Page 15 of 25 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 250
  1. #141  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I disagree.. potentiality requires explanation.

    We are all potentially dead, and if left to run the natural course of our lives will die... and if we don't intervene with modern medicine, probably sooner rather than later. But that doesn't justify us treating each other like we were already dead, simply because we are potentially dead.
    It seems to justify treating the very young as though they were already dead, at least in your mind.
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #142  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsSmith View Post
    The only requirement for a Christian is to accept the free gift of salvation. Beyond that, we try to please Him. There are no arbitrary rules that need to be obeyed for the sake of God. Try a Theology 101 class sometime, it'll clear up a lot of that ignorance from which you suffer.
    See the bolded part for your own contradictions. Arbitrary rules of God's design please him... you follow these arbitrary rules. Hence, you think its murder to destroy a zygote. It doesn't get any more arbitrary than that.

    And with that final statement, you again pronounce judgement on God's actions and interactions with mankind. Having demonstrated repeatedly your absolute ignorance of the subject, you nevertheless feel totally qualified to judge the truth of His words.
    Woosh right over your head. I dont start with the assumption that the words you claim are 'His' are actually 'His' words. So I simply feel qualified to judge the truth of words, depending on the subject of course. You are actually more guilty than I of mis-judging 'His words'. You judge them by your own man made hermeneutic standard... then as most literalists do, you get the distinction between God's word and your hermeneutics mixed up, and argue as if they are one and the same. Were I still a Christian, I would call that idolatry.

    Yes, very abstract. On one hand, those that support death. On the other, those that don't. Nothing solid to that comparison at all.
    Or to look at it from the correct perspective, those who support rights and liberties, vs those who take away individual rights.. again making pro-lifers (at least those who want to change the law) more similar to the Nazi's. A woman has a right to change her mind.

    Your reading skills again... I said..."IF you find proof that even some human fetuses do not grow into "persons" when allowed to live, you could probably strenthen your pro-death views." In other words, the percentage is 0. Those that live all become someone even you can recognize as a person.
    When 'allowed to live' 20%-40% of fetuses miscarry... then this doesnt even count still-borns. So no, they don't all become human.


    So, tell me, wilbur...how old were YOU when you grew out of your "thing" stage and became a person. Or have you made it that far, yet?
    20-22 weeks.

    Ah, of course. We have plenty of people, so why would you care if the most helpless and silent ones are destroyed by their loving mothers. After all, Baal probably got really hungry during all that time when we didn't slaughter our young for him.
    No, I simply think the value of potential (again, a potential human is not a human) might scale with other factors... perhaps on a spectrum with overpopulation at one end and extinction on the other.

    Pro-choice is about womens rights, not human sacrifice.
    Last edited by wilbur; 01-04-2009 at 05:27 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #143  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    See the bolded part for your own contradictions. Arbitrary rules of God's design please him... you follow these arbitrary rules. Hence, you think its murder to destroy a zygote. It doesn't get any more arbitrary than that.
    It is murder to deliberately end a human life. I knew that long before I became a Christian. I never had an abortion because I was never stupid enough to believe that it was anything except killing a human. Since I became a Christian, I've actually studied theology, hence I can say with learned accuracy, "There are no arbitrary rules." Try learning something, sometime, wil.



    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Woosh right over your head. I dont start with the assumption that the words you claim are 'His' are actually 'His' words. So I simply feel qualified to judge the truth of words, depending on the subject of course. You are actually more guilty than I of mis-judging 'His words'. You judge them by your own man made hermeneutic standard... then as most literalists do, you get the distinction between God's word and your hermeneutics mixed up, and argue as if they are one and the same. Were I still a Christian, I would call that idolatry.
    Were you a Christian, you would realize that your statements are completely wrong. Your "still" tells me a great deal...you've obviously never been one, or you'd know enough to understand that you can't just order the Holy Spirit out. If you ever become one, I sincerely hope you can come back here and read what you wrote. :D





    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Or to look at it from the correct perspective, those who support rights and liberties, vs those who take away individual rights.. again making pro-lifers (at least those who want to change the law) more similar to the Nazi's. A woman has a right to change her mind.
    A woman has every right to change her mind. A woman has every right to control her own body. Unfortunately for your "logic," the unborn human life inside a pregnant woman has these rights, also.



    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    When 'allowed to live' 20%-40% of fetuses miscarry... then this doesnt even count still-borns. So no, they don't all become human.
    If human fetuses miscarry, they aren't allowed to live. DUH! (However, they are still human...they don't start as canine or feline or porcine.) So the answer is still that every single human fetus that lives grows into someone even a liberal moron can see is a person.




    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    20-22 weeks.
    I wouldn't bet any money on that, if I were you. If being "a person" means everything you've claimed for it, you might not be there, yet. You might never make it.



    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    No, I simply think the value of potential (again, a potential human is not a human) might scale with other factors... perhaps on a spectrum with overpopulation at one end and extinction on the other.
    A potential human, an egg or a sperm cell, is not A human. A human begans when the sperm and egg meet. I have no problem with the waste of only potential.


    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Pro-choice is about womens rights, not human sacrifice.
    Why is it OK to abort small women if it's all about their rights?
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #144  
    Senior Member Mythic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur
    We are all potentially dead, and if left to run the natural course of our lives will die... and if we don't intervene with modern medicine, probably sooner rather than later. But that doesn't justify us treating each other like we were already dead, simply because we are potentially dead.
    I knew that you would say that. You see, death is a negative potential. Life is a positive one. Whenever something in the world has negative potential, people try to counteract that negative potential and stop it from happening. People try to stop wars, sickness, death...the list goes on. Yet positive potential is completely different. It is encouraged. A person who is dying has the potential for life and the potential for death. A doctor sees that potential for life and tries to help the patient and at the same time is straying away from the negative potential. Parents discourage negative behavior in children and encourage the positive.

    A fetus also has that same potential for life, a positive potential to be lived to the fullest. Yes, it too has potential to die, but why would a negative potential be encouraged? Abortion encourages negative potential, which is completely against any common sense or logic that exists in this world. Encourging abortion would be related to encouraging wars, sickness, death...people don't do that.
    "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
    -Ronald Reagan

    Life is a story; if you stay on the same page forever you will never finish it.
    "There are days you are the pigeon and days you are the statue."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #145  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsSmith View Post
    Since I became a Christian, I've actually studied theology, hence I can say with learned accuracy, "There are no arbitrary rules." Try learning something, sometime, wil.

    Were you a Christian, you would realize that your statements are completely wrong. Your "still" tells me a great deal...you've obviously never been one, or you'd know enough to understand that you can't just order the Holy Spirit out. If you ever become one, I sincerely hope you can come back here and read what you wrote. :D
    I'm sure a Scientologist might say you just can't order the Thetans out as well. Are you saying here, that if one de-converts, they never were a Christian?

    If human fetuses miscarry, they aren't allowed to live. DUH! (However, they are still human...they don't start as canine or feline or porcine.) So the answer is still that every single human fetus that lives grows into someone even a liberal moron can see is a person.
    Since we were specifically engaged in a discussion about human intervention in pregnancy.. it follows that you were talking about death by human intervention while excluding natural causes. If you are including natural causes... then you are basically saying that when a human fetus doesnt die, it becomes human. In that case, you are doing nothing more than restating the argument about potential.

    I wouldn't bet any money on that, if I were you. If being "a person" means everything you've claimed for it, you might not be there, yet. You might never make it.
    While I'm sure this is a snide dig, because obviously I must not be a person if I'm pro-choice in your eyes.... but I've clearly defined requirements that at the very least specifically give us a point at which we are unable to rule out with certainty that personhood is not present. We are all past that stage, and will be till we die.

    It is murder to deliberately end a human life. I knew that long before I became a Christian. I never had an abortion because I was never stupid enough to believe that it was anything except killing a human.

    ...

    A woman has every right to change her mind. A woman has every right to control her own body. Unfortunately for your "logic," the unborn human life inside a pregnant woman has these rights, also.

    ...

    A potential human, an egg or a sperm cell, is not A human. A human begans when the sperm and egg meet. I have no problem with the waste of only potential.

    ...

    Why is it OK to abort small women if it's all about their rights?
    This is tiring. We all agree its wrong to murder. We all know you define life at the moment of conception. We all know I disagree about this point, and I have elaborated at length as to why. You have done nothing more (and continue to do nothing more) than repeat in a myriad of ways that 'life begins at conception'. If you have an argument to make, make it... otherwise please spare this thread yet another rephrasing of 'life begins at conception'.

    The major arguments for life at conception so far, in this thread, have been:

    DNA - I think I've sufficiently elaborated as to why this alone is not sufficient for an entity to have human rights.

    Potential - No one has been able to articulate the value of potential that would otherwise override an actualized human being's rights. There is simply no way to define a fetus prior to ~20 weeks of development as a human being with rights that wouldn't also end up forcing us to define fresh corpses or living cell cultures as human beings with rights... at all... UNLESS you mix in this concept of potential. Really think about that. Thats the key concept, and no one can actually articulate why its so vitally important. I can think of a number of reasons why potentiality is important, or some extreme circumstances which would temporarily render it more important... but nothing that under normal circumstances which make it so desirable that it requires suspending the rights and desires of a living, actualized human being.

    Or if there is another point to bring up, bring it up.
    Last edited by wilbur; 01-04-2009 at 08:06 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #146  
    Senior Member Mythic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur
    Thats the key concept, and no one can actually articulate why its so vitally important.
    And you have failed at articulating why potential is not important. Without a fetus human life is not existent. It really does not require much explanation as it is common sense to most people. Why is it that a fetus has less value? You say because it does not have a brain yet. I have to say that is absurd. Of course it does not have a brain yet, it has to develop one. Things take time to reach their full capacity. A fetus is a developing human child. If you believe a fetus is not a developing human child, then I would love for you to tell us all what a fetus is.

    Wilbur, you were a fetus once. Were you not alive then? If a fetus were not alive, how could it suddenly become alive?
    Last edited by Mythic; 01-05-2009 at 02:50 PM.
    "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
    -Ronald Reagan

    Life is a story; if you stay on the same page forever you will never finish it.
    "There are days you are the pigeon and days you are the statue."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #147  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I'm sure a Scientologist might say you just can't order the Thetans out as well. Are you saying here, that if one de-converts, they never were a Christian?
    A Christian, by definition, is in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. You are one, or you aren't, but you can't be a "former" Christian. Again and again, wil, go learn something. Endless ignorance is so boring.


    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Since we were specifically engaged in a discussion about human intervention in pregnancy.. it follows that you were talking about death by human intervention while excluding natural causes. If you are including natural causes... then you are basically saying that when a human fetus doesnt die, it becomes human. In that case, you are doing nothing more than restating the argument about potential.
    "Allowed to live" does not specify only human intervention.

    As I actually stated, you will find that every single fetus becomes someone YOU can recognise as a person. 0% will grow into something that is not human. This is obvious because he or she was a human life from conception. Before conception exists potential. At conception exists a human life. Your insistance on personhood has no bearing on that fact.



    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    While I'm sure this is a snide dig, because obviously I must not be a person if I'm pro-choice in your eyes.... but I've clearly defined requirements that at the very least specifically give us a point at which we are unable to rule out with certainty that personhood is not present. We are all past that stage, and will be till we die.
    One of the requirements of personhood is being able to adapt, change, learn...you show no evidence of this requirement.



    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    This is tiring. We all agree its wrong to murder. We all know you define life at the moment of conception. We all know I disagree about this point, and I have elaborated at length as to why. You have done nothing more (and continue to do nothing more) than repeat in a myriad of ways that 'life begins at conception'. If you have an argument to make, make it... otherwise please spare this thread yet another rephrasing of 'life begins at conception'.

    The major arguments for life at conception so far, in this thread, have been:

    DNA - I think I've sufficiently elaborated as to why this alone is not sufficient for an entity to have human rights.

    Potential - No one has been able to articulate the value of potential that would otherwise override an actualized human being's rights. There is simply no way to define a fetus prior to ~20 weeks of development as a human being with rights that wouldn't also end up forcing us to define fresh corpses or living cell cultures as human beings with rights
    That is totally false, and you "should" know it. No corpse will grow and develop. A living cell culture may grow, but cannot ever grow into all your arbitrary "rules" for personhood. A human embryo meets all the rules for life, and will develop into someone who meets your arbitrary rules for personhood. Your position is an outright lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    ... at all... UNLESS you mix in this concept of potential. Really think about that. Thats the key concept, and no one can actually articulate why its so vitally important. I can think of a number of reasons why potentiality is important, or some extreme circumstances which would temporarily render it more important... but nothing that under normal circumstances which make it so desirable that it requires suspending the rights and desires of a living, actualized human being.

    Or if there is another point to bring up, bring it up.
    The potential is not the arbitrary point. The potential merely differentiates from the cell cultures which can never meet your arbitrary rules. Of course, your rules are flawed in the foolish insistance that the fetus must meet them to be a person instead of the obvious fact that every single fetus that lives long enough will meet your rules. Every single one. The only way a fetus can fail your flawed and arbitrary test is to die.

    BTW, for a guy who so greatly resents the non-existant arbitrary rules of the Creator, you sure enjoy using flawed, man-made arbitrary rules to deny other humans their God-given rights.
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #148  
    Senior Member Mythic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    352
    Well said MrsSmith
    "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
    -Ronald Reagan

    Life is a story; if you stay on the same page forever you will never finish it.
    "There are days you are the pigeon and days you are the statue."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #149  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563

    WILBUR,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, You got schooled.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #150  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsSmith View Post
    A Christian, by definition, is in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. You are one, or you aren't, but you can't be a "former" Christian. Again and again, wil, go learn something. Endless ignorance is so boring.

    As I actually stated, you will find that every single fetus becomes someone YOU can recognise as a person. 0% will grow into something that is not human. This is obvious because he or she was a human life from conception. Before conception exists potential. At conception exists a human life. Your insistance on personhood has no bearing on that fact.

    That is totally false, and you "should" know it. No corpse will grow and develop. A living cell culture may grow, but cannot ever grow into all your arbitrary "rules" for personhood. A human embryo meets all the rules for life, and will develop into someone who meets your arbitrary rules for personhood. Your position is an outright lie.
    Please re-read, and think about my statement, that you bolded.... and the following part... as you completely missed the subtle implications... apparently the other posters who claim I've been 'schooled' have missed them as well:

    "There is simply no way to define a fetus prior to ~20 weeks of development as a human being with rights that wouldn't also end up forcing us to define fresh corpses or living cell cultures as human beings with rights.. at all... UNLESS you mix in this concept of potential"

    Again, think about this. The human organism goes through various stages of development. How could you describe human life, where human rights begin, in such a way that you:

    1. include the organism from conception to personhood (give them human rights)
    2. include organism from personhood onward- till death (give them human rights)
    3. exclude living, but separate cells (we don't want to give them human rights)
    4. exclude fresh corpses, where cells may alive (definitely don't want to give them human rights)

    The only way to differentiate points 3 and 4 from 1, is to mix in the 'potential' concept. Cell cultures possess every single quality of a fresh zygote, except the potential... and a fully developed but dead corpse may still have many more living cells for a time than even an early term fetus.. it has MORE human qualities... but is missing the potential. Various people have been using the 'potential' argument without realizing it, all over the thread... by using arguments about DNA, or biological traits of a fetus etc. You did it again with your retort, where you said:

    "That is totally false, and you "should" know it. No corpse will grow and develop. A living cell culture may grow, but cannot ever grow into all your arbitrary "rules" for personhood."

    You just, once again, restated the argument of potential, but still fail to elaborate about potential and why it should supersede the rights and desires of a human being who has already REALIZED their potential. I can count at least 4-5 times your last post where you simply rephrase and restate the potential argument. Do you not realize you are simply repeating yourself and not actually engaging in a conversation or making any points? When you recognize this, you'll see almost every single point raised in this thread by pro-lifers can be reduced to 'a fetus has human potential, therefore it has human rights'. It is time for you to elaborate on potential. See Mythic's post for a start.... which I will respond to in a bit.

    The potential is not the arbitrary point. The potential merely differentiates from the cell cultures which can never meet your arbitrary rules. Of course, your rules are flawed in the foolish insistance that the fetus must meet them to be a person instead of the obvious fact that every single fetus that lives long enough will meet your rules. Every single one. The only way a fetus can fail your flawed and arbitrary test is to die.
    See above. If something has 'potential', that means it actually necessarily lacks the qualities of an actualized version of itself. A fetus with potential necessarily lacks the qualities of a human, although it could have those qualities in the future. That being the case, it is wrong and immoral to subordinate the free will and rights of a fully grown, fully potentiated woman to a non-human being... no matter how much distaste you may or may not have for her actions which led her to that point. If it has 'potential' it is not... once potential is realized, it no longer has 'potential'; it is... this is where human rights begin. Potential is a description of qualities that a thing lacks

    BTW, for a guy who so greatly resents the non-existant arbitrary rules of the Creator, you sure enjoy using flawed, man-made arbitrary rules to deny other humans their God-given rights.
    Again, the rules you claim are from your creator are man-made. You accept a priori that they have no flaws... so you pretend that their perceived imperfections or oddities are simply cleverness beyond humanity's understanding. But no.. they are flaws.
    Last edited by wilbur; 01-06-2009 at 02:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •