Abortion

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 255
#31
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
A box of rocks has more intelligence than you, kid. 
I mean really, for fucks sake, your retort screams “ignoramus” yo the heavens. Please go to a private university and get some life experience before engaging me (or anyone else for that matter) on the topic of abortion. Take a course in philosophy and extended English courses. You need to learn how to correctly identify, understand let alone use analogies. Moreover, how to properly compare two like things in making arguments vs two unlike things as you consistently do with your false equivalency fallacies. Plus learning how and why words have different meanings when used in different contexts. Until then, don’t expect anymore replies from me to you on the topic of abortion. I simply don’t have the time let alone patience to deal with your ignorance (on all the levels aforementioned) anymore. 

#32
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,931
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Abortion is an emotive argument instilled in some.

And a pragmatic argument acquired by others.

And words have variable meanings and are open to variable interpretation. Definitions are rarely precise.

So for as long as people are allowed to form their own opinions, abortion will remain a contentious issue.

Pro lifers tend to be only selectively pro-life though.

And interestingly some vegans are pro-choice.

Woke is as woke does hey?


#33
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TWS1405_2
A box of rocks has more intelligence than you, kid. 
If this were true, you should have no problem beating me in this argument, yet you still have yet to. 

I mean really, for fucks sake, your retort screams “ignoramus” yo the heavens. Please go to a private university and get some life experience before engaging me (or anyone else for that matter) on the topic of abortion.
A lot of people with degrees including PHD's agree with me, and I them on the topic of abortion.
To assimilate that just because I don't have experience in colleges or universities' means that I am wrong on the topic of abortion and you are right is completely ignorant. 

You simply can't refute my arguments, because anything you say to refute them would be proving me right. 
Just let go of your pride man. 

Take a course in philosophy and extended English courses. You need to learn how to correctly identify, understand let alone use analogies.
How are my analogies wrong?
I actually have used the same analogies that some very distinguished debaters have used on abortion arguments, and thought that those analogies work very well. 
So tell me, what is wrong with my analogies?

Moreover, how to properly compare two like things in making arguments vs two unlike things as you consistently do with your false equivalency fallacies.
They are not unlike each other. They are not the same thing or situation yes, but the analogy still holds the same moral principal's. 
My examples are not a fallacies'. They ask the same exact question. 
The analogies that I used simply face you with a hard question that you can't answer without contradicting your own argument. 
Stop trying to make excuses. 

Plus learning how and why words have different meanings when used in different contexts.
Words have different meanings, but synonymes do exist.
The context in which I worded by arguments was not flawed.
If they were, please enlighten me on how.

Until then, don’t expect anymore replies from me to you on the topic of abortion. I simply don’t have the time let alone patience to deal with your ignorance (on all the levels aforementioned) anymore. 
Ok well given that you have layed out your arguments, and I have laid out mine, then you decide to quit the argument, I am taking this as a forfeit. 



#34
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I did prevail, you’re just don’t see it due to your lack of reading comprehension skills, educational level and life experience. It’s okay, one day you’ll see the error of your ways. Just not today, unfortunately. 
#35
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
abortion is stupidity and is the current cry of fools, along with trangenderism. in the future it will be about beastality and consent of A.I.
truely, Satan is working overtime with his lies.
(fool, is one who does not believe in God)
#36
CoolApe
CoolApe's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 87
0
1
6
CoolApe's avatar
CoolApe
0
1
6
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Statement is about a person's citizenship to the United States, not who has personhood. 
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Second part protects the rights of citizens and non-citizens of the United States. If you consider a pregnancy a non-citizen, they are still protected by the Constitution and have legal rights. 

Personhood is not established in 14th  amendment. Some other legal precedence would need to be established to interpret personhood in the 14th Amendment.

Where did you read an unborn pregnancy is not a person protected by the law? 
#37
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TWS1405_2
I did prevail, you’re just don’t see it due to your lack of reading comprehension skills, educational level and life experience. It’s okay, one day you’ll see the error of your ways. Just not today, unfortunately. 
That's not how debating works buddy.

You can't just claim your right, and that makes you right.

Of all people, I thought you would understand that.

If my reading and education was a problem, you would have pointed it out, on each part where I messed up with my grammar and definitions.
But you didn't, because you can't, because your wrong.

Swallow your pride.
#38
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
I also had some questions for you about your first post, that I would like to adress.


I don’t believe a zygote or embryo is a human being.  But I think a fetus is a human being.
Why do you believe this? 
What reasoning do you have behind this?

Here is the compromise try at I support: National abortion ban at 12 weeks.  Every state must legalize abortion for rape victims up until 12 weeks (because abortion at that point is self defense; if I got raped, I’m not paying child support) and for maternal life up until the moment of birth (because I think maternal life outweighs fetal life for these rare cases).
Finacines are not more important than a human life. If you get an abortion only for the reason of not paying child support, then you are killing a human life for financial benefit.
That's not a good thing in any context. 

Also abortion is not the only solution to get out of child support. 
You can give the child up for adoption after they are born, so that you don't have to pay child support, and you won't have to kill a human life. 

Any woman that gets a late term abortion (24 weeks or more) when their life or health did not require it and if there was no fetal defect should be put to death; that’s murder, and the penalty for murder should be death.  Since this is very few people, it’s pragmatic to implement this.  The fetus endured pain from that abortion (and it was a lot of pain), and since they had plenty of time to abort beforehand, the proper penalty is the same as stabbing an infant; the death penalty; especially when you can do a c section and be fine; late term abortions of healthy babies without the mother dying without an abortion should be punished with death.
I agree with this when it comes to self imposed abortions, (but with the exception of from conception), but when it comes to illegal abortions made by doctors, and places/industrys like planned parenthood, I think you have to look at it from a different perspective.

Most women getting abortions are told and tricked by planned parenthood that the babys inside of the womb are nothing more than just a clump of cells, and the mothers when getting the abortion do not realize what they are actually doing. 

Cases like these should go under investigation, and if the mother actually knew what she was doing, she should be charged with manslaughter, because she technically didn't abort the baby, only contributed to it. 

The doctors on the other hand who perform the abortions should be charged with murder, because they know what they are doing and they are the ones dismembering the child. 
#39
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
I did prevail, you’re just don’t see it due to your lack of reading comprehension skills, educational level and life experience. It’s okay, one day you’ll see the error of your ways. Just not today, unfortunately. 
That's not how debating works buddy.

You can't just claim your right, and that makes you right.
I am not claiming it, it is just a fact. Nothing I've stated is factually inaccurate. All of which is common knowledge, readily available and easily verifiable. 
Your inability to comprehend that which you read is your problem, not mine. 


If my reading and education was a problem, you would have pointed it out, on each part where I messed up with my grammar and definitions.
But you didn't, because you can't, because your wrong.

Swallow your pride.
I have pointed out your reading comprehension and education problems since day one you arrived at DART getting into your first debate/discussion on abortion. And like then as is now, I've consistently discredited everything you've put forth. Piss poor analogies. Piss poor reading comprehension of what I (and others) have said. 

Have a swell day, intellectual coward denialist that you so clearly are. 
#40
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@CoolApe
Helps if you hit reply so I am tagged.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Statement is about a person's citizenship to the United States, not who has personhood. 
Wrong. You cannot read just one clause without reading and applying the others. They are part and parcel to the status of personhood and when all the rights, privileges, and equal protection of the laws are bestowed (upon being born) to [a] person. That is when one is seen as [a] person, upon being born, not before birth. 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Second part protects the rights of citizens and non-citizens of the United States. If you consider a pregnancy a non-citizen, they are still protected by the Constitution and have legal rights. 
I do not. No one sees a pregnancy as [a] non-citizen! *FP* Wrong context, CA. 


Personhood is not established in 14th  amendment.
Yes, it is. Being born = a person. Definition of personhood: the state or condition of being [a] person; being [a] person. 

Some other legal precedence would need to be established to interpret personhood in the 14th Amendment.

Where did you read an unborn pregnancy is not a person protected by the law? 


OMG! FFS! Do you not read my replies in their entirety? 

A perfect example of a state and federal law that clearly does NOT define or categorize a pregnancy as [a] person are the fetal homicide laws. They denote the pregnancy, regardless of state of gestational development, as being merely [a] legal victim. 

There is NO law, local, state or federal that defines a pregnancy as a legal person = to all born persons identified in the 14th Amendment, the very point in time when all rights, privileges and equal protections of the law. 
#41
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@zedvictor4
And words have variable meanings and are open to variable interpretation. Definitions are rarely precise.
Wrong.

Words have very specific and precise meanings, dictated by the context in which they are utilized. Only uneducated people use misnomers in emotively dirven debates/discussions such as abortion. Just look at Ifoundlxam. Among others. 



#42
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@CoolApe
Personal liberty (legal definition): "the right a person has to behave as they like, subject only to interference for appropriate government reasons (such as the protection of other citizens' liberties)." 

"Liberty is the right of a person to do as they please, assuming their actions do not violate any laws or infringe on the rights of others. What is personal liberty? Personal liberty's definition is the right of individuals to be free of arbitrary restraint or bondage. In short, personal liberty allows people to live as they choose without interference from others unless it is for a good, legally-established reason."

Where did you read an unborn pregnancy is not a person protected by the law? 

A pregnancy is not [a] person with all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws bestowed upon actual persons upon their birth. The pregnant girl/woman is [a] person. A pregnancy is not. It's even codified into law, the definition of what [a] person, human being, child and individual shall be understood to mean. 

  • (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
  • (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
  • (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
  • (Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
Facts do not care about anyone's feelings. 

Pregnant girls/women have all the personal liberty to do as they choose with their body and what is occurring to it or within it. A pregnancy has no legal standing/rights. 



#43
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,931
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405_2
A bit like "dirven".

Only joking.


I wouldn't necessarily agree.

I was recently discussing the word family with some one, and although there is a general meaning to the word, it is also imprecisely definitive.

This is also the case with other words, belief is another example where imprecision is built into the definition.

Though I did conclude that such definitions were perfectly imperfect.

Nonetheless imprecision allows for variable interpretation.


And a pro-lifer might say that the Law is an Ass.

Whereas we know that The Law is The Law and an Ass is a Donkey.
#44
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TWS1405_2
I am not claiming it, it is just a fact. Nothing I've stated is factually inaccurate. All of which is common knowledge, readily available and easily verifiable. 
Your inability to comprehend that which you read is your problem, not mine. 
You stated:
"The latter has all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the law whereas the former does not."
Which is false, because babies in the womb are protected by the law in most states. 

"A pregnancy is not defined by the term "young" at any gestational development."
Which is also false, because there is such thing as a young human. 

"Sperm meet the same basics criteria for life as a zygote does."
Which is wrong, because sperm does not meet the same basic criteria for life as a zygote, by biological definition. 

"No one ever called or identified a zygote as a young human life, or young human being. Or young anything. No one, ever."
Which is also wrong, because most of the political right identifies a zygote as a young human life. 

And you also misunderstood that words can indeed have synonymous meanings with each other. 

Oh, and one final thing:
"Until then, don’t expect anymore replies from me to you on the topic of abortion."
Which right after you replied about abortion to me so........

I have pointed out your reading comprehension and education problems since day one you arrived at DART getting into your first debate/discussion on abortion. And like then as is now, I've consistently discredited everything you've put forth. Piss poor analogies. Piss poor reading comprehension of what I (and others) have said. 

Have a swell day, intellectual coward denialist that you so clearly are. 
The only thing that you have ever pointed out, is that I spelled a couple of words wrong.
You have never ever proved my arguments wrong, only claimed they are wrong with no evidence.

But I have proved your arguments wrong many times. And when I do, all you do to rebuttal is call me stupid, young, immature, and that I don't understand. 

Just again.......swallow your pride, and if you have any remaining arguments, you are welcome to argue them. Otherwise, I will argue with people who don't forfeit and then complain.
#45
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@zedvictor4
You’re still wrong. You conveniently left out the most important part of this question of linguistics: context. Context changes the meaning of a term. A term by itself is useless without context. 
#46
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Your intellectual cowardice and flagrant denialism is showing again. 
#47
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
#48
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don’t believe a zygote or embryo is a human being.
What are they if not human--even though zygote/embryos/fetuses (feti) conceived by humans are by definition human? How can humans conceive non-human beings?

But I think a fetus is a human being.
It is.
#49
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405_2
Facts do not care about anyone's feelings.
Except "the facts" discussed in this article are not facts of biology or physiology, but facts of "legal description" which is subject to referendum.

The undeniable fact remains, that without fetal #viability there can be NO actualized "human being."
Nonsensical arbitrary division. Fetal viability suggests autonomy; it does not suggest whether or not it's human.
#50
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Athias
I don’t believe a zygote or embryo is a human being.
What are they if not human--even though zygote/embryos/fetuses (feti) conceived by humans are by definition human? How can humans conceive non-human beings?
Dunning-Kruger Effect response. 
To address the abortion debate, a debate that centers around human reproduction, as if someone is inferring some other species, demonstrates you know very little about the topic at hand. 

But I think a fetus is a human being.
It is.
It is NOT!

Facts do not care about anyone's feelings.
Except "the facts" discussed in this article are not facts of biology or physiology, but facts of "legal description" which is subject to referendum.
Actually, they are. They are solely premised upon human biology and physiology. 

The undeniable fact remains, that without fetal #viability there can be NO actualized "human being."
Nonsensical arbitrary division. Fetal viability suggests autonomy; it does not suggest whether or not it's human.
Fetal viability has never been a question or matter of "whether or not it's human." Every rational and logically thinking and educated person knows it is human in origin, just not [a] human until fetal viability is achieved. 

The ONLY thing fetal viability "suggests" is the ability of the fetus to survive outside of the womb without further gestational development. That's it. 

#51
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405_2
Dunning-Kruger Effect response. 
An ad hominem response. Which do you think is more pertinent in the subject of debate?

To address the abortion debate, a debate that centers around human reproduction, as if someone is inferring some other species,
That is EXACTLY the inference. What is one suggesting when they're suggesting that a being is NOT human?

It is NOT!
It very much is.

Actually, they are. They are solely premised upon human biology and physiology. 
Premised on biology and physiology means nothing. It's nothing more than an arbitrary division that conveniently takes advantage of physiological demarcations.

Every rational and logically thinking and educated person knows it is human in origin, just not [a] human until fetal viability is achieved. 
Then what species is it between its conception and achieved viability?

The ONLY thing fetal viability "suggests" is the ability of the fetus to survive outside of the womb without further gestational development. That's it. 
Redundant.

#52
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Athias
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
Dunning-Kruger Effect response. 
An ad hominem response. Which do you think is more pertinent in the subject of debate?
An observation =/= an ad hominem response.

To address the abortion debate, a debate that centers around human reproduction, as if someone is inferring some other species,
That is EXACTLY the inference. What is one suggesting when they're suggesting that a being is NOT human?
They mean it is not [a] human being. That's what is meant. Being human in origin (genetic makeup), does not = being [a] human being. 

It is NOT!
It very much is.
No, it is not. You are [a] human being. A zygote is not. 

Actually, they are. They are solely premised upon human biology and physiology. 
Premised on biology and physiology means nothing. It's nothing more than an arbitrary division that conveniently takes advantage of physiological demarcations.
Denialism + Intellectual Cowardice

Every rational and logically thinking and educated person knows it is human in origin, just not [a] human until fetal viability is achieved. 
Then what species is it between its conception and achieved viability?
Are you daft? Reading comprehension problems?

The ONLY thing fetal viability "suggests" is the ability of the fetus to survive outside of the womb without further gestational development. That's it. 
Redundant.
Huh? You just claimed" "Nonsensical arbitrary division. Fetal viability suggests autonomy; it does not suggest whether or not it's human."

A newborn is not autonomous. Being able to survive and biologically mature without further gestational development outside the womb =/= autonomy. 

#53
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405_2
An observation =/= an ad hominem response.
Please share how you're capable of "observing" my overestimating my own abilities.

They mean it is not [a] human being. That's what is meant.
Then what is it?

No, it is not. You are [a] human being. A zygote is not. 
I'm a human being and so is a zygote/embryo/fetus. Our being subject to different phases of human development DOES NOT exclude zygotes/embryos/fetuses. 

Denialism + Intellectual Cowardice
More "observations"?

Are you daft? Reading comprehension problems?
Sure. Now help this daft and reading inept person understand to which species does a zygote/embryo/fetus belong between its conception and achieved viability.

A newborn is not autonomous.
Depends on the context in which one is applying the term, autonomous.

Being able to survive and biologically mature without further gestational development outside the womb =/= autonomy. 
Please list every synonym of autonomy. If you're going to attempt to dictate how I was applying the term, then I'm sure you are well aware of all its definitions and descriptions, correct?



#54
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Athias
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
An observation =/= an ad hominem response.
Please share how you're capable of "observing" my overestimating my own abilities.
It's glaringly apparent within your retort. 

  • "What are they if not human--even though zygote/embryos/fetuses (feti) conceived by humans are by definition human? How can humans conceive non-human beings?"
They mean it is not [a] human being. That's what is meant.
Then what is it?
Quoting out of context. Notwithstanding, yet another example affirming you are overestimating your own abilities here within this debate/discussion.

No, it is not. You are [a] human being. A zygote is not. 
I'm a human being and so is a zygote/embryo/fetus. Our being subject to different phases of human development DOES NOT exclude zygotes/embryos/fetuses. 
Yes, it does. A liver cell taken from your liver is human. Doesn't make it [a] human being, now does it!
I mean really, FFS! You clearly do not comprehend the difference between gestational development and physiological maturation. 
Sad. Really sad. 

Denialism + Intellectual Cowardice
More "observations"?
Yup. Adjectives =/= nouns. 

Are you daft? Reading comprehension problems?
Sure. Now help this daft and reading inept person understand to which species does a zygote/embryo/fetus belong between its conception and achieved viability.
Clown.

A newborn is not autonomous.
Depends on the context in which one is applying the term, autonomous.
Wow. You really are daft. 

Being able to survive and biologically mature without further gestational development outside the womb =/= autonomy. 
Please list every synonym of autonomy. If you're going to attempt to dictate how I was applying the term, then I'm sure you are well aware of all its definitions and descriptions, correct?
You really are deficient in linguistics. 

#55
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405_2
Yes, it does. A liver cell taken from your liver is human. Doesn't make it [a] human being, now does it!
A zygote/embryo/fetus is neither a liver cell nor an auxiliary/accessory organ. Not even remotely apropos.

Clown.
Have a nice night, sir. This discussion between you and me is over.


#56
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Athias
A zygote/embryo/fetus is neither a liver cell nor an auxiliary/accessory organ.
You’re as ignorant as IFound_Lxam in this debate. 
IOW, you’re out of your league. 

Oh, and BTW, the proper phrase grammatically is “you and I,” and not “you and me.”
#57
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405_2
You’re as ignorant as IFound_Lxam in this debate. 
Sure.

you’re out of your league. 
I must be.

Oh, and BTW, the proper phrase grammatically is “you and I,” and not “you and me.”
The proper syntax is "between you and me" since the pronoun takes on the objective case when it serves as the object of a preposition, i.e. "between." "Between you and I" is colloquial.

Enjoy your night, sir.
#58
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Athias
Yawn. 
#59
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,931
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405_2
For sure.

Context allows us to focus less broadly.

But very rarely is context narrow enough to be able to resolve an issue precisely.

No two human computers are ever programmed exactly the same.
#60
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@zedvictor4
The abortion debate has absolutely fucking nothing to do with programmed computers, you twit. 

But very rarely is context narrow enough to be able to resolve an issue precisely.
Bullshit. Pure bullshit.