It has been answered scientifically, spiritually and in little kidspeak over and over and over again. What we have is 14 pages of an obtuse Joey denying that he can be in error.
Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion
- Thread starter bluedog
- Start date
Exactly, Is it not the sign of a declining empire also when you start making it so easy to kill off your future?
Please give us the name of the scientist that told you a fetus is NOT a human being.
It is. The signs of decline (near the end) are all around us. If we continue down the road we are on, there will be no future. Change is either inevitable or we reach a dead end. It may seem like I am dispassionate about what is inevitable (massive die off of humanity from a variety of causes) but without it there is no hope for humanity or any other life form on the planet.
There is nothing that you or I can do about it. Unless humanity wakes up and stops being mindless consumers, we a doomed to die in our own effluent. We personally have a choice to stop, but if 99% of the population continues their mindless ways, we will suffer the same fate. We can get upset about it or we can just accept it as part of evolution. Unlike the religious I have no misconception that some superior being is going to come down and magically save us from our own stupidity.
I'm not sure if he ever stated that she is a MEDICAL doctor.
Sure I have, JLM, my wife is a Family Physician.
Please give us the name of the scientist that told you a fetus is NOT a human being.
JLM, I did not say that any scientist has told me that it is a human being. What I have said is that unless and until a consensus emerges among scientists that fetus is a human being since the moment of conception, most people will give the benefit of doubt to the woman and permit her to have an abortion if she so chooses.
The day such a consensus emerges, that is the day when I become prolife.
Sure I have, JLM, my wife is a Family Physician.
Please give us the name of the scientist that told you a fetus is NOT a human being.
JLM, I did not say that any scientist has told me that it is a human being. What I have said is that unless and until a consensus emerges among scientists that fetus is a human being since the moment of conception, most people will give the benefit of doubt to the woman and permit her to have an abortion if she so chooses.
The day such a consensus emerges, that is the day when I become prolife.
Ironsides, killing has never been the sign of a declining empire. On the contrary, most empires at their height did killing on a massive scale. Most empires in the history, Greek, Roman, Hungarian, Soviet empire, Catholic empire (during the Dark Ages in Europe) etc., have done large scale killings.
So I don’t know where you get the idea that killing is a sign of declining empire. And abortion does not involve any killing anyway, so your argument is moot.
Hey, I never doubted your wife's profession- someone else was and and more or less accused you of lying, and I was just trying to jump to your defense on the issue. I had frankly forgotten what kind of doctor she is.
Why do you refuse to use a little deduction? As A C Doyle once said,"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". The product of people is people. Nothing else. Babies do not magically become people once they are born. Any suggestion that they are anything other than human is extremely stupid. What you are suggesting is that as a child is born its head becomes human as it emerges but the rest isn't human yet. then the neck becomes human. Then the shoulders and upper limbs bu the rest isn't human yet. Get real. The part that science has a problem with is when the baby has stopped being just the building blocks and has become developed enough to be called a complete human. It is still developing but as I said, we keep developing until we die. Ask any scientist and they will tell you that a baby does NOT magically poof into a human when it is born. Pan out a little bit and you might see the forest behind the leaf you are looking at.
Whatever.
:roll:He sure as hell wouldn't be a dead geranium. The body would still be human, it just isn't alive any more. I simply cannot understand how you can confuse species differentiation with determination of life.
Ok
You have argued in the past that one thing that concerns you about candidates is there religious beliefs. Are you aware that 5 of the current Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholic, and with the confirmation of Sotomayor it will be 6.
6-4 vote if they vote as a religious block.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
That is a very useful maxim , Anna (and Sherlock Holmes is my favorite detective). But that does not tell us what to put into the basket in the first place. Let me explain.
Let us say that a basket cantains an apple, a banana, a pineapple and a grape. You reach into the basket and pull a fruit at random. Without looking at it you try to guess what it is. You eliminate banana because of its shape, it is the wrong shape. You eliminate pineapple because of the size and texture. It feels roundish and smooth. You eliminate grape because of the size. What is left is an apple and you conclude that it is an apple.
So far, so good. However, who decides what to put in the basket in the first place? Let us say that we put a banana, a pineapple, a grape and an orange in the basket. We pull a fruit at random. Now, the argument, the logic will be exactly the same as before, but this time we conclude that it is an orange, instead of an apple.
Exactly the same argument, different conclusion. The same applies here. Who decides what to put in the basket? You may put ‘human being’ into the basket along with other items, I don’t. Then I may use exactly the same argument, the same logic as you and reach a different conclusion.
That is a very useful maxim , Anna (and Sherlock Holmes is my favorite detective). But that does not tell us what to put into the basket in the first place. Let me explain.
Let us say that a basket cantains an apple, a banana, a pineapple and a grape. You reach into the basket and pull a fruit at random. Without looking at it you try to guess what it is. You eliminate banana because of its shape, it is the wrong shape. You eliminate pineapple because of the size and texture. It feels roundish and smooth. You eliminate grape because of the size. What is left is an apple and you conclude that it is an apple.
So far, so good. However, who decides what to put in the basket in the first place? Let us say that we put a banana, a pineapple, a grape and an orange in the basket. We pull a fruit at random. Now, the argument, the logic will be exactly the same as before, but this time we conclude that it is an orange, instead of an apple.
Exactly the same argument, different conclusion. The same applies here. Who decides what to put in the basket? You may put ‘human being’ into the basket along with other items, I don’t. Then I may use exactly the same argument, the same logic as you and reach a different conclusion.
You didn't understand the fable I posted about the blind men and the elephant at all, did you?
To put it in plain numbers and they will be whole numbers to keep this simple to understand: Look at the equation 1+2=3. 3 is a number. It has parts. 1 and 2 are numbers. What you are saying is that 1 or 2 is not 3 which is perfectly obvious but what you are missing is that together they make 3. 1 and 2 are 3's parts. Does that help?
So a baby borrows a heartbeat, limbs, DNA, etc. to put on the appearance of being human and then suddenly, like Pinnochio, is poofed into a human at the time of birth. I see.
Yup, bears have DNA and heartbeats but aren't human. Same with 4500 other mammals.
If the sum of human parts aren't enough to define a human then what you are asking is impossible to achieve. I bet someone could thump your behind with a stick and you would argue that it wasn't wood.
Does that really make it 6, ironsides? I didn’t know.
Anyway, it would be 6-3, ironsides, not 6-4.
And no way they are going to vote as a block. Some Catholics (such as Scalia, Alito) are very conservative (and obey the Pope), others (such as Sottomayer) are liberal (and do not obey the Pope). I don’t think there is any possibility of their voting as a block.
Indeed, there are many Catholic politicians who do not obey the Pope (no doubt some do). Kennedy, Biden, Pelosi, I could name several. So I don’t think there is any real danger of that.
Consensus does not define fact. It doesn't even define truth. All it is, is general agreement. Scientists used to agree that the Earth was flat. But either wey, I defy you to find a credited scientist who does not think a human baby is human before birth.