They'll Never Stop Until that Day Comes

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: Maetryx
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Fetuses are babies. But, strangly and disgustingly, that's argueable. What is NOT arguable is that a fetus WILL become a baby unless outside influences hinder that development. Ending that devleopmental process is equivalent to ending the baby's life.

No, ending the process prevents the baby from existing. Hell, another real Christian thing is that life begins with the first breath. That's why you don't see funerals for fetuses.

I've never heard this belief before. I've taken 6 or 7 college level theology classes from a professor that graduated with a Masters of Divinity at Yale. I've been attending Protestant churches for 25 years or so. I don't view the stated position as a "Christian thing". It is difficult to decide when something is alive or not, but I don't think anyone cares whether or not there is proof one way or the other. I doubt anyone would flip flop on the abortion issue based on a 100% agreed upon definition of when life begins.

That's pretty sad, you don't have to get very far into the Bible until it comes up.

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Christians believe anybody can be saved, but they don't believe there shouldn't be punishment for your sins. The death penalty isn't a "Christian" thing. Nobody is saying these criminals can't get saved.
Believing anybody can be saved is debatable. But believing everyone deserves the chance isn't. And ending their natural life prematurely is depriving them of the chance.

Calvinist Christians actually don't believe that anyone can be saved. But generally it is agreed that there should be punishment for sin. As a Christian, I don't believe someone who is destined to be saved can accidentally miss his chance by being "prematurely" executed or aborted or whatever. God wouldn't be omnipotent if buses could go round running over people just before they get saved.

You are assuming that God's omnipotence equates into Him playing an active, controlling role in every event on this planet. I can't bring myself to believe that because that validates the question 'Why does He let bad things happen to good people?' I'm not going to pretend to know the mystery of God's plan here, but the way I see it, God put His plan in motion, man can choose to follow it or not (free will, which is why I don't put much stock in Calvanists), and all the while you have Satan trying to pull you away from it. Satan will lose the war of course, but he'll win some battles along the way. He got Eve to eat the fruit didn't he? Judgement and punishment for sin is in God's hands. Jesus will back me up on this. I'm not saying people don't deserve to punished for breaking the law, but it is MAN's law (even when it coincides with God's), and the punishment for man's law should not be used in ways that upset His plan. One person may have already cheated another out of salvation, are we right to deny the transgressor of that as well? The fact is, we don't know if either is the case, but I am not willing to concede there's no possibility.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,326
6,039
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sure makes arguing easier when you pretty much make up facts as you go.
----------------------------
But, but, but that's certainly what you did.
--------
--------
this is a conflict within an inter-party conflict, not something liberals can debate on
-------------------------------
Right. It such a pain having the fundies wag the dog. If they?d only drop that religious bull sh!t we could really take off. Morals just get in the way.

Ah, the old 'I know you are but what am I' comeback. You must win all the arguments in your third grade class.

Not too much more sophistication is really needed with you but lets take a look at the facts:

You said: Sure makes arguing easier when you pretty much make up facts as you go

and I said: But, but, but that's certainly what you did.

And then you said: Ah, the old 'I know you are but what am I' comeback. You must win all the arguments in your third grade class.

Now lets look at the pot and the kettle:

Pot: First, fetuses ain't babies. (Note the unsubstantiated opinion, the making it up as he goes)

Kettle: Fetuses are babies. But, strangly and disgustingly, that's argueable. What is NOT arguable is that a fetus WILL become a baby unless outside influences hinder that development. Ending that devleopmental process is equivalent to ending the baby's life. (Note the absurdly twisted, unsubstantiated, made up logic here. first you flatly contradict what was an opinion with the same but opposite of your own, then you call it arguable, congratulations on that, then you make a virtual tautology, and from that infer the absurd, that what was a moment ago arguable is right back to truth, your first opinion. You might as well have saves us all a lot of time and just said that fetuses are babies oeriod. You, kettle, just did exactly what you accused pot of doing, exctly just like I said. You just gave an opinion couched as though it were the truth. No support, no logic, no argument, just made up as you went. )

My point wasn't third grade, it was dead on. Sorry








 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
I find it paradoxical and hypocritical that southern conservatives can find it morally abhorrant for a woman to abort a child but have no problems when countless people, mostly minorities, are legally executed every year.
Hmm, killing innocent babies because it might put a damper on one's free-wheeling social life or professional career is good, but executing murderers and the like is bad?

Sorry, I'm just not seeing the contradiction or the moral equivalency.

Yeah. I know tons of women who just go out screwing everyone without any protection on the weekend, and check in for their weekly abortion the following Monday. It's so fun...why doesn't every woman do it?

rolleye.gif
rolleye.gif


Are you really that naive to think any woman in her right mind would use abortion as a birth control solution? Or simply get an abortion to suit their lifestyle? Do you think they actually enjoy this?
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sure makes arguing easier when you pretty much make up facts as you go.
----------------------------
But, but, but that's certainly what you did.
--------
--------
this is a conflict within an inter-party conflict, not something liberals can debate on
-------------------------------
Right. It such a pain having the fundies wag the dog. If they?d only drop that religious bull sh!t we could really take off. Morals just get in the way.

Ah, the old 'I know you are but what am I' comeback. You must win all the arguments in your third grade class.

Not too much more sophistication is really needed with you but lets take a look at the facts:

You said: Sure makes arguing easier when you pretty much make up facts as you go

and I said: But, but, but that's certainly what you did.

And then you said: Ah, the old 'I know you are but what am I' comeback. You must win all the arguments in your third grade class.

Now lets look at the pot and the kettle:

Pot: First, fetuses ain't babies. (Note the unsubstantiated opinion, the making it up as he goes)

Kettle: Fetuses are babies. But, strangly and disgustingly, that's argueable. What is NOT arguable is that a fetus WILL become a baby unless outside influences hinder that development. Ending that devleopmental process is equivalent to ending the baby's life. (Note the absurdly twisted, unsubstantiated, made up logic here. first you flatly contradict what was an opinion with the same but opposite of your own, then you call it arguable, congratulations on that, then you make a virtual tautology, and from that infer the absurd, that what was a moment ago arguable is right back to truth, your first opinion. You might as well have saves us all a lot of time and just said that fetuses are babies oeriod. You, kettle, just did exactly what you accused pot of doing, exctly just like I said. You just gave an opinion couched as though it were the truth. No support, no logic, no argument, just made up as you went. )

My point wasn't third grade, it was dead on. Sorry

Are you arguing with me that a fetus--if you insist on trying to convince yourself it isn't a human being--will become a human being if left unhindered? That's very much a fact and not an unsubstantiated opinion. Ending that growth process could only be considered killing what would inevitably and undoubtedly become a human being. Call it termination if you like--the Nazis did. Because I consider what will be a human being to be a human life, I call it murder.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,326
6,039
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sure makes arguing easier when you pretty much make up facts as you go.
----------------------------
But, but, but that's certainly what you did.
--------
--------
this is a conflict within an inter-party conflict, not something liberals can debate on
-------------------------------
Right. It such a pain having the fundies wag the dog. If they?d only drop that religious bull sh!t we could really take off. Morals just get in the way.

Ah, the old 'I know you are but what am I' comeback. You must win all the arguments in your third grade class.

Not too much more sophistication is really needed with you but lets take a look at the facts:

You said: Sure makes arguing easier when you pretty much make up facts as you go

and I said: But, but, but that's certainly what you did.

And then you said: Ah, the old 'I know you are but what am I' comeback. You must win all the arguments in your third grade class.

Now lets look at the pot and the kettle:

Pot: First, fetuses ain't babies. (Note the unsubstantiated opinion, the making it up as he goes)

Kettle: Fetuses are babies. But, strangly and disgustingly, that's argueable. What is NOT arguable is that a fetus WILL become a baby unless outside influences hinder that development. Ending that devleopmental process is equivalent to ending the baby's life. (Note the absurdly twisted, unsubstantiated, made up logic here. first you flatly contradict what was an opinion with the same but opposite of your own, then you call it arguable, congratulations on that, then you make a virtual tautology, and from that infer the absurd, that what was a moment ago arguable is right back to truth, your first opinion. You might as well have saves us all a lot of time and just said that fetuses are babies period. You, kettle, just did exactly what you accused pot of doing, exactly just like I said. You just gave an opinion couched as though it were the truth. No support, no logic, no argument, just made up as you went. )

My point wasn't third grade, it was dead on. Sorry

Are you arguing with me that a fetus--if you insist on trying to convince yourself it isn't a human being--will become a human being if left unhindered? That's very much a fact and not an unsubstantiated opinion. Ending that growth process could only be considered killing what would inevitably and undoubtedly become a human being. Call it termination if you like--the Nazis did. Because I consider what will be a human being to be a human life, I call it murder.

Am I arguing a fetus will be come a person if it's genetically healthy and all proceeds ok? No, that is a repetitiously unrelated fact as you said. I'm not arguing that. It's the next step where you jump into unsubstantiated opinion: I consider what will be a human being to be a human life, I call it murder. That is called abortion and it is legal. It's just your opinion. You invest in it something from out of your imagination, conscious independent life. How is what you are saying different than saying that taking a pill to eliminate pin worms from your butt is mass genocide of the super-race those worms could perhaps be the direct ancestors of given a billion years. Your feeling that it is wrong is just as much a product of your imagination, your opinion as the next person's it's OK. You just believe in the story you tell yourself, but if that story were to become law human life would take a turn for the worse. It would be enslavement of the bodies of women who are here, real and full functioning conscious beings.


 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Everyone should be sterilized until they are mature enough to make intelligent decisions and accept responsibility for their actions.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
A fetus is a fetus. A baby is a baby. A baby was a fetus until it was born. A fetus is part of a woman. A fetus has potential. A cucumber has potential. A cucumber is neither a fetus nor a baby.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
A fetus is a fetus. A baby is a baby. A baby was a fetus until it was born. A fetus is part of a woman. A fetus has potential. A cucumber has potential. A cucumber is neither a fetus nor a baby.

What exactly constitutes a baby?
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sure makes arguing easier when you pretty much make up facts as you go.
----------------------------
But, but, but that's certainly what you did.
--------
--------
this is a conflict within an inter-party conflict, not something liberals can debate on
-------------------------------
Right. It such a pain having the fundies wag the dog. If they?d only drop that religious bull sh!t we could really take off. Morals just get in the way.

Ah, the old 'I know you are but what am I' comeback. You must win all the arguments in your third grade class.

Not too much more sophistication is really needed with you but lets take a look at the facts:

You said: Sure makes arguing easier when you pretty much make up facts as you go

and I said: But, but, but that's certainly what you did.

And then you said: Ah, the old 'I know you are but what am I' comeback. You must win all the arguments in your third grade class.

Now lets look at the pot and the kettle:

Pot: First, fetuses ain't babies. (Note the unsubstantiated opinion, the making it up as he goes)

Kettle: Fetuses are babies. But, strangly and disgustingly, that's argueable. What is NOT arguable is that a fetus WILL become a baby unless outside influences hinder that development. Ending that devleopmental process is equivalent to ending the baby's life. (Note the absurdly twisted, unsubstantiated, made up logic here. first you flatly contradict what was an opinion with the same but opposite of your own, then you call it arguable, congratulations on that, then you make a virtual tautology, and from that infer the absurd, that what was a moment ago arguable is right back to truth, your first opinion. You might as well have saves us all a lot of time and just said that fetuses are babies period. You, kettle, just did exactly what you accused pot of doing, exactly just like I said. You just gave an opinion couched as though it were the truth. No support, no logic, no argument, just made up as you went. )

My point wasn't third grade, it was dead on. Sorry

Are you arguing with me that a fetus--if you insist on trying to convince yourself it isn't a human being--will become a human being if left unhindered? That's very much a fact and not an unsubstantiated opinion. Ending that growth process could only be considered killing what would inevitably and undoubtedly become a human being. Call it termination if you like--the Nazis did. Because I consider what will be a human being to be a human life, I call it murder.

Am I arguing a fetus will be come a person if it's genetically healthy and all proceeds ok? No, that is a repetitiously unrelated fact as you said. I'm not arguing that. It's the next step where you jump into unsubstantiated opinion: I consider what will be a human being to be a human life, I call it murder. That is called abortion and it is legal.

Not for long. Call it whatever you want to call it...it's killing something that neither you nor I can prove is or is not human. I'm not taking the risk of being a participant to murder and giving life the benefit of the doubt.

It's just your opinion. You invest in it something from out of your imagination, conscious independent life.
Thanks, Doctor. Do I have to pay for this session?
How is what you are saying different than saying that taking a pill to eliminate pin worms from your butt is mass genocide of the super-race those worms could perhaps be the direct ancestors of given a billion years.
You figure it out, genius. Is it a scientific fact that unhindered by illness or outside forces that those worms will become human beings? As far as I know, no pin worm has EVER developed into anything other than a pin worm...although it's possible some of them have developed arms and fingers and come to post on these boards.
Your feeling that it is wrong is just as much a product of your imagination, your opinion as the next person's it's OK.
My opinion eradicates even the remote chance that we are killing unborn babies...yours make you a possible accomplice to genocide. Facts will only take you so far in this argument and eventually a judgement must be made and that judgement has to be made on morals. What's less morally objectionable? A man and woman possible inconvenience or a baby possibly murdered.
You just believe in the story you tell yourself, but if that story were to become law human life would take a turn for the worse. It would be enslavement of the bodies of women who are here, real and full functioning conscious beings.
Accountability. Enslavement. Accountability. Enslavement. Nope...they aren't synonyms. The fact is, nobody is forced into procreation...there's always a decision that leads to it. I'd like to drive 120 on the freeway, but if I do I know I may get a speeding ticket, so I keep it around 70. If one day I decide I'm going to take a chance and drive 120 and I subsequently get a ticket, I can't just tell the officer I don't want to accept the ticket. Many many many things in life are like that. If you don't want the potential down side you need to give up the up side or protect yourself as well as possible and take a chance.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
A fetus is a fetus. A baby is a baby. A baby was a fetus until it was born. A fetus is part of a woman. A fetus has potential. A cucumber has potential. A cucumber is neither a fetus nor a baby.

A cucumber has the potential for what? OK, since you used an analogy here is one for you;) Take a fruit or whatever. Now this "potential" fruit starts of as a flower(or seed). Now this seed/flower/"potential fruit" thing will become a fruit if left unharmed. Waiting a little while the fruit starts to take shape...but nowhere near ripe(edible food) and someone picks that seed/flower/"potential fruit" from the vine/tree/whatever and discards it - does that person not destroy/kill that fruit? Ask the farmer ;) and tell that to the cops that have your kid in the back of their squad;)

Lame? maybe, but no more lame than the other arguments tossed around here;)

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: LunarRay
A fetus is a fetus. A baby is a baby. A baby was a fetus until it was born. A fetus is part of a woman. A fetus has potential. A cucumber has potential. A cucumber is neither a fetus nor a baby.

What exactly constitutes a baby?

A baby is a little person... having been born.. An old person is old not a baby and not dead... when dead he no longer is an old person.

 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: LunarRay
A fetus is a fetus. A baby is a baby. A baby was a fetus until it was born. A fetus is part of a woman. A fetus has potential. A cucumber has potential. A cucumber is neither a fetus nor a baby.

What exactly constitutes a baby?

A baby is a little person... having been born.. An old person is old not a baby and not dead... when dead he no longer is an old person.

So at the moment the thing resembling a human in most functions exits the mother it transforms into a human? How much of the tumor/parasitic being has to be external to the host for it to be considered human?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
A fetus is a fetus. A baby is a baby. A baby was a fetus until it was born. A fetus is part of a woman. A fetus has potential. A cucumber has potential. A cucumber is neither a fetus nor a baby.

A cucumber has the potential for what? OK, since you used an analogy here is one for you;) Take a fruit or whatever. Now this "potential" fruit starts of as a flower(or seed). Now this seed/flower/"potential fruit" thing will become a fruit if left unharmed. Waiting a little while the fruit starts to take shape...but nowhere near ripe(edible food) and someone picks that seed/flower/"potential fruit" from the vine/tree/whatever and discards it - does that person not destroy/kill that fruit? Ask the farmer ;) and tell that to the cops that have your kid in the back of their squad;)

Lame? maybe, but no more lame than the other arguments tossed around here;)

CkG

A fetus that has reached the stage of its existence to be deemed "Viable", while still apart of the mother, can survive without being part of the mother and in fact can be "born", garners the status "entity", an "individual" creature that continues to enrich itself via the mother until the birthing event occurs.

In your example the earth is the mother... giving the seed the required nurishment and enviornment as the human mother does... lets say it is a carrot seed... and lets say there is a mushy fat rabbit bounding hither and yon... The seed is genetically predisposed to become a carrot.... when does a carrot become a carrot... I guess when it has all the requisite qualifications to be deemed a carrot.. it looks, tastes, smells like a carrot.... it has become a viable carrot... but, not yet plucked for the pot.. here comes bunny... and yummy it ate the viable carrot... right next door another carrot seed is planted but before it becomes a viable carrot ... pete the caterpillar eats it... has pete eaten a carrot or a potential carrot.... something not a carrot and not a seed... something if plucked is usless to the human and the bunny but not so pete... he don't like carrots but loves sprouting seeds..:)
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
A fetus is a fetus. A baby is a baby. A baby was a fetus until it was born. A fetus is part of a woman. A fetus has potential. A cucumber has potential. A cucumber is neither a fetus nor a baby.

A cucumber has the potential for what? OK, since you used an analogy here is one for you;) Take a fruit or whatever. Now this "potential" fruit starts of as a flower(or seed). Now this seed/flower/"potential fruit" thing will become a fruit if left unharmed. Waiting a little while the fruit starts to take shape...but nowhere near ripe(edible food) and someone picks that seed/flower/"potential fruit" from the vine/tree/whatever and discards it - does that person not destroy/kill that fruit? Ask the farmer ;) and tell that to the cops that have your kid in the back of their squad;)

Lame? maybe, but no more lame than the other arguments tossed around here;)

CkG

A fetus that has reached the stage of its existence to be deemed "Viable", while still apart of the mother, can survive without being part of the mother and in fact can be "born", garners the status "entity", an "individual" creature that continues to enrich itself via the mother until the birthing event occurs.

In your example the earth is the mother... giving the seed the required nurishment and enviornment as the human mother does... lets say it is a carrot seed... and lets say there is a mushy fat rabbit bounding hither and yon... The seed is genetically predisposed to become a carrot.... when does a carrot become a carrot... I guess when it has all the requisite qualifications to be deemed a carrot.. it looks, tastes, smells like a carrot.... it has become a viable carrot... but, not yet plucked for the pot.. here comes bunny... and yummy it ate the viable carrot... right next door another carrot seed is planted but before it becomes a viable carrot ... pete the caterpillar eats it... has pete eaten a carrot or a potential carrot.... something not a carrot and not a seed... something if plucked is usless to the human and the bunny but not so pete... he don't like carrots but loves sprouting seeds..:)

Is this a "women should give more BJs" comment?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
A fetus is a fetus. A baby is a baby. A baby was a fetus until it was born. A fetus is part of a woman. A fetus has potential. A cucumber has potential. A cucumber is neither a fetus nor a baby.

A cucumber has the potential for what? OK, since you used an analogy here is one for you;) Take a fruit or whatever. Now this "potential" fruit starts of as a flower(or seed). Now this seed/flower/"potential fruit" thing will become a fruit if left unharmed. Waiting a little while the fruit starts to take shape...but nowhere near ripe(edible food) and someone picks that seed/flower/"potential fruit" from the vine/tree/whatever and discards it - does that person not destroy/kill that fruit? Ask the farmer ;) and tell that to the cops that have your kid in the back of their squad;)

Lame? maybe, but no more lame than the other arguments tossed around here;)

CkG

A fetus that has reached the stage of its existence to be deemed "Viable", while still apart of the mother, can survive without being part of the mother and in fact can be "born", garners the status "entity", an "individual" creature that continues to enrich itself via the mother until the birthing event occurs.

In your example the earth is the mother... giving the seed the required nurishment and enviornment as the human mother does... lets say it is a carrot seed... and lets say there is a mushy fat rabbit bounding hither and yon... The seed is genetically predisposed to become a carrot.... when does a carrot become a carrot... I guess when it has all the requisite qualifications to be deemed a carrot.. it looks, tastes, smells like a carrot.... it has become a viable carrot... but, not yet plucked for the pot.. here comes bunny... and yummy it ate the viable carrot... right next door another carrot seed is planted but before it becomes a viable carrot ... pete the caterpillar eats it... has pete eaten a carrot or a potential carrot.... something not a carrot and not a seed... something if plucked is usless to the human and the bunny but not so pete... he don't like carrots but loves sprouting seeds..:)

Is this a "women should give more BJs" comment?

:D

But aside from that - HD2342's (or whatever he is calling himself today;)) analogy don't support his view if you consider the earth to be the mother in this scenario. The bunny plucks the still growing "carrot" and kills (eats) it. Now is this "carrot" a carrot when it comes out of the ground(mother) and we identify it as a carrot? or is it a carrot as soon as it changes shape from the original seed and starts to look like, taste, and feel like a carrot? Again - ask the farmer if the rabbit killed the "carrots"?

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,326
6,039
126
H: Are you arguing with me that a fetus--if you insist on trying to convince yourself it isn't a human being--will become a human being if left unhindered? That's very much a fact and not an unsubstantiated opinion. Ending that growth process could only be considered killing what would inevitably and undoubtedly become a human being. Call it termination if you like--the Nazis did. Because I consider what will be a human being to be a human life, I call it murder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



M: Am I arguing a fetus will be come a person if it's genetically healthy and all proceeds ok? No, that is a repetitiously unrelated fact as you said. I'm not arguing that. It's the next step where you jump into unsubstantiated opinion: I consider what will be a human being to be a human life, I call it murder. That is called abortion and it is legal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



H: Not for long. Call it whatever you want to call it...it's killing something that neither you nor I can prove is or is not human. I'm not taking the risk of being a participant to murder and giving life the benefit of the doubt.

----------------------------
M: Logically absurd because if there is no proof of humanity there can be no proof of murder. You don't take any risk at all. You are male and can't have a child. This whole issue should be immaterial to you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M: It's just your opinion. You invest in it something from out of your imagination, conscious independent life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Doctor. Do I have to pay for this session?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M: No charge since there was no real challenge to the point. You can either argue what I say or you cannot. You cannot.
-----------------

M: How is what you are saying different than saying that taking a pill to eliminate pin worms from your butt is mass genocide of the super-race those worms could perhaps be the direct ancestors of given a billion years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H: You figure it out, genius. Is it a scientific fact that unhindered by illness or outside forces that those worms will become human beings? As far as I know, no pin worm has EVER developed into anything other than a pin worm...although it's possible some of them have developed arms and fingers and come to post on these boards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M: Thank you for the genius comment, I get that alot. My point is very simple. You're saying that if a terminated pregnancy is murder because a future child makes a fetus a child. Just so then does a worm, we were all once worms, make a future human. It's just a matter of time.
--------------------------

M: Your feeling that it is wrong is just as much a product of your imagination, your opinion as the next person's it's OK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H: My opinion eradicates even the remote chance that we are killing unborn babies...yours make you a possible accomplice to genocide. Facts will only take you so far in this argument and eventually a judgement must be made and that judgement has to be made on morals. What's less morally objectionable? A man and woman possible inconvenience or a baby possibly murdered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M: Your opinion is just that, an opinion. all the conclusions you fancy fall from it are just more opinion. The judgment you seek isn't based on morals it's based on your opinion about morals too. We want to make the decision on the basis of my morals, not yours, is what you are saying. The moral choices you offer are not the only ones. There is the right of the mother not to have her body host an unwanted growth. There is the issue of keeping her from dying from a coat hanger is some dark alley. There is the issue of not imposing your moral beliefs on others because you're obsessed.

-------------------------------------

M: You just believe in the story you tell yourself, but if that story were to become law human life would take a turn for the worse. It would be enslavement of the bodies of women who are here, real and full functioning conscious beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H: Accountability. Enslavement. Accountability. Enslavement. Nope...they aren't synonyms. The fact is, nobody is forced into procreation...there's always a decision that leads to it. I'd like to drive 120 on the freeway, but if I do I know I may get a speeding ticket, so I keep it around 70. If one day I decide I'm going to take a chance and drive 120 and I subsequently get a ticket, I can't just tell the officer I don't want to accept the ticket. Many many many things in life are like that. If you don't want the potential down side you need to give up the up side or protect yourself as well as possible and take a chance.
--------------------------
M: There you go again, telling yourself your own story so things look like you want them to look. Everybody is forced to procreate. It's called our selfish genes. The genes don't give a flipping fig about your morality and your silly dreams. Your genes demand to be carried into the next generation even in the face of death. Humans will breed. That is the deepest law. Your pitiful efforts to wrap the issue in morality is a waste of time. A dick will find its place, if not yours than somebody else's. Get real. You conservatives and your stupid notion of responsibility. You wouldn't know it if it bit you in the ass. The whole earth has to suffer because you're afraid to have fun. You get your law passed and you're breed a world of democrats. 80% of children born will be from the irresponsible class. Use your brain. Let them abort.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
A fetus is a fetus. A baby is a baby. A baby was a fetus until it was born. A fetus is part of a woman. A fetus has potential. A cucumber has potential. A cucumber is neither a fetus nor a baby.

A cucumber has the potential for what? OK, since you used an analogy here is one for you;) Take a fruit or whatever. Now this "potential" fruit starts of as a flower(or seed). Now this seed/flower/"potential fruit" thing will become a fruit if left unharmed. Waiting a little while the fruit starts to take shape...but nowhere near ripe(edible food) and someone picks that seed/flower/"potential fruit" from the vine/tree/whatever and discards it - does that person not destroy/kill that fruit? Ask the farmer ;) and tell that to the cops that have your kid in the back of their squad;)

Lame? maybe, but no more lame than the other arguments tossed around here;)

CkG

A fetus that has reached the stage of its existence to be deemed "Viable", while still apart of the mother, can survive without being part of the mother and in fact can be "born", garners the status "entity", an "individual" creature that continues to enrich itself via the mother until the birthing event occurs.

In your example the earth is the mother... giving the seed the required nurishment and enviornment as the human mother does... lets say it is a carrot seed... and lets say there is a mushy fat rabbit bounding hither and yon... The seed is genetically predisposed to become a carrot.... when does a carrot become a carrot... I guess when it has all the requisite qualifications to be deemed a carrot.. it looks, tastes, smells like a carrot.... it has become a viable carrot... but, not yet plucked for the pot.. here comes bunny... and yummy it ate the viable carrot... right next door another carrot seed is planted but before it becomes a viable carrot ... pete the caterpillar eats it... has pete eaten a carrot or a potential carrot.... something not a carrot and not a seed... something if plucked is usless to the human and the bunny but not so pete... he don't like carrots but loves sprouting seeds..:)

Is this a "women should give more BJs" comment?

:D

But aside from that - HD2342's (or whatever he is calling himself today;)) analogy don't support his view if you consider the earth to be the mother in this scenario. The bunny plucks the still growing "carrot" and kills (eats) it. Now is this "carrot" a carrot when it comes out of the ground(mother) and we identify it as a carrot? or is it a carrot as soon as it changes shape from the original seed and starts to look like, taste, and feel like a carrot? Again - ask the farmer if the rabbit killed the "carrots"?

CkG

I figure it be a carrot when it can be plucked out of the earth and be served at the dinner table and no one say's "What is this?" It is a viable carrot... like a fetus that is a viable fetus... it is unborn but can survive without the mother and be what its potential allows for. Before viability it may look like a viable fetus but it ain't yet..
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
H: Are you arguing with me that a fetus--if you insist on trying to convince yourself it isn't a human being--will become a human being if left unhindered? That's very much a fact and not an unsubstantiated opinion. Ending that growth process could only be considered killing what would inevitably and undoubtedly become a human being. Call it termination if you like--the Nazis did. Because I consider what will be a human being to be a human life, I call it murder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



M: Am I arguing a fetus will be come a person if it's genetically healthy and all proceeds ok? No, that is a repetitiously unrelated fact as you said. I'm not arguing that. It's the next step where you jump into unsubstantiated opinion: I consider what will be a human being to be a human life, I call it murder. That is called abortion and it is legal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



H: Not for long. Call it whatever you want to call it...it's killing something that neither you nor I can prove is or is not human. I'm not taking the risk of being a participant to murder and giving life the benefit of the doubt.

----------------------------
M: Logically absurd because if there is no proof of humanity there can be no proof of murder. You don't take any risk at all. You are male and can't have a child. This whole issue should be immaterial to you.

---------------------------------------

H: Same with what's going on in Iraq then. You aren't an Iraqi. You aren't a US soldier, so it's immaterial to you and you can shut up about it for now on...thanks.

Aside from that point, males share in the inconvenience as much as the females except for the actual birthing part. Men are obligated to financially support that child and will be hunted down and have their pay perpetually docked for child support...that's if they and the female split. Otherwise they still have the financial drain and the late nights and the poopy diapers and the crying to deal with. And that's if you look only at the negative. I don't know a single mother (and I know many who are single/divorced moms in tough stead) who regrets her children.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M: It's just your opinion. You invest in it something from out of your imagination, conscious independent life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Doctor. Do I have to pay for this session?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M: No charge since there was no real challenge to the point. You can either argue what I say or you cannot. You cannot.
--------------------------------------------

H: Yeah it's your opinion of my opinion, but we can go around in circles like this all day. I think you deep down know an unborn baby is a human being but you won't let yourself believe it because it's what those southern conservatives believe and you get your self-worth from telling yourself you're better than other people which is why you always assume the easily defensible position that gives you the most easily reached one-liner or limmerick for a protest sign. Now you can reply, "No I don't" and I can say "Yes do" and you can reply "No I don't" and I can reply "Yes you do"...or you can be a big man and let it go with a quick crack.

-----------------

M: How is what you are saying different than saying that taking a pill to eliminate pin worms from your butt is mass genocide of the super-race those worms could perhaps be the direct ancestors of given a billion years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H: You figure it out, genius. Is it a scientific fact that unhindered by illness or outside forces that those worms will become human beings? As far as I know, no pin worm has EVER developed into anything other than a pin worm...although it's possible some of them have developed arms and fingers and come to post on these boards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M: Thank you for the genius comment, I get that alot. My point is very simple. You're saying that if a terminated pregnancy is murder because a future child makes a fetus a child. Just so then does a worm, we were all once worms, make a future human. It's just a matter of time.
--------------------------

H: Actually, no, we were not all once worms. Aside from that point, abortion isn't hindering the process of evolution, it's hindering the growth and development of what will undeniably become a human being (If you can't admit to youself that it already is).

----------------------------------------------
M: Your feeling that it is wrong is just as much a product of your imagination, your opinion as the next person's it's OK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H: My opinion eradicates even the remote chance that we are killing unborn babies...yours make you a possible accomplice to genocide. Facts will only take you so far in this argument and eventually a judgement must be made and that judgement has to be made on morals. What's less morally objectionable? A man and woman possible inconvenience or a baby possibly murdered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M: Your opinion is just that, an opinion. all the conclusions you fancy fall from it are just more opinion. The judgment you seek isn't based on morals it's based on your opinion about morals too. We want to make the decision on the basis of my morals, not yours, is what you are saying. The moral choices you offer are not the only ones. There is the right of the mother not to have her body host an unwanted growth. There is the issue of keeping her from dying from a coat hanger is some dark alley. There is the issue of not imposing your moral beliefs on others because you're obsessed.
------------------------------------------------

H: She has every right not to host an unwanted growth...she doesn't have to have sex or uprotected sex. Tada! There's her right! If she feels sex, like driving 120, is worth the risk, then she has the right to take the risk but she has, by her decision, accepted the potential down side because she knew it could happen.

Your imagery of a woman dying in an alley is no less gruesome than an unborn baby having its limbs torn off one by one by a vacuum or its skull melted with salt acid or its hands reaching out to stop a needle full of poison as it pokes at them. They have videos of this stuff you can watch if you don't believe me. The difference is the woman had the choice to enter that alley...she chose death over adoption or inconvenience...I thought you were pro-choice.

-------------------------------------

M: You just believe in the story you tell yourself, but if that story were to become law human life would take a turn for the worse. It would be enslavement of the bodies of women who are here, real and full functioning conscious beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H: Accountability. Enslavement. Accountability. Enslavement. Nope...they aren't synonyms. The fact is, nobody is forced into procreation...there's always a decision that leads to it. I'd like to drive 120 on the freeway, but if I do I know I may get a speeding ticket, so I keep it around 70. If one day I decide I'm going to take a chance and drive 120 and I subsequently get a ticket, I can't just tell the officer I don't want to accept the ticket. Many many many things in life are like that. If you don't want the potential down side you need to give up the up side or protect yourself as well as possible and take a chance.
--------------------------
M: There you go again, telling yourself your own story so things look like you want them to look. Everybody is forced to procreate. It's called our selfish genes. The genes don't give a flipping fig about your morality and your silly dreams. Your genes demand to be carried into the next generation even in the face of death. Humans will breed. That is the deepest law. Your pitiful efforts to wrap the issue in morality is a waste of time. A dick will find its place, if not yours than somebody else's. Get real. You conservatives and your stupid notion of responsibility. You wouldn't know it if it bit you in the ass. The whole earth has to suffer because you're afraid to have fun. You get your law passed and you're breed a world of democrats. 80% of children born will be from the irresponsible class. Use your brain. Let them abort.
-------------------------------------------------------------

H: You can choose to refute my story or concede it. You conceded it...not surprisingly.

Anyway, look at you...you're down to making excuses in a plea for leniency. To paraphrase : "But we can't help it."

Tempering fun with a little responsibility often mitigates the down side. Jumping out of a plane is exhilerating, but stopping to put on a parachute first doesn't lessen the thrill and means you'll get to do it again some day. By showing a little responsibility and waiting to have sex till you're married means no worries about VD or AIDS and protected sex can means no unexpected pregnancy.

Feel free to have unprotected sex with as many people as you can find...I'm not taking that right away from you...have your fun...but don't try to make unborn children pay the price for your actions.

Besides, I'm not a conservative...I'm a moderate libertarian.

And freakin' learn how to markup your damn posts.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,338
253
126
First, fetuses ain't babies.
Right, they're developing babies, which would be babies if they weren't killed. Children aren't adults, but would become adults if they live long enough. Should there be different penalties for killing adults and children? Hmmm...
Second, Christians are supposed to believe that sinners can potentially be saved.
Their soul can potentially be saved...by Jesus. That has nothing to do with earthly fates of people in the physical world. Apparently, you really don't get the Christian doctrine at all.
Let's save the person that's not really a person vs. let's kill the person who has sinned regardless of any potential for redemption.

There's your contradiction.
Well, not really. See above.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Brie
Originally posted by: Dari
These southern conservatives are determine to overturn the nation's federal and state abortion laws. Bush's UN team working with fanatical ayatollahs to curb the right of women around the globe was disturbing enough. But with two justices about to retire and their attrition of current laws supporting abortion shows no abatement.

Most western countries support abortion and that's how it should be. I find it paradoxical and hypocritical that southern conservatives can find it morally abhorrant for a woman to abort a child but have no problems when countless people, mostly minorities, are legally executed every year. Sounds like two conflicting ideologies of christianity and American justice. I, for one, never believed in a Christian cowboy because they represented vastly different beliefs. The former teaches morality and forgiveness while the latter worships vigilantism and vengeance. In fact, cowboy myths sings the praises of redemption through violence. Christian forgiveness is never an option.

So, is there an unholy alliance in southern conservatives; between the cowboy and the christian? I think so. Both are part of the american tradition and both are part of a certain flank in this administration. The alliance has survived for over 200 years, but it isn't sustainable. Something has to give. I sincerely hope that these conservatives study their actions and notice the hypocrasy.

I am a "southern conservative" living in very "conservative" district. I must say that if ANY politician took the stance of overturning abotion laws here in my district, he would have no chance at election. While there may be a predominance of "southern conservatives" that want to overturn abortion laws, I must ask you to not sterotype us in general :)

These southern conservatives

rolleye.gif

sorry for the stereotype, but can you answer this question? Do you feel any mental schism at all about the potential conflict going on within what I would call southern conservatives? Do you see the hypocrisy?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Crap I lost my huge reply.

I think I found it...it was logged in heredity.. but it was so large a post and you're with out peer now.... so I sent it back to you..:)
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Right, they're developing babies, which would be babies if they weren't killed. Children aren't adults, but would become adults if they live long enough. Should there be different penalties for killing adults and children? Hmmm...
Now you're just being assinine.

Their soul can potentially be saved...by Jesus. That has nothing to do with earthly fates of people in the physical world. Apparently, you really don't get the Christian doctrine at all.
I see, people can accept Jesus after they die now.

Well, not really. See above.
The contradiction stands, as evidenced by my other posts in this thread and the Bible.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,338
253
126
I see, people can accept Jesus after they die now.
Can you provide any documentation to suggest otherwise?

What about aboriginals or people in remote regions of the world who have never heard of the Christian doctrine? Or children who are not able to understand? Or the retarded? They automatically go to hell? Sorry, go directly to hell because you didn't accept Jesus as your savior before you died, even though you weren't given the choice?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
In every thread that I've posted in that evolved or started as an abortion issue the same situation seems to exist... that is the difference between the personal view of abortion and the view society must hold in law.
There must be a distinction because not everyone believes in God, as I do. We are not a nation under God... really. We are a nation of freedom to be under God if WE choose.

I'd not be unequally yoked with a woman. That means we must believe together the same.. I, therefore, we believe life begins at conception... not before, not in heaven or somewhere in route... but at conception... except in the case of Jesus who I believe always was and simply became life in Mary (not conceived) but transferred from what was to what became.. Jesus always was and always will be..

Our society must not hold this view in law... because as I stated earlier... we are not a cleric state... the best we can do for the fetus is define a point when it legally is an entity apart from the mother... this should be at viability... when it can survive with out the mother. It is against my belief but I believe all have the right to their belief or freedom... the biology must rule the state... not the church..