2,176

(79 replies, posted in Politics)

sigh. we are talking about two different things. you are talking about the requirments of mature human beings for life. i am talking about of any kind of life. single cell organisms are alive and dont have a heart or lungs just like an embryo. right now, you are acting pretty stupid mentioning things that has nothing to do with my argument. i suggest you sober up before posting again in this thread if when you sober up you dont see the problem with your posts, it speaks very poorly of your class.

2,177

(79 replies, posted in Politics)

"and for your sources ... wiki is not a credible source, so i couldn't take that into your debate."

i defined what i think life is and instead of typing out and explaining each criteria, i just copy/pasted the criteria and explanation from wiki, because its well known criteria. ignoring my wiki reference which wasnt trying to prove anything to you but to explain to you what life is, just shows your stubbornness and lack of willingness to listen to new ideas.

"t's not logical to say that a "baby" a human being, not having a pulse, neurological functions, or respiratory rates .... isn't a human ... i guess you consider a corpse a person?"

a corpse doesn't fit the definition of life i gave.

"I never said that either, i gave clear definitions of a living being. Not being inside another, rather functions that you and me experience every second."

i never said that you said that. but its a common argument made by pro-choice people and i didnt want someone else trying to argue that after i made my point, so i included it in my response inorder for it to be thorough.

"Again my points are all evidence based,"

try reading my entire post. your argument is that because adult humans cant live without breath, pules, and neurological functions, means nothing that is alive can. that is not logical. that doesnt make any sense. a scientist would not say that it has to have something that further developed members of that species does inorder for it to be alive or a member of that species. it's not logical to do that with humans either. so arguments saying its not an alive human being because its not breathing or doesnt have a pulse or have neurological functions or isnt outside the mother's body, arent logical.... the humans species isnt scientifically defined by the need to have a pulse, breath, or neurological functions.

2,178

(79 replies, posted in Politics)

> ~Pw32~  Random Hero wrote:

> When do you consider the "egg" a person? There's no way to assess it's neurological functions, nor to say it has any at that time. When your declared dead you have no neurological functions, and your heart stops beating ... so tell me something different that would consider you alive?

~ Cloud


we consider someone dead, when their potential to live is reduced to practically zero. if we progress through technology to the point where people can regularly be revived well past the point where they had no neurological functions and their heart stopped beating, we would consider them alive.  currently with our technology, the chances to bring someone back after their heart stops beating or they have no neurological functions is next to zero, so thats when we call someone dead. but a fetus's potential to become something we would all consider a living human individual doesnt start at his first heartbeats or neurological functions, but when its conceived.




i would use the same definition a scientist would use. something is alive when it meets most of the following criteria. "   1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
   2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
   3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
   4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
   5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
   6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
   7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life




does the lump of cells meet most of this criteria? yep. its alive. but big deal, a toe nail is composed of living cells too.  well, then i look at DNA. a toe nail is a tiny part of a living being. the lump of cells that is an embryo or fetus is unique and is its own living being, seperate from the mother or the father. the DNA is also human. so you combine all this information we know and scientifically, its alive, it is an individual living being, and its human. all of those statements are scientifically sound at conception. all arguments that it is not one or more of those things are religious and have no place in government law unless the government is a religious state.

a scientist looking at a foreign animal wouldnt say because the one creature is inside of the other, it is not its own creature until it leaves the other creature. a scientist  would also not say that it has to something that further developed members of that species does inorder for it to be alive or a part of that species or seperate from its mother. it's not logical to do that with humans either. so arguments saying its not an alive human being because its not breathing or doesnt have a pulse or have neurological functions or isnt outside the mother's body, arent logical....

2,179

(79 replies, posted in Politics)

"Well i agree with abortion. As long as it's within the first 2 months, before the fetus has a heart beat it isn't considered a person merly a ball of cells still forming. If it's just a ball of cells still honestly it's still apart of that females body, in which she can do as she pleases, however again once a heart beat has started now it's alive."

why does it need to have a heart beat for you to consider it alive?

2,180

(37 replies, posted in Politics)

> Red_Rooster wrote:

> that source is a bit  outdated dont you think?

yep, not to mention the source says diet, and not obesity.... so that includes things like food poisoning and eating disorders such as anorexia.

2,181

(35 replies, posted in General)

you mean before the brits burned it down smile

2,182

(37 replies, posted in Politics)

> Justinian I wrote:

> Avo,

Obviously she's anorexic.

why is it obvious?

she's Japanese, just moved from Tokyo 6 months ago, do you see alot of fat Japanese women? Japanese people are on average alot skinnier then most people. they have different standards when it comes to skinny and fat. i'm pretty sure she's just unhappy with her legs, and is trying to solve it through swimming daily and yoga.... i dont think she's anorexic... from my experience with women, even if they're skinny they're always unhappy with at least 1 part of their body. thinking hey legs are too fat and by extension that she is too fat and needs to lose a little weight is perfectly normal.

2,183

(37 replies, posted in Politics)

well, when i was in highschool, i was 5'9 and pretty buff and weighed 210lbs.... below 160 isnt really ideal.... gained 15 lbs since highschool.... not quite as fit sad

2,184

(180 replies, posted in Politics)

if working to better yourself isnt good for your government, your government is not your government, its an obstacle for you to overcome.

2,185

(101 replies, posted in Politics)

they might be trying to dispute my claim by laying the blame on society for making the victims believe that rape is wrong and its the society's fault people are traumatized by rape or witnessing the murder of a loved one. but i think im reading too much into their posts.

2,186

(37 replies, posted in Politics)

i know a woman thats probably 5'7, is 85 lbs and thinks she's a fatty. i tell her she's not fat, but me being an american destroys my credibility when it comes to such matters.

2,187

(101 replies, posted in Politics)

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Another vote for not essentially wrong.

no one wants to dispute what i say about how everyone, who views morality as subjective, views victims?

2,188

(81 replies, posted in Politics)

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> That... would... be...



AWESOME!


there are no winners in war, you sick bastard

2,189

(180 replies, posted in Politics)

> sad sKoE )= wrote:

> It disproves the absolution Black_Wing was suggesting.

how so?

2,190

(101 replies, posted in Politics)

> ☭ Fokker wrote:

> > If you keep using Avogadro/Flint/BW tactics you will end up equally respected.


you mean the most respected posters on the forum? tongue you left acouple people out though...

2,191

(20 replies, posted in Politics)

> esa wrote:

> How do you get a "banned" tag?

[TOP SECRET]

2,192

(41 replies, posted in Politics)

in MI, its right around the $2.00 mark. you can get for around $1.95 if you pay cash at some places.

2,193

(20 replies, posted in Politics)

> Black_Wing wrote:

> Agreed......

First, they need to go bankrupt, chapter 13.
Then Break the damn UAW....that they were supposed to do this last contract.

THEN......we can finally build a car to embrace.


well, they did destroy the UAW. all these layoffs are them firing the old people and then hiring new people at much lower costs.

2,194

(20 replies, posted in Politics)

> esa wrote:

> If GM goes bk Ford and Chrysler would pick up their market share.Two healthy car companies are better than 3 sick ones.

if GM goes bk, Ford and Chrysler's market is going to shrink more then it will grow from the loss of a major competitor.

2,195

(20 replies, posted in Politics)

> Phoenix Mailer wrote:

> Have your ever heard of Karl Marx Capital ? and have you ever heard of main dilemma of capitalism ?

Let me explain it to you in terms you shoud understand - every enterprise exists to function at profit, it means it will pay to its workers less than it will be selling the fruits of their work. It means workers get only a fraction of the value of what they produced and it means they will not be able to buy all the goods they produced. So in order for the economy to function one has to stimulate demand with extra money. That's were banks come into play but the problem is one cannot stimulate demand by ever increasing debt for ever - there is a limit to how much debt one can bear and it seems we have reached that point...

the solution to the dilemma is to destroy the savings by debasing the currency (running printing presses and destroying the value of the dollar).

that doesnt make any sense. yes, enterprise exists to make a profit. workers do get a fraction of the value of what they produced, but you're ignoring the owners. the owners are consumers too. and profit doesnt magically disappear. profit is speant just like the rest of the money, even when owners horde their money by keeping it in banks, banks lend the money to others that will be spending the money.

2,196

(20 replies, posted in Politics)

> Justinian I wrote:

> Let Toyota run them out of business.

well, GM is gonna go bankrupt in December without Federal Aid; if GM goes bankrupt, this will be a full blown depression.

2,197

(20 replies, posted in Politics)

typical big Government; regulates company until they can no longer be profitable, then denies help until they do exactly what government wants them to do, while government blames business for themselves no longer being profitable.

oh, we're just going to pass laws that will cost you over a hundred billion dollars during a economic recession, and we'll give you $25 billion sometime in the future. oh, what? you're going to go bankrupt in December? Damn, incompetent GM, no, we wont give you any of the $700 billion we're giving to the corrupt banks...

2,198

(102 replies, posted in Politics)

sounds like ways to get positive points if you ask me...

2,199

(102 replies, posted in Politics)

[ what the hell??!! ]

2,200

(102 replies, posted in Politics)

how is zarf a dirty politician and Black Wing not?