This is a fucking disgrace
-
Life begins at conception. External viability is an irrelevant smoke screen.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Life begins at conception. External viability is an irrelevant smoke screen.
And since Christians believe that the metaphysical "soul" enters the cells at conception since it is a human life, does that mean that when a zygote divides and forms twins that the twins will share one soul?
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
Oakman wrote:
Fat_Boy: When can it be stated that an individual exists, even IF they need a life support machine in the form of a womb to do so. Oakman: Then loan them yours.
It is a well known fact that infants cannot survive without the extensive (and adult-quality-of-life-ruining) "life support" supplied by adults. Therefore, IF a set of parents, so-called, choose to terminate their neonate because it's a bummer being at the constant beck-and-call of such a demanding (and unthankful!) individual, THEN no one else has the right to object that this is a wrong act ... unless these hypothetical objectors are *personally* able and willing to take on the unwelcome task. Brilliant! :rolleyes:
Ilíon wrote:
Therefore, IF a set of parents, so-called, choose to terminate their neonate because it's a bummer being at the constant beck-and-call of such a demanding (and unthankful!) individual, THEN no one else has the right to object that this is a wrong act ... unless these hypothetical objectors are *personally* able and willing to take on the unwelcome task.
That may be what you believe. Or it may be what you believe I believe. But you don't know I believe it (and since you are so laughably and simultaneously contemptibly wrong, you never will) - not that a lack of knowledge has ever stopped you from taking someone else to task just to exercise the sheer ugly shit-filled nastiness that you call a mind.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
No problem I already flamed you right back. ;) Not having a good day today, hit myself in the eye with a tennis ball due to being an uncoordinated geek and can hardly see to read CP let alone do any useful work. :(
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Make sure you put really cold water on it for about 5 minutes at a time to keep the swelling down. Don't use ice unless you've got it proected in a couple of layers of cloth. Don't put hot water on it for at least 24 hours. . . .drink lots of chicken soup.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Certainly we can, whether or not it would be moral to do so is a different argument (one on which I haven't expressed an opinion, as yet). ;P
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Their body cells continue to divide and reproduce, replacing worn out and dead cells. That they do not form a new individual is irrelevant. they live because their cells reproduce.
What about hydra?
Hydra reproduce both sexually and asexually. That they don't require cell replacement due to senescence doesn't make them non-living. Certainly the death of the majority of their cells would kill one... The point I'm trying to make is twofold: first, that there is no simple definition of life that is applicable to the abortion argument, and second that any argument that depends on a definition of life as a defense or support for the morality of abortion is therefore flawed. I see no reasonable way to argue that a fetus is not alive from conception forward. One can argue about the degree to which it is "human" rather than "potentially human" (which itself seems a silly argument), but not convincingly about whether or not it lives.
-
fat_boy wrote:
hair an nail growth post death?
...is a myth due to the impression given by the skin shrinking. Once the oxygen supply stops the redox system shuts down and there is no energy for cell divsion, or anything else, as I understand it.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
Rob Graham wrote:
one on which I haven't expressed an opinion, as yet).
That's okay. You think about it, meanwhile I'll call Planned Parenthood. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
meanwhile I'll call Planned Parenthood. . .
It's a bit late for fat_boy, don't you think?
-
Rob Graham wrote:
but without the obnoxiousness
Entirely in the mind of the reader you can be assured.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Entirely in the mind of the reader you can be assured.
:rose:
-
Meh, people live and people die. Death is a natural part of life. It's when we decide the means of that death that we have more to answer for, not only to God, but to society as well. God, on the other hand, created us and if you accept the premise of His existence, then wouldn't it be reasonable to "allow" Him the right to decide our demise?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
if you accept the premise of His existence, then wouldn't it be reasonable to "allow" Him the right to decide our demise
Sure, if you think He cares. I suspect there are about a million Chinese that might question the concept of a merciful all-loving God right now. Or maybe all those schools collapsing and burying thousands of kids alive is just another example of Him saying - "Ooops! Times up, but thanks for playing! . . . ?"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
Gary Kirkham: Life begins at conception. External viability is an irrelevant smoke screen. Steve_Harris: No, the potential for life begins at conception.
It always fascinates me, the blatant lies people will tell themselves to avoid admitting simple, obvious, and indisputable truth.
Ilíon wrote:
It always fascinates me, the blatant lies people will tell themselves to avoid admitting simple, obvious, and indisputable truth.
Yeah, me, too. That's why I read your posts. Have a nice day.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Life begins at conception. External viability is an irrelevant smoke screen.
And since Christians believe that the metaphysical "soul" enters the cells at conception since it is a human life, does that mean that when a zygote divides and forms twins that the twins will share one soul?
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
It's a mystery :) Remember that 'life is in the blood' so perhaps the feotus is not 'alive' as in a human with a spirit until the ~18th day when infused with blood. As we don't know, the precuationary principle means conception is taken to be the point of the beginning of life.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
Al Beback wrote:
Yes, I have the perverse idea that your body belongs to you, and the no one or nothing has a right to use it without your consent
you gave your consent when you spread your legs, an open invitation.
Mike - typical white guy. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you gave your consent when you spread your legs, an open invitation.
Do you want to have kids every time you spread your legs? Is that what spreading your legs is all about?
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
a fertilised egg is a potential human being, it is not a human being.
No argument, but it is alive, even if not yet quite a human being. You earlier stated that the fetus did not live, now you are taking a different stand. Now the argument becomes whether or not the circumstances justify taking this not-yet-human life, and at what point the life becomes sufficiently human to change those circumstances, which was fat_boy's original complaint.
OK I phrased that "badly" (i.e. wrongly :) ) before. I think that abortion should be absolutely a measure of last resort, e.g. where the life of the mother is imperilled or a post-rape pregnancy, but I don't think it should be banned completely even though it's a pretty unpleasant thing to do. I know a couple of women who have had abortions and I know that it's a traumatic thing to have done and is long-lasting psychologically.
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
An acorn is not an oak. It is a potential oak. In the same sense, a fertilised egg is a potential human being, it is not a human being.
Actually, an acorn *is* an oak tree -- all fertilized seeds (or, for a few species, dandelions for instance, _un-_fertilized seeds) are already a new individual plant. And a fertilised "egg" is not a potential human being, it *is* a human being.
Ilíon wrote:
Actually, an acorn *is* an oak tree
Yes, you can tell that by the roots and leaves and birds nesting in it. :rolleyes:
-
It's a mystery :) Remember that 'life is in the blood' so perhaps the feotus is not 'alive' as in a human with a spirit until the ~18th day when infused with blood. As we don't know, the precuationary principle means conception is taken to be the point of the beginning of life.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
t's a mystery [Smile] Remember that 'life is in the blood' so perhaps the feotus is not 'alive' as in a human with a spirit until the ~18th day when infused with blood. As we don't know, the precuationary principle means conception is taken to be the point of the beginning of life.
What happens when fetuses die if they have a soul? Does that soul go to heaven or hell?
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
MPs throw out bids to reduce abortion limit[^] Despite the advances made, it is still legal to kill a foetus of 24 weeks which has a 47% chance of surviving if born. In Europe its generally 12 weeks. When does life start? 10, 12 weeks? When can it be stated that an individual exists, even IF they need a life support machine in the form of a womb to do so. Its a long fucking way before 24 weeks though.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
If you want to get your tent up about something check out the "girl shortage" in India caused by sex selective abortion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6934540.stm[^] That get's my panties in a bunch way more than the sometimes solitary and heart wrenching decision of some teen living in poverty. Oh and PS Stay out of my uterus, chubby.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Life begins at conception. External viability is an irrelevant smoke screen.
And since Christians believe that the metaphysical "soul" enters the cells at conception since it is a human life, does that mean that when a zygote divides and forms twins that the twins will share one soul?
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
I don't know one way or the other. Speculating about it, and it's consequences, might be fun, but I suspect it wouldn't. On a more general note: Logically speaking, saying things like, "Christians believe" is flawed since you cannot know what all Christians believe. It would be correct to say, "Some Christians believe." That is assuming you do in fact know that there are some Christians that believe that.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Me blog, You read
-
Al Beback wrote:
My point is that abortions result in the death of the fetus only because there's no other choice. You remove the fetus from the womb; it dies. The intent is to remove it, not to kill it.
Are you arguing that intent is the only basis for determining whether or not an act is right or wrong? And that even knowing the consequences is irrelevant if the intent was different? How can you say that there is no intent to kill when there is certainty that that will be one outcome of the act?
Al Beback wrote:
et me ask you something. If doctors today had the technology to terminate a pregnancy by tranferring the fetus to an environment where he would very likely grow to a healthy child and beyond, would today's abortions still be legal?
Speculative and irrelevant. One cannot judge existing acts by speculating on the development of some future technology that might change the outcome of the present act. One might as well ask "since that technology does not exist, why are todays abortions legal?".
Rob Graham wrote:
Are you arguing that intent is the only basis for determining whether or not an act is right or wrong?
No.
Rob Graham wrote:
And that even knowing the consequences is irrelevant if the intent was different?
In this case yes.
Rob Graham wrote:
How can you say that there is no intent to kill when there is certainty that that will be one outcome of the act?
Let me make it simple: There is person A . Person B comes along and begins using A's body. Person A doesn't want B using his body, so he detaches B from his body. Person B dies. In my view, person A had the right to deny B the use of his body (up to a limit). In your view, person A should be thrown in jail for murdering B, when A just wanted B removed.
Rob Graham wrote:
Speculative and irrelevant. One cannot judge existing acts by speculating on the development of some future technology that might change the outcome of the present act.
I was making the point that abortions cause death only because there's no medical way around it.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
Al Beback wrote:
The fact that someone is declared "alive" does not give that them the right to
hell, as long as the foetus / child / person is still living at home or ugly or deformed or brain damaged from an accident or simply fucking irritating - "adults" should have the right to snuff out the lil fuckers. Sieg Heil!
Mike - typical white guy. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
should have the right to snuff out the lil f***ers.
hehe. I'm going to have my son read your post when he gets home from school. :laugh: Marc
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
t's a mystery [Smile] Remember that 'life is in the blood' so perhaps the feotus is not 'alive' as in a human with a spirit until the ~18th day when infused with blood. As we don't know, the precuationary principle means conception is taken to be the point of the beginning of life.
What happens when fetuses die if they have a soul? Does that soul go to heaven or hell?
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
DemonPossessed wrote:
What happens when fetuses die if they have a soul? Does that soul go to heaven or hell?
Simple answer is we don't know because God has not chosen to reveal the answer. What we do know is that all will be judged justly on the last day. For all we know souls that don't get far enough may get given another chance, a kind of pre-reincarnation, or get some other form of special treatment but there's no biblical evidence I know of for any particular position only supposition and speculation and faith that God knows what he's doing and that perfect justice is part of his character.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)