|
Post by kevin on Apr 23, 2007 21:17:39 GMT -5
Sorry for "invading", but that's one of the best smilies I've ever seen ;D.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 23, 2007 21:40:58 GMT -5
Sticky issue; medical technology has improved younger premature babies chances of survival, so I'm not certain. Yes, I can see a completely in vitro process in the future. Exactly. If you take the stand point of life begins once the fetus can live outside the womb then, if technology continues in the direction it is going, you will be forced to admit that life begins at conception. The only way around that is if you say that life begins when a fetus can live without any medical support. Well, that brings in the issue of Euthanization. If a human is only surviving with medical support then has their life ended? Of course not! With all of the technology we have and as much as we know now about pregnancy and how a fetus develops, I find it beyond belief that anyone can say that life does not begin at conception.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 23, 2007 21:42:40 GMT -5
Sorry, Blondie. It appears the pro-lifers have "sacked" your thread! Would you like us to take this over to "our" thread? I would be happy to do so if you'd like.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Apr 23, 2007 23:25:47 GMT -5
Interesting how everyone came to this thread rather than the other one... (I wonder if this was a little experiment by the OP?) But taking things even farther than the true test tube baby... What if it is decided that life begins before conception? (the sperm and egg are a separate being from the parent, though not fully viable - yet...) No more birth control, condoms, rhythm method... No more wasting future babies with pointless sex... Wasting eggs is considered criminal... No looking at playboy anymore either... LOL The Gamete Protection Act of 2090 - to combat the loss of human population...
Not a popular act, but one forged by a coalition of religious zealots (Spill not thy seed, you Heathen!), Blackstone Security (Your army for hire - with no messy relatives!), and The Corporation for Chromosomal Protection (Building a better you!)...
Hmm... Life just gets more and more complicated...
(I wonder if as an enforcement measure, we would all have to wear spy cameras in our pants?...)LOL
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 23:54:20 GMT -5
Twista,
Most of the posts have nothing to do with pro-choice, including the original one. LOL.
So, if you think sperm and eggs are separate beings, then you must also conclude that blood cells are separate beings as well. Sperm and eggs are just cells that perform a specific function.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Apr 24, 2007 0:43:55 GMT -5
"So, if you think sperm and eggs are separate beings, then you must also conclude that blood cells are separate beings as well. Sperm and eggs are just cells that perform a specific function."
No, blood cells can never be a child... (at our level of technology) Sperm and eggs can become a unique person...
Or not, depending on the choices we make at the time... (I think everyone came to this thread because they find Blondie intriguing and interesting to debate, instead of just going to a pro-life thread and just saying "There ya' go" to each other... LOL)
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 1:12:03 GMT -5
I woudn't be so sure of that with all the cloning stuff going on.
The point is if you are going to define life in the terms that a sperm is alive, then the same would have to be said for any other cell in the body. I personally think there are different types of life and human life is not life without a soul.
as far as this thread and blondie, maybe so, but again, he hasn't even been posting, so I don't see how it can be construed as everyone on the thread is debating him. There has yet to be one discussion on his actual original post, the picture notwithstanding, which was just a prop for his trolling. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Apr 24, 2007 4:01:49 GMT -5
"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great! If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate!"
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 24, 2007 5:02:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't say encouraged, let's see if it turns into a 40 post pissing contest, as of now it seems to actually be a discussion. It may be off topic, but it is still a conversation. considering the source (no pun intended), it was a pissing contest with the initial post...
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 24, 2007 5:05:30 GMT -5
Interesting how everyone came to this thread rather than the other one... (I wonder if this was a little experiment by the OP?) It's the height of monkey-fishing season!!!
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 24, 2007 5:07:28 GMT -5
I am pro-choice about everything....
But I believe there are wrong choices.....
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 8:36:15 GMT -5
Man, I'm sorry I pasted that laughing Jesus pic because everybody missed this: Isaiah 13: 9. Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, 16. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes 18. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children. 22. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: Sure am glad my ethics don't come from this. I threw in the dragon bit for laughs. I'm pro-choice because I don't want the state making these kinds of very personal decisions for people. Also the issue is the height of hypocrisy. Plenty of pro-life people have abortions. The only difference is that they're big, fat, intolerant hypocrites: mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 9:43:20 GMT -5
Please explain what Isaiah 13 has to do with Pro-Choice?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 9:47:37 GMT -5
I'm pro-choice because I don't want the state making these kinds of very personal decisions for people. I completely understand that. The real issue, as I pointed out earlier, is when does life begin. Because, if life does begin at conception, then abortion is murder. And if we are going to condone murder of a tiny fetus, why not let us kill the old....and the sick....and the retarted....or anyone that is a nuisance. So, that's why I said that this argument all comes down to when life begins. I'd love to hear your thoughts on when you think life begins and why.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 10:15:29 GMT -5
Please explain what Isaiah 13 has to do with Pro-Choice? um...possibly that certain folk around here base their entire morality on a book they've never read and imagine mirrors the GOP party platform.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 10:23:02 GMT -5
um...possibly that certain folk around here base their entire morality on a book they've never read and imagine mirrors the GOP party platform. I don't think Spock likes your explanation....
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 10:54:15 GMT -5
I completely understand that. The real issue, as I pointed out earlier, is when does life begin. Right. Or more specifically, what is life? A fetus is both a baby and a growth in the mother's body. I don't understand why anyone would wait until the third trimester to get an abortion except in the case of the health of the mother. I wouldn't be surprised if crazy husbands, boyfriends and parents had something to do with it too.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 10:56:51 GMT -5
"um...possibly that certain folk around here base their entire morality on a book they've never read and imagine mirrors the GOP party platform."
There is a big difference between never reading something and reading enough to understand the basics of a concept. The GOP position mirrors the biblical view on abortion more so than any other major party. You will have to show why it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 10:59:36 GMT -5
So when do you think life begins? Or, if you like, at what point is a fetus considered life in your point of view?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 10:59:59 GMT -5
"more specifically, what is life?"
Define what is "health", why you are at it.
"A fetus is both a baby and a growth in the mother's body."
A baby is not cancer...it is made up of it's own cells, not the mother's, so it's not a growth.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 11:12:33 GMT -5
The GOP position mirrors the biblical view on abortion more so than any other major party. You will have to show why it doesn't. See, this is what I mean. I've already shown that YHWH doesn't care much about killing kids from my quote above. Smite makes right.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 11:23:06 GMT -5
You haven't shown anything. You have pulled out some versus in scripture but have not elaborated on what you think it is supposed to be conveying. I want to know what you think it is saying. I like the fact that you are skipping lines and truncating what you want to be shown. LOL. That usually is a red flag that you are making something say what you want it to say. No surprise.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 11:28:20 GMT -5
Right. Or more specifically, what is life? So when do you think life begins? Or, if you like, at what point is a fetus considered life in your point of view?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 12:19:48 GMT -5
You haven't shown anything. You have pulled out some versus in scripture but have not elaborated on what you think it is supposed to be conveying. I want to know what you think it is saying. I like the fact that you are skipping lines and truncating what you want to be shown. LOL. That usually is a red flag that you are making something say what you want it to say. No surprise. I pulled lines out of a bloody story where a lot of children get killed. What do you think are in the lines i didn't pick? A bubble gum tree? You expect me to explain the obvious. It's a bloody, nasty story about a bloody nasty god. You can't explain it away. You can either rationalize it, in which case you worship a bloody nasty god. Or you can dismiss it, in which case the Bible is irrelevant. You just act dense and pretend you know something without ever making any point.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 12:43:59 GMT -5
LOL. I didn't expect you to explain it because you either can't or it would contradict your premise. The fact that you skipped verses and truncated verses attests to that already. You can't argue on the merits of anything as it stands....you have to alter it first....you stack the deck. It's lame debating and transparent.
As a side note, I love the fact that any answer that anyone can give, in regards to the CORRECT and COMPLETE wording of the scripture and context, as it is written, versus how you sculpted it, is automatically made invalid by you. That of course is on purpose. Misquote and mischaracterize something in a butchered manner and then when somebody fills in all the blanks and context you removed, you accuse them of rationalizing.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 13:38:54 GMT -5
LOL. I didn't expect you to explain it because you either can't or it would contradict your premise. The fact that you skipped verses and truncated verses attests to that already. You can't argue on the merits of anything as it stands....you have to alter it first....you stack the deck. It's lame debating and transparent. As a side note, I love the fact that any answer that anyone can give, in regards to the CORRECT and COMPLETE wording of the scripture and context, as it is written, versus how you sculpted it, is automatically made invalid by you. That of course is on purpose. Misquote and mischaracterize something in a butchered manner and then when somebody fills in all the blanks and context you removed, you accuse them of rationalizing. If you read the entire thing it's very damning of your god. He sound more like that Satan god you believe in. Why are you trying to make an argument about something that anyone can look up in about 10 seconds. You've yet to make a point.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Apr 24, 2007 13:50:53 GMT -5
Blondie, you're not 'fooling' me, >>>You're too nice, polite, sensitive and considerate<<< to be a genuine Atheist!
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 14:13:08 GMT -5
Blondie, you're not 'fooling' me, >>>You're too nice, polite, sensitive and considerate<<< to be a genuine Atheist! You do realize that Blondie bashes Christianity every chance he gets, don't you? Do you also know that Blondie thinks that Christians are brainwashed, moronic rednecks? Blondie may be a perfectly nice individual in person but on this forum he does not hold back how he really feels. Just thought I'd point that out.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Apr 24, 2007 14:17:14 GMT -5
Blondie, you're not 'fooling' me, >>>You're too nice, polite, sensitive and considerate<<< to be a genuine Atheist! You do realize that Blondie bashes Christianity every chance he gets, don't you? Do you also know that Blondie thinks that Christians are brainwashed, moronic rednecks? Blondie may be a perfectly nice individual in person but on this forum he does not hold back how he really feels. Just thought I'd point that out. I realize that I said what I believe is the Truth! Is that OK with you? I'm not a clone for anyone! I speak my heart and mind!
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 14:20:06 GMT -5
Ok. Fine. If that's how you feel then that's fine with me. I just thought I'd mention evidence that could possibly contradict your statement.
|
|