NationStates

The ivain isles wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:Precisely, which is why it's strange why I'm debating you. You've done nothing but repeat the same shit over and over and in the face of being demonstrated wrong, you shout, "NOPE!"

Also, just so you don't conveniently ignore this:

Coming from a guy who thinks the dead can reproduce, that's rich.

Who the fuck said the dead can reproduce?

That's the most pathetic straw man I've seen yet.

The ivain isles wrote:

Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:Same Genus, different species. It is possible for two different species in the same genus to interbreed with DNA that is very similar. But still different species. Plz lern 2 sciens.

A1 in HLbio, and your ignoring the to produce fertile offspring.

There ARE species who can produce fertile offspring with other species. Are you REALLY this bad at biology?

Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:

The ivain isles wrote:
A1 in HLbio, and your ignoring the to produce fertile offspring.

HOMO ERECTUS:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. erectus

HOMO NEANDERTALENSIS:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. neanderthalensis

HOMO SAPIENS:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

You're clearly not as good at biology as you think you are.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
Look at number two.

Mavorpen wrote:

The ivain isles wrote:
Coming from a guy who thinks the dead can reproduce, that's rich.

Who the fuck said the dead can reproduce?

That's the most pathetic straw man I've seen yet.

It's got more hay than straw.

The ivain isles wrote:http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
Look at number two.

Did you read your own source?

(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.

Here's a hint: ligers are fertile.

The ivain isles wrote:

Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:HOMO ERECTUS:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. erectus

HOMO NEANDERTALENSIS:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. neanderthalensis

HOMO SAPIENS:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

You're clearly not as good at biology as you think you are.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
Look at number two.

When it comes to science, ACTUAL SCIENCE trumps generic dictionary definitions.

Sociobiology wrote:

Solarys wrote:
1) More like i can equate a zygote to a fetus but not a sperm or ovum due to their similarities differences.

such as?

2) Yes, that is what i was talking about. It requires the egg cell doesn't it ? which unless i am mistaken is not just cells from stomach lining.

actually we can make egg cells (ova) from stomach lining cells.

3) And that is what i am saying is wrong.

so we should cut your donatable organs out against your will to help other people?

Also conjoined twins are different and also the situation is permanent unless surgically separated.

what does that have to do with it?
in both cases it is unwilling.
in both cases a dependent and a independent human are in conflict over the use of a organs.

And do note that i am pro-abortion if pregnancy carries a serious health risk for the mother or something.

I am pro abortion up until the delivery, and pro termination if the human is in a dependent state that if terminated will drastically improve the standard of living of the independent human.

1) Do you really need me to tell you why zygotes are more similar to fetuses than sperm/ova ? If so then wait till tomorrow as i don't have the time right now.

2) I was not aware of that. See, things like these are what i request external links for so that i can read about it in detail.

3) Trying to build something with straws ? lots and lots of it ?

4) Whether it is temporary or not fucking matters. It is 9-10 months, not a lifetime.

Also if unwillingness is your problem, in the society that we do live in we don't get do do whatever we want. Consider this as something like that.

Also conflict of organs ? more like nutrition in this case. False equivalency. Also the difference between temporary and permanent.
5) And we will continue to disagree.

Mavorpen wrote:

The ivain isles wrote:http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
Look at number two.

Did you read your own source?

(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.

Here's a hint: ligers are fertile.

True, lol, my bad. What was the original point anyway?

The ivain isles wrote:
If they're human, they have to give and have consent.

Counterpoint: If the fetus is a human being, then they are under the age of legal consent; in other words, a child. A child cannot legally give consent to undergo a medical procedure, such as abortion. His/her parent must give consent for them, as in a mother giving consent to a doctor to perform an abortion on the unborn fetus. Therefore, the question of whether or not a fetus has given consent is negligible, for his/her/its consent is not legally valid.

The ivain isles wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:Did you read your own source?



Here's a hint: ligers are fertile.

True, lol, my bad. What was the original point anyway?

If you're really this bad at biology, I don't think you should expect anyone to take your word for anything concerning it.

New Stephensland wrote:

The ivain isles wrote:
If they're human, they have to give and have consent.

Counterpoint: If the fetus is a human being, then they are under the age of legal consent; in other words, a child. A child cannot legally give consent to undergo a medical procedure, such as abortion. His/her parent must give consent for them, as in a mother giving consent to a doctor to perform an abortion on the unborn fetus. Therefore, the question of whether or not a fetus has given consent is negligible, for his/her/its consent is not legally valid.

This is my favorite post in all of the abortion threads.

Arcturus Novus wrote:

New Stephensland wrote:
Counterpoint: If the fetus is a human being, then they are under the age of legal consent; in other words, a child. A child cannot legally give consent to undergo a medical procedure, such as abortion. His/her parent must give consent for them, as in a mother giving consent to a doctor to perform an abortion on the unborn fetus. Therefore, the question of whether or not a fetus has given consent is negligible, for his/her/its consent is not legally valid.

This is my favorite post in all of the abortion threads.

I really hope it's for good reasons, and not because I look stupid.

New Stephensland wrote:

Arcturus Novus wrote:This is my favorite post in all of the abortion threads.

I really hope it's for good reasons, and not because I look stupid.

People like you give me hope for summer.

New Stephensland wrote:

Arcturus Novus wrote:This is my favorite post in all of the abortion threads.

I really hope it's for good reasons, and not because I look stupid.

Seeing as you actually managed to use the age of consent argument quite effectively, it is for good reasons.

Mavorpen wrote:

The ivain isles wrote:
True, lol, my bad. What was the original point anyway?

If you're really this bad at biology, I don't think you should expect anyone to take your word for anything concerning it.

Considering I only conceded the point to move along the debate, and the fact my definition was sound, as ligers rarely successfully interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and when they do, they can't carry on a lineage, I couldn't care less, and as you seem to consider no forms of your own, resort purely to pathos, and Fox News tactics of taking a post and cutting out two thirds of it, I stopped believing anything you said five pages ago.

The ivain isles wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:If you're really this bad at biology, I don't think you should expect anyone to take your word for anything concerning it.

Considering I only conceded the point to move along the debate, and the fact my definition was sound, as ligers rarely successfully interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and when they do, they can't carry on a lineage, I couldn't care less, and as you seem to consider no forms of your own, resort purely to pathos, and Fox News tactics of taking a post and cutting out two thirds of it, I stopped believing anything you said five pages ago.

Then why keep replying?

The ivain isles wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:If you're really this bad at biology, I don't think you should expect anyone to take your word for anything concerning it.

Considering I only conceded the point to move along the debate, and the fact my definition was sound, as ligers rarely successfully interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and when they do, they can't carry on a lineage, I couldn't care less, and as you seem to consider no forms of your own, resort purely to pathos, and Fox News tactics of taking a post and cutting out two thirds of it, I stopped believing anything you said five pages ago.

The biological species concept was developed by Ernst Mayr, in 1942. Here it is, as first formulated, and quoted in Douglas J. Futuyma's EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY (1998): "Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups". The "reproductive isolation" can be genetic (non-fertility), geographic, or behavioral; there is NO criteria that says (as is commonly believed) that if two populations can interbreed they are the SAME species. There is NO criteria that says that two distinct species CAN'T interbreed. Consider the example of wolves, coyotes and dogs: three distinct species that can interbreed. In fact, all species of the genus Canis can mate and produce fertile offspring (Wayne et al., 1997, re: A. P. Gray, Mammalian Hybrids).

so yeah you're fucking wrong.

The ivain isles wrote:

Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:HOMO ERECTUS:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. erectus

HOMO NEANDERTALENSIS:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. neanderthalensis

HOMO SAPIENS:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

You're clearly not as good at biology as you think you are.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
Look at number two.

YOU look at number two. It has to be ecologically and recognizably the same.

Arcturus Novus wrote:

New Stephensland wrote:
Counterpoint: If the fetus is a human being, then they are under the age of legal consent; in other words, a child. A child cannot legally give consent to undergo a medical procedure, such as abortion. His/her parent must give consent for them, as in a mother giving consent to a doctor to perform an abortion on the unborn fetus. Therefore, the question of whether or not a fetus has given consent is negligible, for his/her/its consent is not legally valid.

This is my favorite post in all of the abortion threads.

And if the mother puts her child in harms way, the courts can intervene and act in loco parentis.

The ivain isles wrote:Considering I only conceded the point to move along the debate, and the fact my definition was sound, as ligers rarely successfully interbreed to produce fertile offspring,

Holy shit you haven't been paying attention, have you? I said that TIGERS and LIONS are different species, yet by your definition they would be the same species. Tigers and lions can produce fertile offspring, yet they are different species.

Fuck, could you stop attacking straw man every single chance you get?

The ivain isles wrote:

Arcturus Novus wrote:This is my favorite post in all of the abortion threads.

And if the mother puts her child in harms way, the courts can intervene and act in loco parentis.

No child is being put in harms way, so this is about as useless a post as picspam.

I am Pro-life, just going to say that straight up. But a HUGE point that all of us Pro-Lifers miss is the fact that pro-life doesn't stop after you've saved a fetus/baby. People (and particularly in churches) are far to eager to condemn pro-choice abortion laws and abortion clinics, and then drop the issue. YOU CAN'T STOP THERE. Okay yeah, you saved a life, a baby is now going to grow up and be a child, but in what way? What about that mother who wasn't prepared to have a child and wanted an abortion? Get off you butt, put down your sign now that you've got your way, and help out that mother that you just told to keep her baby rather than abort it. You can't just force her to have her baby and then leave her to her own devices. Why do you think she wanted an abortion in the first place? If you really care about that baby's life that you just saved, then you will support that mother and that child past the abortion law. Otherwise the whole thing was meaningless. Unprepared mothers aren't going to fare too well without the help of some loving and caring people (which is what churches are ultimately called to be). So if you don't want to see legalized abortions, then be prepared to help out all of those single moms who are going to be blessed with a child that you just fought to save. Being pro-life is more than being anti-abortion.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/current ... i-abortion

Mavorpen wrote:

The ivain isles wrote:Considering I only conceded the point to move along the debate, and the fact my definition was sound, as ligers rarely successfully interbreed to produce fertile offspring,

Holy shit you haven't been paying attention, have you? I said that TIGERS and LIONS are different species, yet by your definition they would be the same species. Tigers and lions can produce fertile offspring, yet they are different species.

Fuck, could you stop attacking straw man every single chance you get?

I forgot your definition of successfully is different than mine.

Blasveck wrote:

The ivain isles wrote:
Considering I only conceded the point to move along the debate, and the fact my definition was sound, as ligers rarely successfully interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and when they do, they can't carry on a lineage, I couldn't care less, and as you seem to consider no forms of your own, resort purely to pathos, and Fox News tactics of taking a post and cutting out two thirds of it, I stopped believing anything you said five pages ago.

Then why keep replying?

because I enjoy pissing people off.

Mavorpen wrote:

The ivain isles wrote:
And if the mother puts her child in harms way, the courts can intervene and act in loco parentis.

No child is being put in harms way, so this is about as useless a post as picspam.

because everybody loves being dead. Or nonlife.