it up, ignorant one.

Quote: because the sperm will not grow into a human on its own, just as the seed of a plant isnt growing until planted. Like the zygote won't grow into anything until imPLANTED in the uterus, yes. perfect analogy.

Are you done making stupid claims about this, claims that directly shows how you are willing to make absolutist claims that are dead wrong? Idiotic stuff like your claims are what is so harmful to the pro-life movement. You come across as ignorant fools and liars.

Quote: Quote: So a hydatidiform mole is an individual now? How silly.
The mole will never grow into an adult human, so no of course not. Any logical thinking individual clearly sees the difference. But the argument that was put forth did not.

Quote: Quote: And if you squash a fly, that individual life will end. And if you remove a tumor, then that individual life will end and if..... etc, with irrelevant and ignorant drivel. We arent talking about killing a tumor or a fly, were talking about people. try to stay on topic. Actually, we were talking about "life." Try to stay on topic and not lie about what we are discussing here.

Quote: Quote: So the woman withholding her bodily resources won't affect the embryo? More ignorant blabber. I have no clue what youre talking about here. The only conscious decision the mother makes before giving birth is having sex.
She doesnt control the babies food supply at all after that. Sure she does. have an abortion, cut off the supply.

Quote: Quote: Well, there is always IVF. And. of course, many people have sex without wanting to give birth. So that's another irrelevant point.
You havent begun to debunk the point. The last conscious decision a mother makes in creating a child is having sex. Not if she uses IVF, ignorant fool.

Quote: Quote: And the embryo is not "people." The embryo is a person. Only in your overheated imagination.

Quote: It was conceived by a male and female of the human species, That is not evidence for its personhood.

Quote: and will grow or not Still not evidence of personhood.

Quote: on its own false. It very much need the biological resources provided by the woman's body.

Quote: into a new born baby. Which still is no evidence of the embryo as "people" or as "person."

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: Im demonstarting the difference between a seed and an embryo. No, you are demonstrating your ignorance of simple botany. The seed is the plant equivalent of the human embryo.

Quote: The embryo will obtain sentience as it grows into a newborn baby. Nonsense. The embryo itself will never attain sentience.

Quote: Basically Im supporting my statement that the seed of a flower does not hold the value of an embryo. Who had said anything about "value"? All we see is you lying about science again.

Quote: Quote: Oh course it is a chance, but it is often not the intention Intention is irrelevent. Reality is reality. They have knowingly created a new life and want to kill it. Like smokers knowingly created a new life in a tumor and want to kill it.

Quote: Quote: The sexual relations of others is none of your business.
Im not asking to video tape you having sex. Sex is very rellevent to the abortion debate as it is the point in which a new life is conceived. Saying sex is none of your business is a small minded retort the complexity of the issue. No, it is a fact. Other people's reasons and method for having sex is none of your business.

Quote: Quote: Just as a seed is a potential plant, which is a potential flower. Pull the seed out of the ground, and no flower will bloom. However, the seed and the flower are not equals. The flower reproduces, the flower uses photosynthesis. The seed remains in the ground.
irrelevent, plants are not people. people are people. So why did you start that lying drivel about seeds being like sperm?

Quote: an embryo is a newly conceived person. False.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: The embryo itself will never attain sentience. so it magically turns into an adult right? Quote: Like fertilization and... fertilization?
plant life anfd human life Quote: Nope. Human sperm is the male gamete. In plants, the male gamete is known as "pollen." Look it up, ignorant one. you just said exactly ehat he said.

brokenangel · Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 7 Location: Michigan

[ Quote: Oh course it is a chance, but it is often not the intention Quote: Intention is irrelevant. Reality is reality. They have knowingly created a new life and want to kill it.

I'm sorry to tell you, but not all people have sex to create life...at least I know I don't. By saying that someone is knowingly creating life by having sex is assuming that most people are that smart. People should have to have a license to have a child..I mean just look at how many children are in foster care. If a person can be so dense to not use any form of protection when having sex, they should get an abortion because clearly they probably couldn't handle a child anyway

[/quote]

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

here

Quote: Human embryos are (just as more mature human beings are) whole human organisms, and, as such, living (albeit immature) members of the species homo sapiens; somatic cells are not. Human embryos have the epigenetic primordia for internally directed maturation as distinct, complete, self-integrating human individuals; somatic cells do not. Thus, the "potential" of somatic cells is nothing remotely like the potential of the embryo. Like sperm and ova, somatic cells, though they themselves are not distinct, self-integrating human organisms (but are rather parts of other, larger human organisms), can contribute constituents to a process that brings into being a new, distinct, self-integrating human organism — a human embryo. By contrast, an embryo — whether brought into being by sexual union or cloning — is already a human being. That human being, given nothing more than an hospitable environment, will actively develop itself from the embryonic through the fetal, infant, and adolescent stages of his or her life and into adulthood with his or her unity and identity fully intact. That is why it is true to say that you or I was once an embryo, just as we were once adolescents, infants, etc. A fully mature human being who came into existence by cloning, however, was never a somatic cell, just as adult human beings who were brought into existence by sexual reproduction were never sperm cells or ova.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-george073001.shtml

To sum it all up, an embryo is the same being it is when its an adult.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

heres are some interesting comments from someone in biological engineering.

Quote: A human life begins when a diploid complement of human DNA is initiated to begin human development. Therefore, a life can be initiated by the fusion of sperm and egg or by the introduction of a diploid nucleus into an enucleated egg (ie, “cloning”).

Quote: A human life is the experience of a human being until its death. It begins with a single cell that has a diploid complement of human DNA, programmed for human development.

http://www.cogforlife.org/clonedebate.htm

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

... Way to completely dodge the argument.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

AllAmericanMan wrote: here

Quote: Human embryos are (just as more mature human beings are) whole human organisms, and, as such, living (albeit immature) members of the species homo sapiens; somatic cells are not. Human embryos have the epigenetic primordia for internally directed maturation as distinct, complete, self-integrating human individuals; somatic cells do not. Thus, the "potential" of somatic cells is nothing remotely like the potential of the embryo. Like sperm and ova, somatic cells, though they themselves are not distinct, self-integrating human organisms (but are rather parts of other, larger human organisms), can contribute constituents to a process that brings into being a new, distinct, self-integrating human organism — a human embryo. By contrast, an embryo — whether brought into being by sexual union or cloning — is already a human being. That human being, given nothing more than an hospitable environment, will actively develop itself from the embryonic through the fetal, infant, and adolescent stages of his or her life and into adulthood with his or her unity and identity fully intact. That is why it is true to say that you or I was once an embryo, just as we were once adolescents, infants, etc. A fully mature human being who came into existence by cloning, however, was never a somatic cell, just as adult human beings who were brought into existence by sexual reproduction were never sperm cells or ova.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-george073001.shtml

To sum it all up, an embryo is the same being it is when its an adult.

So I ask you again,

Does the seed equal the flower?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

AllAmericanMan wrote: heres are some interesting comments from someone in biological engineering.

Quote: A human life begins when a diploid complement of human DNA is initiated to begin human development. Therefore, a life can be initiated by the fusion of sperm and egg or by the introduction of a diploid nucleus into an enucleated egg (ie, “cloning").

Quote: A human life is the experience of a human being until its death. It begins with a single cell that has a diploid complement of human DNA, programmed for human development.

http://www.cogforlife.org/clonedebate.htm

How do you know the person who said that is in the bio-engineering field without a name, or reference?

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: How do you know the person who said that is in the bio-engineering field without a name, or reference I gave the link. It has the info.
That being said, debate what the substance is instead of attacking the source. The fact is there is one single process of a human beings life that determines it to be an individual from conception. This fact has not been scientifically refudiated by anyone.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

AllAmericanMan wrote: I gave the link. It has the info.

I apologize, I was quick to judge without checking the link.

AllAmericanMan wrote: That being said, debate what the substance is instead of attacking the source. The fact is there is one single process of a human beings life that determines it to be an individual from conception. This fact has not been scientifically refudiated by anyone.

I am not arguing that the potential life begins at conception. I am arguing whether or not that is the potential life of a human, or the actual life of a human. I have asked you many times, and I will ask again.

Do you believe that the seed is equal to the flower?