Are You A Good Man....

[seer]

It contradicts the historical orthodoxy. Orthodox Christians, like every other sect (religious, political, or whatever), think theirs is the only defensible position.

The first question I would as them is - when Jesus was praying to the Father who was He praying to? Since they believe it is just one person. Jesus says that both He and the Father bear witness to His ministry - really? I could go on.

[Doug Shaver]

The first question I would as them is - when Jesus was praying to the Father who was He praying to?

Then go ask them. You don't have to convince me that their theology makes no sense. All I'm saying is that yours doesn't make any better sense.

[seer]

Then go ask them. You don't have to convince me that their theology makes no sense. All I'm saying is that yours doesn't make any better sense.

Ok, that is fair. But I would like to go back to the reason for this thread. Why don't or can't you declare yourself morally perfect? What exactly prevents you from doing so?

[Bill the Cat]

Meaning that Star recognises "you're right" and he's wrong??? Is that what you mean by integrity??

Actually, yes. Admit that science is not on his side on this issue.

The bottom line is a difference of opinion. You want to exalt the zygote as deserving of full human rights and protections, whereas the majority of people believe that it's not until fetal viability that such protections apply.

No, the bottom line is that the zygote, embryo, fetus, and infant are all just stages of a unique individual organism's growth and development, and arbitrarily assigning the right to live based on one of those stages over another is wrong.

[Tassman]

Actually, yes. Admit that science is not on his side on this issue.

Incorrect! Science is on his side in this issue.

No, the bottom line is that the zygote, embryo, fetus, and infant are all just stages of a unique individual organism's growth and development, and arbitrarily assigning the right to live based on one of those stages over another is wrong.

Arbitrarily assigning full human rights and protections to an insensate fetus is demonstrably absurd and is based upon an ideological concept of what constitutes a viable human being.

[Sea of red]

Actually, yes. Admit that science is not on his side on this issue.




No, the bottom line is that the zygote, embryo, fetus, and infant are all just stages of a unique individual organism's growth and development, and arbitrarily assigning the right to live based on one of those stages over another is wrong.

I don't think anyone needed you to tell them that zygotes, embryos, fetuses, and infants are different phases of human development, Bill.

[Starlight]

I don't think anyone needed you to tell them that zygotes, embryos, fetuses, and infants are different phases of human development, Bill.

I find it really weird that he doesn't even seem to understand what the issues are. I can understand someone who's never discussed the topic of abortion being as out-to-lunch as Bill is on the issue, but he's been on this forum for years, so it's hard to fathom how he could be this ignorant.

[seer]

Arbitrarily assigning full human rights and protections to an insensate fetus is demonstrably absurd and is based upon an ideological concept of what constitutes a viable human being.

I get it, human rights do not apply to all human beings in your world.

[Bill the Cat]

I don't think anyone needed you to tell them that zygotes, embryos, fetuses, and infants are different phases of human development, Bill.

It's necessary to keep hammering home that fact to reinforce that the organism merely grows and develops. It does not "become" a human being at any stage after conception. Therefore, that separate organism deserves to be given the right to live just like every other organism at other stages. Specialization should not be a marker for assigning the right to live.

[Bill the Cat]

I find it really weird that he doesn't even seem to understand what the issues are.

Of course I do. The issue is biological ignorance. And your side suffers from it in a major way.

I can understand someone who's never discussed the topic of abortion being as out-to-lunch as Bill is on the issue, but he's been on this forum for years, so it's hard to fathom how he could be this ignorant.

That you and your ilk dehumanize a member of our species just because it hasn't specialized up to your arbitrary criteria is what is hard to fathom. That you are too stupid to get that biological fact is what is hard to fathom. That you clowns are ignorant that the Unborn Victims of Violence act declares all of the pre-born stages worthy of protecting life and limb is what is hard to fathom. So, I take your emotionally charged idiocy with a grain of salt.

[seer]

That you and your ilk dehumanize a member of our species just because it hasn't specialized up to your arbitrary criteria is what is hard to fathom.

That is exactly right, this is why Star can support the killing of children while claiming to be moral and altruistic.

[Sparko]

Incorrect! Science is on his side in this issue.



Arbitrarily assigning full human rights and protections to an insensate fetus is demonstrably absurd and is based upon an ideological concept of what constitutes a viable human being.

Arbitrarily removing full human rights from a member of the human race based on nothing but rhetoric is demonstrably absurd and is based on an ideological concept of what constitutes a viable human being.

and fetuses are not insensate. Google fetal pain and watch some movies demonstrating that fetuses can feel pain and react to stimuli. They are not insensate at all. Even though that is just another example of your arbitrary rhetoric and scientifically has nothing to do with a fetus being a human being or not.

[Starlight]

The issue is biological ignorance. And your side suffers from it in a major way.

This puzzles me: Do you know you are lying here, or are you literally that stupid and that ignorant that you think you're telling the truth? Even an average person who'd spent 5 minutes studying the abortion debates would know this was totally untrue, so I don't understand what you think you are gaining by making statements that absolutely everyone knows are false and wrong.

That you and your ilk dehumanize a member of our species just because it hasn't specialized up to your arbitrary criteria is what is hard to fathom.

That statement is much more on-point and at least shows a rudimentary grasp of the issues on your part.

That you are too stupid to get that biological fact is what is hard to fathom.

And we're back to you making statements that everyone knows are ridiculously false. Are you that stupid, or are you deliberately lying and if so, why?

That you clowns are ignorant that the Unborn Victims of Violence act declares all of the pre-born stages worthy of protecting life and limb is what is hard to fathom.

Wow, that random claim came out of left-field.

[Tassman]

This puzzles me: Do you know you are lying here, or are you literally that stupid and that ignorant that you think you're telling the truth? Even an average person who'd spent 5 minutes studying the abortion debates would know this was totally untrue, so I don't understand what you think you are gaining by making statements that absolutely everyone knows are false and wrong.

That statement is much more on-point and at least shows a rudimentary grasp of the issues on your part.

And we're back to you making statements that everyone knows are ridiculously false. Are you that stupid, or are you deliberately lying and if so, why?

Wow, that random claim came out of left-field.

The 'elephant in the room' for this lot is that from the moment of conception an entity is a 'child of God' and therefore must be protected. They deny it and try to claim that the real agenda is a purely biological one, but it's obviously not because that argument makes no sense.

[Tassman]

Arbitrarily removing full human rights from a member of the human race based on nothing but rhetoric is demonstrably absurd and is based on an ideological concept of what constitutes a viable human being.

Nothing "arbitrary" about it at all. A potential person is not an actual person. If brain function is a criterion used to determine the death of a person; it should also be the criterion for its beginning. Some would argue that this does not occur until self awareness.

and fetuses are not insensate. Google fetal pain and watch some movies demonstrating that fetuses can feel pain and react to stimuli. They are not insensate at all. Even though that is just another example of your arbitrary rhetoric and scientifically has nothing to do with a fetus being a human being or not.

Ah, back to the good old-fashioned shock/horror rhetoric so beloved of the pro-birthers.

Fetal brain activity only begins to exhibit regular wave patterns at around week 25. Previous to that time, the EEG only shows small bursts of activity without sustained firing of neurons. There's no pain. How can be pain when there's no functioning brain, dummy?