How to silence Richard Mourdock

Post Reply New Topic

That's because it's a false analogy. Skin cells are not life, hell, a lot of them are not even alive. In response to the other thread which we were debating this:

A person is a human. A human is an organism. A fetus is both a human and an organism. There is a difference between life and alive. Only an organism is life. Your sperm cells,blood, etc. are alive, but they are not life. They are merely a level of organization of life. There are many levels of biological organization: chemical, cellular, tissue, organ, etc.. But only the whole, the organism itself, is life. Which is why biology is the study of life, or the study of organisms. Life is synonymous with organisms. Biology is the study of organisms. My finger is not a life, it is alive. Just as a bunch of atoms make up a chair, lose a few atoms and its still a chair, but those lost atoms are not a chair. And a fetus is not merely a level of organization, it is life itself. It is an organism with all those levels of organization. It is life, your sperm isn't life.

Of course our laws protect human life, but in the abortion debate, we let dumbass lawyers/politicians/businessmen define what life is, instead of actual science. Like you are doing. To call skin cells or blood "life" is incorrect. No life is lost when skin cells, fingers, or sperm are destroyed.

Subdermal skin cells are quite alive. They multiply in a Petri dish when given nutrition.

ruveyn

I said a lot of them aren't alive, not all. The most superficial ones are dead.

Last edited by blackelk on 28 Oct 2012, 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Inuyasha - once again as you deny it, you prove it anyway.

The real issue is the embarrassing disarray of these utterly bizarre views on rape/abortion and Mitt the Magic Mormon's inaction in correcting that mess. Mourdock is but the latest in a series of misinformed idiots spouting off about this subject and what they said is a matter of public record. This looks less like people mis-speaking and much more like party beliefs leaking out at inopportune and mismanaged moments.

But no matter - you'll just carry on weaving and ducking anyway as Mitty boy's (what is that short for? - "Mitthew"?) unpaid shill...

I thought that he was paid for this.

If that's the case then whoever is paying should demand their money back.

Live skin cells and sperm are still "human life".

No one really cares about human life. We care about person. Our laws protect people.

But there is more. Because the mother is also a person.

Our laws do not contemplate a figure of a "super" person, or a person deserving of so many rights that they triumph another person's rights. For example, it would be ridiculous for a law to dictate that we would be forced to donate our kidneys.

In that case, even[ if the fetus was a person (and it is not, not yet). It would be immoral to make a law that forces another person to donate her whole body to it.

This isn't the twilight zone, Cornflake.



Cornflake, the real issue is how liberals love to demonize pro-lifers because they view a child as being a person not property, not simply some collection of cells.

Here is a key difference between your skin cells and a child's cells, the skin cells are 100% your DNA, your skin cells do not spontaneously become brain cells. The cells in a developing child would not be your DNA, it would be the child's own DNA, there is a little bit of your DNA (assuming you were one of the biological parents) and a bit of the other parent's DNA, however it is mixed together to create something entirely new.

A child is not simply some collection of cells, a child in the womb is not a clone of either parent.



Actually, I don't like Mitt Romney, however he's a lot better than the Chicago Politician we currently have in office.

Now do you honestly want a serious conversation over abortion or are you just out to smear Richard Mourdoch and other Republicans? I suspect it is the latter.

Do you seriously want me to bring up how abortion is being used as eugenics, about how the overwhelming majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest? Probably not, you're just out to smear Republicans and paint pro-lifers as kooks.

Problem for you is I can actually turn the tables quite easily:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwFIEprF_9Y[/youtube]

Next:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdm-i62hRdc[/youtube]

Maybe I should see if I can track these ladies down and see if they would be willing to post on these forums. So people would have to listen to people that SURVIVED an attempt to murder them via an abortion.

QED.

I don't know what you meant by QED, not sure I want to know. Did you watch the videos Cornflake, those two women are just 2 of the thousands of survivors of attempts to kill babies via abortions. Are you going to continue to say their lives have no value and they don't deserve to exist?

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Figured it was an attempt to ridicule me, seriously compared to some people you're an amateur (and yeah they were actually moderators and admins that flamed me).


Anyways you're dodging the question.



I'm not letting you weasel out of this.

No, skin cells aren't human life, anymore than paint scraped off a chair is a chair. I know you like to make up your own definitions but skin cells are not a human life. Only an organism is life. Look up the criteria for life:



As you can see, you have to have the capability to create new organisms to be considered life. That is why only organisms can be considered life, and not their subdivisions.

A person is a human. A human is an organism. A fetus is a human organism, and a person. It is considered part of human development, from conception to death. There is no getting around this. No matter how many pet definitions you create.

And even if I were to grant your argument that parts of the body are life, those are protected under law. Bodily injury is a crime, and our bodies are protected.

It is immoral to destroy life because it's an inconvenience. The state already regulates what we do to our bodies. We don't own them completely.

Last edited by blackelk on 28 Oct 2012, 9:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

'Yasha was actually quite hostile to Mittens, right up until he became the official GOP candidate. He's not unlike the anti-war left who turn a blind eye to Obama's foreign adventurism and not-so-secret assassination program, in his reality avoidance in furtherance of partisanship. I really don't understand it myself, but then I don't understand most cultish things.

Actually, it's more of I seriously think Obama is far worse than Romney. For example I don't believe Romney would have tolerated anything like Fast & Furious under his Presidency.

If it were Romney versus Jimmy Carter, I would probably be voting for Carter, however Obama is far worse than Jimmy Carter and is also arguably more corrupt than Richard Nixon.

I actually can make a list of reasons as to why I'm voting for Romney over Obama.

I hope that people can realize that most GOP politicians are not like Akin or Mourdock. And they have to remind themselves they Romney is the presidential candidate, not Akin or Mourdock.

That said, I voted for Gary Johnson for president, but otherwise straight GOP.