This is a fucking disgrace
-
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)
-
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)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
God knows what he's doing and that perfect justice is part of his character.
Yep, sending people to eternal torture for being the way he created them and knew they would be in advance sounds like perfect justice to me.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
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:
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.
I haven't stated my view at all. I have only pointed out the absurdity of the argument you continue to use to defend yours. To suggest that killing the fetus is justified because the intent was to remove it, even while possessing certainty that removal would kill it is absurd. It is impossible to then state that there was not also willingness to kill , which, when actualized, is tantamount to intent to kill. Find a better defense.
Al Beback wrote:
was making the point that abortions cause death only because there's no medical way around it.
That statement is patently ridiculous. Abortions cause death because they kill the fetus as a consequence of (and usually a precursor to) removing if from the womb prematurely. The obvious "medical way around it" is to simply wait until the fetus reaches term.
-
Oakman wrote:
meanwhile I'll call Planned Parenthood. . .
It's a bit late for fat_boy, don't you think?
-
OK, its a myth. Bollocks, what other argument can I come up with...
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
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)
-
Rob Graham wrote:
It's a bit late for fat_boy, don't you think?
O.K. I'll call unplanned parenthood -- what's the pope's cell number?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I don't think the Pope will be helpfull in this regard. Try 1-900-WE-WHACKM instead.
-
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)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
What we do know is that all will be judged justly on the last day.
Are you talking "sheep and goats" or Great White Throne?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
only supposition and speculation and faith
yup.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
God knows what he's doing and that perfect justice is part of his character.
Yep, sending people to eternal torture for being the way he created them and knew they would be in advance sounds like perfect justice to me.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
Al Beback wrote:
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.
I haven't stated my view at all. I have only pointed out the absurdity of the argument you continue to use to defend yours. To suggest that killing the fetus is justified because the intent was to remove it, even while possessing certainty that removal would kill it is absurd. It is impossible to then state that there was not also willingness to kill , which, when actualized, is tantamount to intent to kill. Find a better defense.
Al Beback wrote:
was making the point that abortions cause death only because there's no medical way around it.
That statement is patently ridiculous. Abortions cause death because they kill the fetus as a consequence of (and usually a precursor to) removing if from the womb prematurely. The obvious "medical way around it" is to simply wait until the fetus reaches term.
Rob Graham wrote:
I haven't stated my view at all.
You haven't? Let's hear it then, if you have the balls.
Rob Graham wrote:
I have only pointed out the absurdity of the argument you continue to use to defend yours.
Gee, thanks.
Rob Graham wrote:
To suggest that killing the fetus is justified
I haven't suggested that. Get it through your head: removing it is justified. Death is only an unfortunate consequence.
Rob Graham wrote:
It is impossible to then state that there was not also willingness to kill , which, when actualized, is tantamount to intent to kill.
No it isn't. Desire to remove fetus != Desire to kill fetus. Try to accept it.
Rob Graham wrote:
Find a better defense.
There is no other defense. This is it. I give up trying to explain it.
Rob Graham wrote:
Abortions cause death because they kill the fetus as a consequence of (and usually a precursor to) removing if from the womb prematurely.
Kill, kill, kill the fetus! :sigh:
- 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