Very worrying

[Phreak101]

OK. There seem to be some on here that can't agree life begins at conception, and there are others that it doesn't matter to. For those of you who do not believe life begins at conception I have a question...when does life begin?? At what developmental stage does the fetus magically become "alive", and thus worthy of protecting against murder? I want you to respond with the exact moment in time...more specfic than the hour, minute, or second. When is the switch flipped and that nebulous blob of cells suddenly become human?

No one knows, and asking us to respond with the exact moment of time is unreasonable. Besides, none of us is proposing to use a third trimester baby for stem cells, the threshold for the age of an embryo would be long before either of us could agree that brain activity and awareness exists.

And for those on here that condition "life" on having experience I assume that abortion is within a womans right up until the exact second that baby's head exits the vagina and takes it first breath...am I correct in assuming this is your stance, which is in line with your "life is experience" test?

No need for drama, empathy is a wonderful thing don't you think? You know everyone here would do their best to make the choice as early as possible.


Someone mentioned a miscarriage and tried to somehow tie it to abortion...a miscarriage is nature's way of terminating a "blob of cells" that had no chance of even surviving the gestation period. It required no act by the woman or a third party.

How do you know? Show me the exact moment the mothers body knows that the blob of cells is not in fact aware? If life begins at conception, the mother's body is murdering the child? This is common sense, miscarriages can happen as late as 2 months into a pregnancy, how would harvesting a one month old aborted fetus e any different?

Life is experience, it is awareness, blobs of cells are not aware. A human needs sensory organs to experience and observe, and those organs come into play long after any of us would think about aborting a baby and using it in the name of science.

[RA]

living in poverty and living in a home where yuo aren't wanted are two totalyl different animals.

The bonds one develops as children are the stepping stones to relationships for the rest of our lives - how we relate to one another, how we intereact and so on.... If these are not firmly established, then it is very difficult to get one's footings. - Google it..

lol, google it.

I agree with what you said but a difficult life would be preferable to no life at all IMO.

[RA]

Life is experience, it is awareness, blobs of cells are not aware. A human needs sensory organs to experience and observe, and those organs come into play long after any of us would think about aborting a baby and using it in the name of science.

If you dont think that women have abortions when the child looks fully formed then you are mis-informed. At 13 weeks my daughter was spinning and jumping. You could see fingers, toes, etc.

[stee]

I guess it is different when you actually want to have the chid thought isnt it.
If you didnt wantr to have a baby im sure you wouldnt take 13weeks to decide weather or not you want to have it.
Not to mention abortion after 12weeks is illegal in most counties.

I said to my GF ages ago, people who cannot prove that they could not support a family without the sate handouts should not be aloowed to have children.
Me and my GF are both profesional people but we couldnt even consider to have children just this instant as we arent financially sound.
All that doesnt seem to bother lil mary rotten crotch who has been taking cock since she was 12 and had 4 kids by the time shes 17, let the state pay for her and the walfare of her little kids who will more than likley end up the same as her.

[RA]

There are women who dont even find out until 13 weeks. Its legal to have an abortion later than that in the U.S.

Also in the U.S. there are organizations to help women out who dont opt for abortion.

[stee]

there in the uk also. but most doctors wont carry aout a termination after 12 weeks.

[Kärnfysikern]

reposting this because I think people missed this.

roid and tea and everyone else against embryonic stem cell reserch.
What if you had a sic kid, fataly sic, and the doc tells you that a embryonic stem cell treatment could save her. Would you say no to that treatment because it means a embryo has to die?

[Phreak101]

If you dont think that women have abortions when the child looks fully formed then you are mis-informed. At 13 weeks my daughter was spinning and jumping. You could see fingers, toes, etc.

I never said they didn't, I said I'm sure all of us would make the decision as early as possible. I never condoned having an abortion after the first trimester.

Some of you on here need to realize that supporting the right to abortion does not necessarily mean that it is condoned or encouraged.

[stee]

i was actually gonna quote u on a good question johan

[RA]

reposting this because I think people missed this.

roid and tea and everyone else against embryonic stem cell reserch.
What if you had a sic kid, fataly sic, and the doc tells you that a embryonic stem cell treatment could save her. Would you say no to that treatment because it means a embryo has to die?

Damn you Johan. You had to bring children in..grrr

[RA]

Lets just say if I were sick I would refuse them harvesting like some hyena...

But......I'm sure there isn't anything I would not do for my children.

[mcpeepants]

Your implying a choice.

It could be by choice or by instinct

[mcpeepants]

That's called ethics, which is the enforcement of basic human morals

But this behavior and order is done by creatures like ants and termites that don't appear to have any morals or ethnics. just some chemical way of enforcing order.

[Phreak101]

But this behavior and order is done by creatures like ants and termites that don't appear to have any morals or ethnics. just some chemical way of enforcing order.

Well there are theories that colonies share a universal consciousness among all of them even thought they are seperate. The reason they cooperate is because instinctually every member of the colony has a job that in the end benefits the colony and the queen.

Humans on the other hand know they have a choice in the matter and can choose to go one way or the other. Morality involves those choices, ethics enforces the morals.

[mcpeepants]

Well there are theories that colonies share a universal consciousness among all of them even thought they are seperate. The reason they cooperate is because instinctually every member of the colony has a job that in the end benefits the colony and the queen.

Humans on the other hand know they have a choice in the matter and can choose to go one way or the other. Morality involves those choices, ethics enforces the morals.

I agree again with most of your point. Accept morality doesn't appear to be an exclusive choices. Examples include lion males choosing to form alliances in order to increase the chances of taking over a pride or a dolphin chooses whether or not to saving a drowning human. And it seems that morals and ethics have to be somewhat involved in any social animal, particularly mammals.

And things aren't allow sweet in insects colonies. They usually cooperate but power struggles do occurs. I think in paper wasps each wasp want's to lay it's eggs but usually one female dominates and prevents the other from laying there eggs. This is still beneficial sinces the wasps are all sisters so there dna is passed and more of the larva survives. However, if the dominate wasps gets weak, others would gladly take her place. I saw this in a nature program by David Attenborough "Life in the Undergrowth."

[Tock]

[Teabagger]

You have some real issues with sexuality don't you? Sex and religion, sex and religion. I'm not taking the opportunity to bash gays at every turn...but you seem to thrive on bashing breeders, (isn't that the gay communities slur name for hetrosexuals.) who happen to have faith in something beyond their own gonads and lust.

Give it a break...the drum head you keep beating is getting worn out...

[Tock]

You have some real issues with sexuality don't you? Sex and religion, sex and religion. I'm not taking the opportunity to bash gays at every turn...but you seem to thrive on bashing breeders, (isn't that the gay communities slur name for hetrosexuals.) who happen to have faith in something beyond their own gonads and lust.

Give it a break...the drum head you keep beating is getting worn out...

Huh? Where did this come from?

Most of the flaws of religion I mentioned did not mention sex (still, you must admit that the christian community sure would like to tell you when, where, and how you have sex), yet you seem to zero in on these few comments.

Huh . . .

-Tock

[Kärnfysikern]

Lets just say if I were sick I would refuse them harvesting like some hyena...

But......I'm sure there isn't anything I would not do for my children.

reason I asked that is because in the US that chooise is already made for parents and I sure dont want to se the same happen in the EU....

[Mizfit]

Huh? Where did this come from?

Most of the flaws of religion I mentioned did not mention sex (still, you must admit that the christian community sure would like to tell you when, where, and how you have sex), yet you seem to zero in on these few comments.

Huh . . .

-Tock

If the bible is read and believed word for word - even looking at another in a sexual way, or having any type of sexual though is fornication - a sin.

[Kärnfysikern]

If the bible is read and believed word for word - even looking at another in a sexual way, or having any type of sexual though is fornication - a sin.

I guess your avatars are leading all of AR to damnation. Bad girl

[Mizfit]

I guess your avatars are leading all of AR to damnation. Bad girl

Bless me father.. for i have sinned.. J/k

I even got a cross on my back - so i'm church approved

[RA]

Christians have already done a pretty good job of "demonizing" religion.

Used to be folks couldn't do all sorts of things because of Christian's rules, like . . .
1) heterosexuals couldn't have oral sex
2) gays couldn't have any sex
3) no one could have sex by themselves
4) stores had to shut down on Sunday
5) only people who profess beleif in God are allowed to hold public office in many states (like Texas) right now == used to be that you not only had to be Christian to hold office, but you had to be a particular denomination of Christian, depending on which state you were in.
6) it's illegal to publicly criticize the Bible in Arkansas
7) it used to be illegal to celebrate Christmas in colonial Massachusetts
8) it used to be that public schools could require even Jewish kids and atheist kids to pray a Christian prayer -- now, government employees can no longer force children to do so.
9) Remember the Crusades?
10) Remember "Indulgences?"

Ten of these is enough . . . there's plenty more, for sure. Like the many Christians who loudly and publicly denounce sexual immorality are themselves patrons of sex workers, and many have extramarital affairs, sometimes with minors. Jimmy Swaggart was the most fun one of all . . .


There are hypocrits in all walks of life. Why should televangelists be any different. You dont believe what they are saying anyway but then you stand back and say HA when they make a mistake. Like you've never made a mistake tock? I smell a hypocrite.

The problem is that religious people are still people. Not perfect. Apparently you expect them to be because they strive for something greater.



Adolph Hitler had deeply held beleifs. Should he have fought for those?

Not every deeply held beleif is worth fighting for. Wisdom tells you when you've got one that is.

Thats exactly why I disagree with you.

[RA]

reason I asked that is because in the US that chooise is already made for parents and I sure dont want to se the same happen in the EU....

Very clever. I still don't think it's right.

[RA]

I guess your avatars are leading all of AR to damnation. Bad girl

[MinkyGirl]

If the bible is read and believed word for word - even looking at another in a sexual way, or having any type of sexual though is fornication - a sin.

Good point!

And if the arguement is abortion is wrong because it takes a life that God has intended to be, then:

1. Fertility treatments are just as wrong as abortion. If God gives children people for a reason, he must withhold them for a reason too.

2. Medical treatment is also just as wrong as abortion. If God gives someone a sickness, they should accept it as His will. He must have a reason for wanting people to suffer or die.

BUT I don't see anyone saying that those two things should be illegal.

[Tock]

There are hypocrits in all walks of life. Why should televangelists be any different.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this question.
Televangelists are no different from anyone else, including the people they denounce and criticize.

You dont believe what they are saying anyway but then you stand back and say HA when they make a mistake. Like you've never made a mistake tock? I smell a hypocrite.

Well, whenever a famous Christian preaches strongly against sexual immorality, and specifically against people like me, and that same preacher gets caught patronizing hookers in a sleazy hotel, of course that's more than just a "mistake." That's what you might call "fraud," "hypocrisy," or just plain "sleazy," and of course I'm gonna point out what's going on.
Try to explain it away all you like, it makes no difference to me. Defend the practice all you like, makes no difference to me. All it does is demonstrate just how much "forgiveness" (rationalization) Christian leaders get. And it makes the whole religion look bad.

The problem is that religious people are still people. Not perfect. Apparently you expect them to be because they strive for something greater. [/I]

Well, when professional Christians say they're against sexual immorality on Sunday and they hire a hooker on Monday night, I wouldn't say that they were "striving for something greater." I'd say that there was something seriously wrong with them. And that they were not honest people, not the sort of folks who were apt to say things worth listening to.

Again, when Christians needlessly interfere with other people's lives, passing laws to make non-Christians obey Old Testament rules regarding the Sabbath, or passing laws banning inter-racial marriage, or prohibiting a married couple from enjoying oral sex, I'd say those Christians were being nothing more than busy-bodies, meddling in things they shouldn't. I sure wouldn't think they were "striving for something greater."

But go ahead and disagree with me all you like.
I favor individual freedoms, casting off the shackles of religious foolishness. I guess you think it's ok, so long as it's done by people who are "striving for something greater."
-Tock

[Tock]

I'm not taking the opportunity to bash gays at every turn...but you seem to thrive on bashing breeders, (isn't that the gay communities slur name for hetrosexuals.)..

Actually, I never did "bash breeders."

Dunno why you accuse me of that . . . got any quotes? Or is this just another attempt to turn attention away from the subject at hand?

[Teabagger]

You paint every person of faith with the same brush as a Jimmy Swaggert or some other fraud. Perhaps all homosexuals should be painted with the same brush as the supporters and members of NAMBLA?

You have certainly made bashing comments about hetrosexuals before, but I am certainly not going to waste my time searching through your past posts to point them out...regular readers and posters have seen and read them.

You have the issues here...I could care less what your sexual orientation is, and even less what you do in the privacy of your home. We agree the tv crusaders are most likely frauds, there have been many in the past, we agree the homosexual, child molesting Catholic priests are scum and fakers. But what we don't agree on is just because there are some who defraud people by their false profession of faith does not mean Gods laws are invalid.

You have made your choices and decided what you believe in or not, cool...now live with the fact your lifestlye will probably never be accepted to the level you would want...and why is that....because the majority of people believe the homosexual lifestyle is wrong and unnatural. Don't be fooled into thinking NYC, San Francisco or Atlanta are representative of this countrys thinking in regards to homosexuality.

Through my years I have known quite a few homosexuals, a couple of them in my extended family, and liked most of them, thought they were good people and got along fine. The ones I didn't like had nothing to do with being gay or not, they were just plain old run of the mill assholes.

So just because some of us believe in a God, and his laws, don't assume we are all haters of gays. I hate the lifstyle, but not the person. There...

[RA]

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this question.
Televangelists are no different from anyone else, including the people they denounce and criticize.





Well, whenever a famous Christian preaches strongly against sexual immorality, and specifically against people like me, and that same preacher gets caught patronizing hookers in a sleazy hotel, of course that's more than just a "mistake." That's what you might call "fraud," "hypocrisy," or just plain "sleazy," and of course I'm gonna point out what's going on.
Try to explain it away all you like, it makes no difference to me. Defend the practice all you like, makes no difference to me. All it does is demonstrate just how much "forgiveness" (rationalization) Christian leaders get. And it makes the whole religion look bad.








Well, when professional Christians say they're against sexual immorality on Sunday and they hire a hooker on Monday night, I wouldn't say that they were "striving for something greater." I'd say that there was something seriously wrong with them. And that they were not honest people, not the sort of folks who were apt to say things worth listening to.

Again, when Christians needlessly interfere with other people's lives, passing laws to make non-Christians obey Old Testament rules regarding the Sabbath, or passing laws banning inter-racial marriage, or prohibiting a married couple from enjoying oral sex, I'd say those Christians were being nothing more than busy-bodies, meddling in things they shouldn't. I sure wouldn't think they were "striving for something greater."

But go ahead and disagree with me all you like.
I favor individual freedoms, casting off the shackles of religious foolishness. I guess you think it's ok, so long as it's done by people who are "striving for something greater."
-Tock

Your forgetting that there are people who live their faith. Billy Graham for example. He has all the opinions you stated yet hires no hooker on Monday night.

[Tock]

Your forgetting that there are people who live their faith. Billy Graham for example. He has all the opinions you stated yet hires no hooker on Monday night.

True. But one example does not make a rule.



Nevertheless, other people who live their faith are responsible for the conditions I outlined previously:

---------------------------------
Used to be folks couldn't do all sorts of things because of Christian's rules, like . . .
1) heterosexuals couldn't have oral sex
2) gays couldn't have any sex
3) no one could have sex by themselves
4) stores had to shut down on Sunday
5) only people who profess beleif in God are allowed to hold public office in many states (like Texas) right now == used to be that you not only had to be Christian to hold office, but you had to be a particular denomination of Christian, depending on which state you were in.
6) it's illegal to publicly criticize the Bible in Arkansas
7) it used to be illegal to celebrate Christmas in colonial Massachusetts
8) it used to be that public schools could require even Jewish kids and atheist kids to pray a Christian prayer -- now, government employees can no longer (legally, anyway) force children to do so.
9) Remember the Crusades?
10) Remember "Indulgences?"---------------------------------------------------

. . . and others.


Christians shouldn't require non-Christians to conform to their religion. They should not use government as a tool to force people to practice their religion. But, they do. And until they stop, they deserve a good

[Tock]

So just because some of us believe in a God, and his laws, don't assume we are all haters of gays. I hate the lifstyle, but not the person. There...

And just because some of you beleive in a god, and its laws, doesn't mean that the one you chose even exists, or that the rules you subscribe to are valid.

As far as heterosexuals go, rest assured, though I, too, hate the lifestyle, I don't hate the person.

We have much in common . . .

[Teabagger]

Great response knobjobber. Almost as good as this one...

I heard on here somewhere Tock rhymed with C_ _ _ !!

[LX-1]

and biomed's to find a way to make me live 500 years.

wonder what kind of effect on world population and economics that would have if your average guy or woman from a somewhat developed country could extend their life that long. even extending the average maybe just a couple decades or so would probably have a big impact.not so much a good thing.

[Kärnfysikern]

wonder what kind of effect on world population and economics that would have if your average guy or woman from a somewhat developed country could extend their life that long. even extending the average maybe just a couple decades or so would probably have a big impact.not so much a good thing.

well the population of developed countries are not realy increasing. If we could live longer chanses are many women would push back getting a child even further so I think it would even itself out.

The more educated a people get the less children they have.

[Logan13]

well the population of developed countries are not realy increasing. If we could live longer chanses are many women would push back getting a child even further so I think it would even itself out.

The more educated a people get the less children they have.

Very insightful Johan.