|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 5:38 pm
divineseraph Wrong. Viruses are not life forms. They are not alive. Look it up in a biology textbook. Cancer COULD. Feti WILL. We already know that feti can be born. Cancer has never been recorded with a conciousness. Oh, and feti develop brainwaves after around 18-20 days. Most women wouldn't even know they were pregnant. Could you provide it then? I haven't taken biology in years. I'm a physics man meself. Also; from what I remember of a "lifeform" the fetus would fail to fit it too unless the definition is twisted to suit ones needs. No, fetii CAN if they DEVELOP LONG ENOUGH. False; cancer has never been recorded with a consciousness that we can detect. MAP's for everyone! 4laugh
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 5:52 pm
Feti can- Move- Grow-Reproduce-consume-React to stimuli
Cancer cannot have a conciousness because it is not a seperate entity. Again, it is a part of the owner's body which grows out of control. Cancer has no pattern of growth, it just replicates when it's not supposed to. It can not grow into anything other than random cells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 6:03 pm
divineseraph Feti can- Move- Grow-Reproduce-consume-React to stimuli Cancer cannot have a conciousness because it is not a seperate entity. Again, it is a part of the owner's body which grows out of control. Cancer has no pattern of growth, it just replicates when it's not supposed to. It can not grow into anything other than random cells. Cancer can - Move, grow, reproduce, consume. Fetii can't "react to stimuli" in the first stages of development. Prove it. Biological cancerous material develops it's own DNA, a mutated replication of the original host organisms with altered growth pattern amino acid chains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 6:08 pm
So? Again, it is a thoughtless error.
Like this program-
start start.bat
start start.bat
start start.bat
start start.bat
start start.bat
-This opens command prompt 100 times a second until the computer freezes. Basically, cancer. A program that uses up ram to do something which serves no purpose to the computer. A propogation of an action.
Edit- to call cancer a seperate being would be to call one's hand a seperate being since it can move, grow and react to stimuli.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 6:11 pm
divineseraph So? Again, it is a thoughtless error. Like this program- start start.bat start start.bat start start.bat start start.bat start start.bat -This opens command prompt 100 times a second until the computer freezes. Basically, cancer. A program that uses up ram to do something which serves no purpose to the computer. A propogation of an action. So? Let me make my point clearer; You're saying that given enough time, fetii will develop into people and therefore are people and therefore any objection someone has to it's use of their body despite physical detriments including possibly death, are irrelvant. I'm saying that given enough time, cancer will develop into people and therefore are people and therefore any objection someone has to it's use of their body despite physical detriments including possibly death, are irrelvant. Guess how many words I had to change in that sentence for a cookie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 6:18 pm
But cancer will not and can not. Cancer is not meant to be in nature.
Christ.
I'm not just saying that feti are people because they will be. I'm saying that 9 months of timeis trivial compared to the fetus' entire life. Whereas cancer has NEVER been anything other than an accidental error in the genetics of the person afflicted and NEVER will be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 6:24 pm
divineseraph But cancer will not and can not. Cancer is not meant to be in nature. Christ. I'm not just saying that feti are people because they will be. I'm saying that 9 months of timeis trivial compared to the fetus' entire life. Whereas cancer has NEVER been anything other than an accidental error in the genetics of the person afflicted and NEVER will be. I could argue that by it's biological origins (IE "not crafted exclusively by man") it is meant to be in nature. Prove that's all cancer will be. After all, it has so much potential. 4laugh But on a more serious note; just stop arguing from potential. And yes, saying that in 9 months the mother will be fine and the fetus will develop into a healthy invidual tha will go on to lead a wonderful life is argument from potential.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 6:37 pm
However, it is far more from fact than it is that cancer will develop a conciousness and go on to be a well-respected journalist.
Potential is all there is, as the future is all there is. I cannot say that you will breather five seconds from now, as you could follow in George Bush's footsteps and choke on a pretzel. However, based on past inferences and logic, I would be safe to assume that you will continue to breathe. Of course, we can't go based on potential can we? So you're just as dead as you are alive. And dead people have no rights. Get in my field, slave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 1:49 am
divineseraph However, it is far more from fact than it is that cancer will develop a conciousness and go on to be a well-respected journalist. Potential is all there is, as the future is all there is. I cannot say that you will breather five seconds from now, as you could follow in George Bush's footsteps and choke on a pretzel. However, based on past inferences and logic, I would be safe to assume that you will continue to breathe. Of course, we can't go based on potential can we? So you're just as dead as you are alive. And dead people have no rights. Get in my field, slave. One could argue that the present is all there is as the future does not yet exist and the past has already been observed and ended. Nice bullshitting but it doesn't work because now you're arguiing from potential that I'm potentially dead, when I'm not. Presently I am alive and a person, and as such I have certain rights availed to me. Sorry cracker, I won't pick your sugar cane. talk2hand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:14 am
But in the same way a fetus may not be born, you may not be alive. If you can call a fetus a potential because it may die, then I can call you a potential because you may die. I'm going against potential, as you are with the fetus. Potentially, you could continue to live. However, I am disregarding the probable and thus that potential to remind you of the other possibilities. And if these possibilities strip feti of rights since they can die, they strip everyone of rights because everyone can die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:30 am
divineseraph But in the same way a fetus may not be born, you may not be alive. If you can call a fetus a potential because it may die, then I can call you a potential because you may die. I'm going against potential, as you are with the fetus. Potentially, you could continue to live. However, I am disregarding the probable and thus that potential to remind you of the other possibilities. And if these possibilities strip feti of rights since they can die, they strip everyone of rights because everyone can die. Incorrect. I am alive in my present state and my potential to be dead is irrelevant, and a fetus is not born in it's present state and it's potential to be born is irrelevant. I can call a fetus potential because in its current state it is a fetus and only a fetus. You can't call me potential because in my current state I am a person. You're once again attempting a quantum shift. Straw man, the argument for Bodily Integrity does not rest on the "potential of the fetus to die". It rests on the intrinsic right of bodily domain. You're saying "A fetus is a person because it's potentially a person, and you're a dead person because you're potentially a dead person." I'm saying "A fetus is a fetus because it's currently a fetus, and I am a person because I am currently a person." You're arguing from potential. Alot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:42 am
Again, no. I am saying that a fetus is a fetus, which under normal circumstances will be a born person. I am not saying that BECAUSE it will be a person it is a person. I'm saying that even in it's fetal state, it is a person, though in a younger point of development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 4:54 pm
ThePeerOrlando2 Cancer can - Move, grow, reproduce, consume. So that explains where all those walking, eating baby tumors come from! See, seraph, like I explained in another thread, when a mommy tumor and a daddy tumor love each other very much...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 5:11 pm
Lol, amazing. And thanks for the backup. But I just want to say again, cancer is a mutation of the victim's own genetics.
It is not a virus and no more an organism than one's own hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:48 pm
divineseraph Again, no. I am saying that a fetus is a fetus, which under normal circumstances will be a born person. I am not saying that BECAUSE it will be a person it is a person. I'm saying that even in it's fetal state, it is a person, though in a younger point of development. Yes, WILL be born a person, as in POTENTIALLY will be born a person. Zin: You do realize that cancerous cells can attach to other cells, giving movement, asexually divide and reproduce new cancer cells, and consume tissue, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
