I did not establish this blog for the purpose of arguing in circles with with someone with whom I can not even come to terms with on such a basic concept as defining when a person becomes a person. I welcome a reasoned and respectable discussion of the issues, and am willing to try to see where the other side is coming from. However, I don't have to use my bandwidth to host endless rants against the principles and ideals that I hold dear.
In an earlier post, I raised the question of what a christian view of abortion should be, and on what basis should that view be held. The comments of that and other posts has since been dominated by one voice. The discussion has at times been redundant and beligerant. It has become tiresome, and I'm ready to be done with it. I am taking back my comments sections, and leaving them open to reasonable expressions of differing opinions.
So as not to be accused of "censoring dissent", I have posted all of SNF's comments below, sorted by the post to which they were originally made. I have, however, edited several of his comments in their original context for brevity.
SNF, I appreciate you. You have been a faithfull visitor to this brand new blog, and I value the discussion we have had. I've at times wondered if you're just trolling me, or just why you would bother "wasting your time", but I do not doubt the sincerety with which you hold your position. Alas, you may not believe in the blood of Jesus and the forgiveness of sin that it offers, but it is more real than the "facts" and "science" you put your faith in.
SNF's comments at Robert E. Lee day
Adam I think you're wasting your time arguing this point with him. Check out his post on sponge bob.To him morality is like an elastic band....Meant to be bent and twisted in which ever way suits....Some people first form an opinion, and then look for the facts to back it up. Thus causing them to have many contradicting beliefs and philosophies. Sometimes the best evidence you'll find against the validty of the "crackpot" christians is in fact themselves.....
1. It seems to me from your previous comments as it apparently does to Adam as well that you have a surprising tolerance for personal short comings when looking at us white men, but seem almost completely intolerant of those found in a great black man like MLK.2. Killing the "helpless" and "innocent" is wrong only if that life happens to be still directly involved with a women's reproductive cycle.i.e. no arguments for ppl on life support or in comas... (many of them babies themselves) 3. The sponge bob thing just leaves me speechless......Is it wrong to pass judgment on everyone except minorities and homosexuals?
I don't have hostility towards evangelical Christianity per se. My hostility is towards ignorance. I have great contempt for things that are not logical because I feel they are a waste of time. Though if someone tried to take away your right to practice those beliefs that I consider illogical and ignorant I would be the first to defend you. This is because I don't have to destroy anything or anyone that is not the same as me to live a harmonious life.On the other hand I do not support your arrogant notion that you have the right to force your unproven, factually challenged faith and ideas on the rest of the world. Prove to me there is a god and I'd be inclined to believe in him. Show me that a fetus passes at least 3 of the tests for "PERSONHOOD" already being applied to brain dead patients on life support and I would be inclined to be against abortion. If you can't provide facts and proof that your ideas and opinions are right, then you are free to apply those beliefs to yourself, but incorrect when assuming you have the right to apply them to the masses. It is wrong for you to expect others to change and follow your way of life offering them only FAITH and the questionable validity of the bible as proof your cause is right. If you succeed in making FAITH and BELIEF the only requirement for law I fear you will find all your efforts will backfire on you if you ever find yourself to be in the minority. And, history has shown us that no certain group will maintain their position of majority forever. Your kids might find themselves living in a fanatical Islamic majority or perhaps a white supremacist majority, united minority supremacist group, or maybe even Atheists. As science progresses more and more people are beginning to question the validity of the whole god argument. Some of my less liberal brethren might someday find it necessary to prevent your kind from POISIONING the minds of your children with your religious crap. They could say its immoral because you impede their ability to grasp complex scientific discoveries that contradict their religious beliefs thereby denying society the chance to benefit from whatever contribution they could have made to science. Now, wouldn't that be scary?Good luck and may "your God" help you if your kind starts making the laws of this country. The next group to take control will apply your same proof test and see that they do not need to actually prove what they believe is true. All they have to do is say it, call it moral and voila! You have a new law.
SNF's comments at How ought a christian view abortion?
The problem with your argument is that it is not factually sound. Yes, we've established that killing PEOPLE is wrong, but is a fetus a person? But, what makes a person? This is where the water becomes murky and your logic becomes flawed. Answer me this, when does a mass of living tissue become a person? Is it at conception? Are Zygotes people? Or, does it start with male and female gametes?
To Continue:And perhaps more importantly, who gets to decide this?Would you then say that male masturbation and the use of a spermicidal condom is wrong? Would birth control, and the morning after pill also be wrong? Where does it stop, and who gets to decide that? Do you Christians get to decide when life starts, or do the Muslims, or do the Satanists, or how about the atheists? Which one is right? Any belief or religion has just as much of a claim to validity as another. Neither has any factual evidence supporting their claim of being the chosen ones... If faith is the only requirement for validity then I too can argue that I am right asserting FAITH as my defenseSince it's not likely that God himself is going to come down here and sort it out we are left with only logic to answer tough questions like this. "Separation of church from state" It wasn't a bad idea... And after reading these posts it’s easy to see why. I don't want to be subjected to your beliefs anymore than you want to be subjected to mine.As it stands now abortion is a choice, it is not a procedure being forced upon unwilling young women. If you don't like it teach your women not to do it, but don't try to force your god, your bible, and your beliefs on the rest of us. The words GOD, BIBLE, RELIGION, ILLEGAL, and Law should never be used in the same sentence...Unless of course the purpose of the sentence is to separate the two from having influence over each other.
I'll draw the line on when life begins based on a scientific and logical approach. Starting with stating a hypothesis based on fact not faith, then formulating a theory and testing it to repeat the results until the entire scientific community agrees and decides to make that theory a law. It shouldn’t be about what Christians believe about abortion when we are talking about making a law that governs everyone.If you’d like to propose throwing only Christians having abortions in jail then perhaps that would be fair, but I don’t share your beliefs about God and life. Neither does the other 55% of the country. I say life begins when it can be fully sustained by itself. Now, we all know that this happens later on in the pregnancy, but is not true for the early fetus?If something cannot sustain its own life it is a parasite not a human being.... This is true even for a fetus. So, until someone proves that a fetus in the early stages of development is anything more than a mass of chemical reactions and DNA I myself will have a difficult time calling someone having or performing an early abortion a murder. So, when does abortion equal murder?I say it should equal murder when science says it equals murder, not when religion does. Religion is based solely on faith... There is no factual evidence or logic to support your beliefs. Asserting faith as a defense is just not good enough when we are talking about trying to pass something into law. Didn't you people learn anything from the crusades? You can't go around passing off your beliefs on other people. History has proven to us that this often has disastrous results. No one would argue that killing a person is wrong, but I'm not convinced a fetus in the early stages is a person. Apparently neither is anyone in the scientific community. We terminate people on life support all the time. Even when they are innocent and unable to tell us what their wishes are. The basis for this being that their bodies cannot sustain normal life giving processes such as breathing on its own.
Now, I’m not saying that Christians shouldn’t teach other Christians that abortion is wrong. That’s your right. You can believe that life starts whenever you want to believe that life starts, just as you can choose to disregard the theory of evolution, and any other scientific finding that you deem unacceptable by your standards….But, isn’t that the beauty of it? You get to choose. Since your argument against abortion asserts only FAITH and GOD, and has no LOGICAL or FACTUAL basis behind it you are asking that we pass into law something based on your FAITH and your beliefs alone thereby denying the rest of us our freedom to choose what we do and do not believe in. No one is forcing Christians to have abortions, but you would be in essence forcing the rest of us to be governed by your god, a god that we do not believe in. You can’t prove when life starts, and that’s a problem when you’re talking about passing a law or calling something murder. You cannot logically call abortion murder and at the same time refuse to address the issue of when life begins. If you can bring to the table some factual evidence showing that life begins at conception or even before then no one would argue with you that an abortion is wrong. But, until you are able to prove scientifically that a fetus in the early stages is a person then I don’t really see how you have a right to make your FAITH and your BELIEF a law. God may have said that the purpose of government is to punish the wicked and protect the innocent, but look around you. That is not the case. The only purpose of government is to bring order to chaos. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. If a fetus is not developed far enough to sustain its own life outside of the womb than it is not living by any legal definition that we have today, and I don't think it should be. If we define a fetus that cannot sustain itself outside the mother's body as life then when does it stop? Again I ask are gametes life? And if so do we place women using birth control in jail for murder, and men who masturbate? Do we say that life is life simply because it has the opportunity to evolve into it? If we defined life as anything having the opportunity to evolve into life then we would have a very frightening legal system.
Approaching lawmaking with the attitude that asserting FAITH as an argument is sufficient to pass law is SCARY. What happens when Christianity is no longer the majority religion of this country? Let’s for example say that the Muslim fanatics had a majority, now wouldn’t that be bad? If you think abortion is wrong then prove it. Follow the normal process of scientific analysis. Not even I would argue in support of abortion if someone could prove to me that it ACTUALLY murdered babies. But first you’ve got to prove that a fetus in the early stages makes life. Law should bring order, and it should provide a structure for which to ensure that order, but it should not be the hand that enforces beliefs, religions, and faiths. It should be the hand that enforces justice based on LOGIC & FACT.
Splitting hairs doesn't make your argument any more valid. A fetus is life just like a germ is life, just like a cancer is life, just like a virus is life but, sterilizing my lab equipment is not murder. My science does address the issue of what makes a person. I believe that a person is something that can first and foremost sustain its own life, and secondly that is capable of logic and reason. There is no evidence suggesting that a mass of cells is conscious of its own existence, and we all know that it cannot sustain itself outside of the mother's body.You can believe what you like about what makes a person, but as far as evidence goes you've got nothing, and that’s what makes passing your kind of laws really SCARY. It's not murder to masturbate, and it’s not murder to take birth control, so why should abortion be murder?You’d like to argue that abortion kills human life. Well, where is your evidence to support your theory other than the fact that God says so? Have you ever spoken to God? Do you think he would be willing to testify in support of your argument at a Supreme Court hearing? At least my argument can be backed up by some FACTUAL evidence. Again I'll point out that a fetus in the early stages cannot sustain its own life. There is also no evidence that a fetus in the early stages is capable of reason. When we allow the doctors to turn off life support we have some common criteria. Can the patient support its own life without assistance from outside means? Is the patient capable of higher brain functions? We determine that people who CANNOT sustain their own life, and who are not capable of higher brain functions are legally dead and thus we turn off their life support which in effect kills them. So, you tell me why should a fetus be an exception to this rule? Is unborn life more precious than life that is already evolved into a human being? My argument is simply this. Abortion cannot be murder if no murder is actually taking place. Doctors cutting off life support aren’t murders; males that masturbate aren’t considered murders. Why should women having abortions be any different? Unless of course you can somehow prove that a fetus in the early stages somehow qualifies as a PERSON and not a PARASITE.
Show me the definition of PARASITE, and tell me how a fetus that cannot sustain itself differs from that definition. If you bring up the fact that it WILL or COULD become a PERSON I’ll have to ask you again…. Where then do you draw the line? Male and female gametes COULD become a PERSON if not for the intervention of birth control, spermacide, masturbation, or condoms. Then if you were to say next that once conceived a fetus is a life, I would have to ask you how does something that cannot sustain itself and that cannot be proven to be aware of its existence qualify as a person for the purpose of a legal definition, and why then aren’t you more concerned with the thousands of brain dead people being taken off life support at this very moment because they 1. Cannot sustain their own life &2. Have no higher brain functions Now to address your comment about the scientific community, I have never seen a medical or scientific journal that claimed male and female gametes were capable of higher thought or equal to human life. Nor was there any such scientific law taught to us about the human zygote.
As for your comment about government, let’s be realistic. Have you examined the bankruptcy laws lately? Or, how about the tax laws? Seen the injustices there? How easy it is for the rich to stay rich or to get around having to suffer the same consequences as the poor. Who subsequently usually find themselves filing bankruptcy for reasons like loss of jobs, medical conditions, divorce, being a single mother…. Most of the time financial mismanagement isn’t the culprit when the person filing the bankruptcy isn’t rich. Those laws are not about punishing the wicked they are about keeping order in the financial system. This is why the government will bail out the airlines and give them extensions over and over again. If it was about being fair, and about punishing the wicked the airlines would be forced to crash and burn “no pun intended” just like the rest of the poor saps out there filing bankruptcy. Big companies wouldn’t be able to buy government influence. And, let’s be honest about the crusades. You Christians started them, and then started handing out GET OUT OF HELL FREE cards to anyone willing to fight and kill. The Christian’s raped, tortured, and murdered women and children during those wars and were told they would be forgiven. They were told they would still be welcome in to heaven, and if you don’t believe that go pick up any history book that focuses on European monarchy and the control they tried to exert over the catholic church. If you want a look into how scary life can get when you let the church make the laws take a look at the dark ages, and Galileo. Excommunicating a man simply because he valued science and fact over the improper interpretations of the bible. Interpretations, which through SCIENCE we have now proven to be false. The earth as we all know now revolves around the sun and not vise versa. That is a perfect example of how people interpreting the bible made mistakes, and had their ignorance persevered we would all still be sitting around in the dark ages thinking we were the center of the universe. Prove to me that your interpretation of the bibles position on abortion isn’t anymore flawed. The problem with the argument of the church then was that it had no FACTS to back it up, and the problem with the argument of religious fanatics now is still the same. No FACTS just FAITH asserted as evidence for your theories.
And lets talk injustice…..How about just focusing on the money that the pope is sitting on? If the church is really about morality what is the pope doing with all that cash? How come you can go into any poor neighborhood and find the church being the tallest, richest looking building there. Is there something in the bible that says you can’t practice religion in the gym of the ymca. Or in a modestly constructed building. All the money spent on churches and places of worship in all religions could feed allot of poor, and could save allot of women from having to have abortions by offering them money to help take care of their babies. You’ve got to first take the moral high ground before you can assert morality as a basis for arguing your religious beliefs are suited to become law. Especially when you have no facts backing them up. Lets face it…. You argument is all about FAITH and has no FACT behind it. As far as your comment goes about finding the meaning of life through science being impossible let’s take a look at that shall we. I think it is far more likely that science will determine the meaning and the definition of life before God does. If we look at it statistically we have to consider the possibility that your religion isn’t even the right one.
So, if there is a god… he then had to be Christian and not Muslim or any other religion out there and there are thousands… then not only does he have to be a Christian god, but he also has to pick which faction of Christians he is going to support like say the catholics, or the protestants, or the Baptists. It’s really far more likely that a group of researches will find the meaning of life and agree on it than it is that religions will. And, if God comes to earth I think the pope over in the Vatican sitting on all that cash will have allot more to answer to than a 10 year old girl that was repeatedly raped by her step father and then as a result chose to have an abortion. But, I guess you would prefer that the 10 year old CHILD risk her life to have a CHILD of her own and then give up the rest of her life to raise it. Only that will be really hard considering the fact that she’ll have a hard time working full time to support her kid and paying her way through college at the same time.
And finally lets talk about the inability of science to arrive at a moral judgment. I think that science is the basis behind most moral judgments. This is because science is a result of reason, and reason is the fundamental basis of law. Laws aren't about morals... Not really. Because morals are relative. What one person considers immoral is not always the same as what another person considers immoral. For example... I don't think aborting a fetus in the early stages is immoral because I don't think its murder, and I don't think its murder because I don't think a fetus is the same as a PERSON. Its clear that the only fair way to make a law about abortion would be to take a scientific approach to the topic and first determine when is a fetus a PERSON and when is a fetus just a mass of CELLS and DNA.If you're proposing that we make laws based on morals alone, and you refuse to acknowledge that morality is relative... then you might find that Muslims, atheists, and Satanists can pass laws just as easily as you can if the only requirements become 1. FAITH & 2. MoralityAnd, worse yet when people get to use passages from say the bible or why not the KORAN as a means to support their claims of what defines morality for them.
I don’t have any disdain for Christians. My only problem with religion is that people practicing it tend to want to force their beliefs on other people who don’t want them… And, this is fine if you are a member of the majority religion I guess… but what happens if you’re the underdog… My point that you keep missing is... when will the definition of what makes a "PERSON" stop? If we start defending potential people simply on the basis that they have the "POTENTIAL" to evolve into a "PERSON" then we are going to have some real legal problems from the people that do think masturbation is a sin...That point was not directed at you, but at people in general....All I am saying is that I don't think that it should be against the law to have an abortion….. and that is simply because we have failed to establish any FACTS proving that a fetus is actually a "PERSON"...I am not disputing that a fetus is alive... but many things are alive.. and terminating them is not murder....Like I said before I will be the first atheist to jump on the band wagon as soon as someone proves to me that a fetus IS and SHOULD be legally defined as a “PERSON”.Then once that happens I’m also going to have a real problem with terminating life support that assists people who are in comas….If not being able to sustain your own life without aid is disregarded as a requirement for being a “PERSON” for a fetus then it should also be disregarded when considering those who are already “PEOPLE” in every legal sense of the word….
My fear is we won’t be able to draw the line? Some people do think that masturbation is a sin… and if we don’t require you to assert any FACTS to prove your argument, then why should we request it of people who later on decide their idea that wasting any male reproductive material would equal mass murder?… Since in theory all of those sperm could have “POSSIBLY” evolved into a PERSON? Now that would be scary lawmaking, but it would be legally sound if we were to start allowing people to pass law simply on faith alone.I just think it might be a good idea to verify we’ve actually got a duck, and make sure that we hold defining that duck to the same standards we use for defining everything else… so we can be careful other people with not so MORAL motives don’t start trying to pass their chickens off as ducks…. We might find ourselves stuck with a whole lot of ducks that just don’t quack….So that’s my final peace on it all…. For me its about establishing sound lawmaking procedures so that we can protect ourselves from the unsuspected loop holes that can cause real damage to our society…. An argument has to be factually sound to become a law… if that doesn’t remain a requirement we are in for some really bad times….Thanks for the debate…. It’s been good. Even though I don’t fully agree with you I do have new insight into the basis for your beliefs…. And, that’s never a waste of time : )….
Actually my definition of “PERSONHOOD" says nothing about pushing paraplegics down stairs...That would be morally wrong because it has been established that a paraplegic is a person.. Even by my "morally bankrupt" definition of the term.....A paraplegic can exist without life support, and is therefore capable of sustaining their own life without the assistance of outside influence....It's the people in a coma that are on life support that would be affected by my definition....But they're already getting "murdered" by the thousands each day, so that's not really a concern for anyone because for some reason society doesn't hold their lives to as high a standard as we do that of unborn children.....Even though some of these comatose patients are premature or problem pregnancy babies themselves....If they're born and can't breathe on their own and there is no sign of brain function it is then ok to terminate life-giving functions arguing that the infant could not sustain its own life without outside assistance and therefore is not entitled to it... Although we all know on occasion some babies do improve their condition if born premature and life assisting procedures are put in to place… But, we are not requiring that parents do these expensive and often times uncertain procedures to try and save their babies life…… Suddenly a baby outside the womb doesn't deserve the same consideration that was given when it was a fetus.....It seems that we are only concerned with making laws against babies still directly involved in the reproductive cycle... Yet once they are out.... how they will be cared for and what we do with the sick ones... and who gets to decide doesn't seem to be much of a concern for anyone....Christians and other religions included......I just don't see anyone lobbying to make laws requiring the criminalization of terminating individuals on life support.... or legally declared brain dead.....It seems that being able to sustain your own life is only considered a requirement for a right to life if you're still inside the womb.. Once you're out nobody cares that much anymore....I wonder why that is.....
But in conclusion I would say that there is no logic or reason that could support any CHRISTIAN that supports abortion for any reason...As Christians you have defined abortion as murder.... And based on the standards set forth by your dogmatic law abortion meets the criteria and can be factually argued with excerpts from the bible… This is possible because you believe the bible to be law and you allow FAITH as an assertive defense for your argument…While I don’t think that is a sufficient standard to govern the masses I do believe that for Christians the issue of abortion should not be under debate….. If someone doesn’t agree with the words of the bible then by sheer logic they are not Christian….So if you are a true Christian you can't be in support of abortion of any kind.. Not even for a raped women... not even for a woman suffering from severe emotional distress....Saving the mother's life might still be a debatable issue... but that is the only one I can see....Since your post was originally about how should a Christian view abortion...I think logically if you're Christian you must be pro-life.. if you're not pro-life then you are not Christian....
SNF's comments at From whence come our laws?
The reason that laws are not fundamentally about morals is the simple fact that morality is a relative term...Laws are about order... and order is achieved by putting laws into place some based on morality... and some not....But all based on fact and reason...Some morals can be factually argued with reason... thus they are allowed to be a basis for law....But, if you start allowing FAITH alone to be the only prerequisite for lawmaking we will have REAL problems...This I have said before....Just because something is considered "morally bankrupt" doesn't give it the right to rise into law based simply on that fact alone…..If you can't prove something is say "murder" or "robbery" or "tax evasion" or whatever else you want to list you shouldn't be able to write it into law just because you think it is morally bankrupt....Adultery is morally bankrupt, discrimination against UGLY people is morally bankrupt... but we can't make a law that makes discriminating against UGLY a crime...This is because the definition of UGLY is RELATIVE....And, if you can't get everyone to agree on what UGLY is all of a sudden everyone has been wronged and everyone hasn’t all at the same time. You have a situation where EVERYTHING is ugly and NOTHING is ugly....You can not dispute something that is not supported by fact and reason.....Again I've got to ask.... If the Christians or lets just say green vs. yellow...If the yellows think everything is yellow, yet they don't define what yellow is... when the greens come along and want to make something that to most people is clearly orange a yellow... how can we LEGALLY dispute that the orange isn't yellow if we haven't properly defined what yellow is.....If yellow remains undefined and RELATIVE..... then laws passed about yellow are subject to individual interpretation..... and that is SCARY....
***EDIT-- THIS COMMENT WAS ORIGINALLY HELD UP IN MODERATION***
Well what do you do when both spouses are adulterous? Should you then take the kids away from both of the parents, place them into foster care perhaps? Should both spouses pay each other alimony? Will we base the FAULT ruling on which one of the cheating spouses became the adulterer first? What about emotional adultery? What will we do with the husbands that simply ignore and mistreat their wives? How can you prove this? Will we call the children in to testify against their parents? Will take the word of one spouse against the other without corroboration or proof? The problem with matters of the heart is you cannot prove what someone is thinking & feeling, or what their true intentions are. The wife may say my husband does not love her, he does not care about her feelings. The husband may say though he has not cheated on his wife he does think her hobbies and interests are stupid and doesn’t want to participate in them with her. He may say it’s not a man’s job to stay home with his wife and help with the kids. The opposite could also happen. What of the women who refuses to stay home? Who demands that her husband quit his job and be the caregiver for their children while she goes out to work and makes the money? I have one friend who is divorcing his wife and marrying another women because his wife hired a nanny to watch the kids when he refused to stay home with them. She told him that she was not going to ruin her career to watch the kids. As a result he fell in love with another woman who had values that were similar to his own when it came to raising children. Should his wife get sole custody of the kids since he is the one that cheated on her? Posted by: ScienceNotFiction on Feb 03, 05 | 8:42 amYou can try to write laws to force people to act morally, but the truth is morality cannot be forced. A person either IS or ISN’T moral. If the wife knows that her husband isn’t cheating on her ONLY because he wants to keep the house, the kids, and the mustang will that really make her feel any better? Will that kind of relationship really produce healthy kids? If my friend were to stay with his wife would he really be happy? Which one of them is at fault? You could say she is selfish for not wanting to stay home with the kids, but then again so is he. He is just an engineer, his wife is a Medical Doctor and researcher who feels her work is invaluable and cannot be abandoned. When relationships dissolve there is often times a gray area. While this is not always the case, there are many times when it is. As for the rest of the just plain “morally bankrupt” spouses………. If the emotionally withdrawn spouse simply puts of the adultery long enough to get the divorce or separation papers I don’t think that will make the situation any less painful for the innocent spouse or the kids. Bottom line… we can’t force morality. Morality based on fear of punishment is not morality since the only desire is self preservation and the person still cares nothing about their responsibilities to others. Putting the “FEAR of GOD” in would be adulterers doesn’t make them love their wife anymore then they did before they thought twice about sleeping with their secretary based on their fear of LOOSING the MUSTANG not a fear of hurting or LOOSING their WIFE. Posted by: ScienceNotFiction on Feb 03, 05 | 8:43 am
SNF's comments at I'd rather be a CRACKPOT than a hateful, ignorant jerk
I guess you've gotten your wish then.
I guess that depends on how you define the word
1. It seems to me from your previous comments as it apparently does to Adam as well that you have a surprising tolerance for personal short comings when looking at us white men, but seem almost completely intolerant of those found in a great black man like MLK.2. Killing the "helpless" and "innocent" is wrong only if that life happens to be still directly involved with a women's reproductive cycle.i.e. no arguments for ppl on life support or in comas... (many of them babies themselves) 3. The sponge bob thing just leaves me speechless......Is it wrong to pass judgment on everyone except minorities and homosexuals?with all the violence being commited against gays and lesbians, what is wrong with encourgaing kids to just live and let live?Do you think those poor people chose to be that way?
***EDIT-- THIS COMMENT WAS ORIGINALLY HELD UP IN MODERATION***
Actually I did give reasons for why a parasite ought not be considered a human. It cannot sustain its own life! It cannot sustain its own life! It cannot sustain its own life! There is no evidence that supports a fetus is capable of thinking for itself! Thus far no one has proved that a fetus in its early stages is little more than a mass of DNA. You are the ones that want a change in the laws so the burden of proof is on you! Christians gets a bad rap because they say things that aren’t based on FACT! They let faith, paranoia, and fanaticism cloud their judgment, and then they get pissed when anyone tries to apply logic to their backwards way of thinking. They’ll justify anything by screaming that the bible says so therefore it must be true. Too bad many of you can’t even agree among yourselves what the bible is actually saying. Part of the problem is that the bible has been tampered with more times then the evidence in OJ Simpson’s trial. http://www.users.bigpond.com/wyndkelm/Pentateuch.html And, just like the prosecution’s case was based on tampered evidence the bible is based on tampered rhetoric. Whatever truth might have been there is now debatable and consequently lost! Just like with OJ the MURDERER walks because now nobody can tell with any degree of certainty what evidence was real at what evidence was planted. Though I have FAITH in my gut that OJ did it, I couldn’t prove it! So, if I was a lawyer or Juror sitting on that case I would have acquitted him because it would have been the right thing to do. As I personally would not wish my daughter/wife/mother to have an abortion I see no logical, or factual basis for stopping others from doing it. This is why I walked away from the church when I started studying science/history/law in college. I stopped allowing someone else’s interpretation of what god said dictate how I would live my life. Though I have no answers to comfort myself on the existence or nonexistence of god I will not use delusion as a means to self medicate. I’ve chosen to live a life of truth and reject a life of ignorance! Posted by: ScienceNotFiction on Feb 03, 05 | 6:49 amTo further elaborate on your 2nd point! As I have said before! The mere fact that something is comprised of human cells/DNA doesn’t mean that it is a person. If you are defining human in a literal sense then cells you scratch of your arm are human as are sperm cells, etc… and should by your logic be protected by law. If you are however defining human as in the sense of PERSONHOOD, which is usually the method we use to differentiate ourselves from say the animals, then you have to account for more then the mere fact that something is comprised of a mass of human tissue. I could grow a human ear in a Petri dish. I could even clone an entire human from a cell sample, think (dolly the sheep). Since human life could possibly be created by a random skin cell off some guys arm should it now deserve the same protection as self sustaining fully formed individuals for the mere fact that is has the potential to achieve (PERSONHOOD)? This is where the sperm argument comes in! If you want protection for a fetus under the law you have to first prove that it is a human in the sense that it has PERSONHOOD! Let’s apply some of the normal tests. 1. Can it sustain its own life? 2. Is it capable of thought or reason? 3. Is it even aware of its own existence? To simplify it for you it can’t be proven that a fetus can pass either of these tests. So, if you were to then throw out these tests as a requirement you would then have to extend PERSONHOOD or HUMANHOOD to any living matter that had the potential to become a human being and achieving (PERSONHOOD). This includes sperm, eggs, cheek cells, skin cells, etc…. I’ve provided my answer for why a parasite isn’t a human under the terms you are trying to define it as many times. Now, either you can’t understand the reasoning, or you don’t like it. You choose! So, again I ask you is masturbation murder? Is birth control murder? Is the use of a condom murder? Is scratching your arm murder? Posted by: ScienceNotFiction on Feb 03, 05 | 7:21 am
Can't seem to get this to post anywhere else:It's in respons to gaw's statement about my lack of explantion for why a parasite should not be considered a human.....argument can be viewed in it's entirety at:http://unitelater.com/pm/comments.php?id=35_0_1_0_C Actually I did give reasons for why a parasite ought not be considered a human. It cannot sustain its own life! It cannot sustain its own life! It cannot sustain its own life! There is no evidence that supports a fetus is capable of thinking for itself! Thus far no one has proved that a fetus in its early stages is little more than a mass of DNA. You are the ones that want a change in the laws so the burden of proof is on you! Christians gets a bad rap because they say things that aren’t based on FACT! They let faith, paranoia, and fanaticism cloud their judgment, and then they get pissed when anyone tries to apply logic to their backwards way of thinking. They’ll justify anything by screaming that the bible says so therefore it must be true. Too bad many of you can’t even agree among yourselves what the bible is actually saying. Part of the problem is that the bible has been tampered with more times then the evidence in OJ Simpson’s trial. http://www.users.bigpond.com/wyndkelm/Pentateuch.html And, just like the prosecution’s case was based on tampered evidence the bible is based on tampered rhetoric. Whatever truth might have been there is now debatable and consequently lost! Just like with OJ the MURDERER walks because now nobody can tell with any degree of certainty what evidence was real at what evidence was planted. Though I have FAITH in my gut that OJ did it, I couldn’t prove it! So, if I was a lawyer or Juror sitting on that case I would have acquitted him because it would have been the right thing to do. As I personally would not wish my daughter/wife/mother to have an abortion I see no logical, or factual basis for stopping others from doing it. This is why I walked away from the church when I started studying science/history/law in college. I stopped allowing someone else’s interpretation of what god said dictate how I would live my life. Though I have no answers to comfort myself on the existence or nonexistence of god I will not use delusion as a means to self medicate. I’ve chosen to live a life of truth and reject a life of ignorance! Posted by: ScienceNotFiction on Feb 03, 05 | 6:49 amTo further elaborate on your 2nd point! As I have said before! The mere fact that something is comprised of human cells/DNA doesn’t mean that it is a person. If you are defining human in a literal sense then cells you scratch of your arm are human as are sperm cells, etc… and should by your logic be protected by law. If you are however defining human as in the sense of PERSONHOOD, which is usually the method we use to differentiate ourselves from say the animals, then you have to account for more then the mere fact that something is comprised of a mass of human tissue. I could grow a human ear in a Petri dish. I could even clone an entire human from a cell sample, think (dolly the sheep). Since human life could possibly be created by a random skin cell off some guys arm should it now deserve the same protection as self sustaining fully formed individuals for the mere fact that is has the potential to achieve (PERSONHOOD)? This is where the sperm argument comes in! If you want protection for a fetus under the law you have to first prove that it is a human in the sense that it has PERSONHOOD! Let’s apply some of the normal tests. 1. Can it sustain its own life? 2. Is it capable of thought or reason? 3. Is it even aware of its own existence? To simplify it for you it can’t be proven that a fetus can pass either of these tests. So, if you were to then throw out these tests as a requirement you would then have to extend PERSONHOOD or HUMANHOOD to any living matter that had the potential to become a human being and achieving (PERSONHOOD). This includes sperm, eggs, cheek cells, skin cells, etc…. I’ve provided my answer for why a parasite isn’t a human under the terms you are trying to define it as many times. Now, either you can’t understand the reasoning, or you don’t like it. You choose! So, again I ask you is masturbation murder? Is birth control murder? Is the use of a condom murder? Is scratching your arm murder? Posted by: ScienceNotFiction on Feb 03, 05 | 7:21 amSo, I've said my piece! Happy blogging gaw
Your delusions seem to be the only thing clouding anything.an open heart patient only fails one of the tests; an undeveloped fetus fails them all. A patient undergoing surgery is not able to sustain his/her own life by choice, not by nature. Furthermore they are dependent on a machine to keep them alive not the life force of another living person. We do not force others to give blood to save life, to give organs to save lives. Why force a woman to give her body to an unwanted fetus while in the womb, but not force the parents to say give blood or live organs, or anything else for the child once they are already born?As for the FACTS I've pointed out that you like to dismiss as ranting.....I hate to be the one to tell you this, but yes the bible was tampered with many times. Perhaps reading the dead sea scrolls would be of some assistance to you in this matter. Not wanting to believe something does not make it any less true. You are the one who is diluted by your own ignorance spun from your need to believe in something greater than yourself even if you cannot apply logic to it. I feel sorry for you. If I were against abortion as you are I would strive to apply fact, evidence, and proof to my argument so that it would never again be disputed without first proving that the facts were somehow flawed. Saying a baby is a baby just because you have FAITH in it doesn't really stand up in court. I have FAITH that it isn't. How would the judge decide whose argument was correct if neither one of us was required to prove anything. If all we had to do was say we had FAITH something was true there would be no laws because nobody is going to agree on everything all the time. Many Jewish people don't believe abortion is wrong, many Christians believe that women should not be allowed to work, the catholic church is against condoms and birth control they believe in the natural family planning method...Needless to say many people on this method of BC end up pregnant. So, you tell me what is the answer? We outlaw abortion based on faith, then we outlaw birth control based on faith, then perhaps we outlaw certain Christian religions based on FAITH that they aren't the correct ones....where will it stop? I commend you for feeling so strongly about something, but you must prove that your opinion is right. If we don't PROVE anything with FACTS then nothing and everything is RIGHT.And, according to the way we have the laws written now brain dead patients on life support don't have personhood and neither does a fetus hence the reason why abortion is legal. I'm not cold, I'm just logical. And, without people like me society, medicine, science would never progress. We must always force ourselves to analyze our beliefs, laws, etc... and search for fact in them.People that refuse to do this for whatever reason are the sad ones.....
http://www.ubersite.com/m/37678 would you want this guy making your laws?or how about some racist who thinks black and white marriage is wrong?Or, some other fanatic that thinks anyone who isn't protestant is wrong? Ever listened to one of those neonatzi crazies talk? Quite scary how much they hate catholics, jews, blacks, etc...But man do they ever have FAITH that their way is the right way....May your "GOD" help us if people like that start wanting to make laws based on faith.
SNF's comments at Is Joel Osteen teaching a false doctrine?
"Why are evangelicals embracing this man, his message and his ministry? What's wrong with us? "Perhaps this can offer some insight into the question. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2005/001/3.8.htmlit is possible that many of the people calling themselves evangelicals really are not....
I think part of the problem with SOME christians today is that they are being SCARED christian for fear of punishment from God, social pressures, or whatever other reasons they may have. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2005/001/3.8.htmlAgain I urge you to visit the link above because I think in the end many of the so called evangelical christians are really not christians at all. It always come back to the argument of RELATIVE reality. The world is what people think it is. It seems this remains true even for christians where UNFORTUNATELY some of you find yourselves dealing with members of your organization who are for lack of a better word virtually POSERS. The difficulty here is getting the POSERS to agree that they are in fact posing to them the REAL evangelicals are the WRONG ones... and there you have it...The murky waters of RELATIVE reality start to appear.I posted this on your other blog: Bottom line… we can’t force morality. Morality based on fear of punishment is not morality since the only desire is self preservation and the person still cares nothing about their responsibilities to others. Putting the “FEAR of GOD” in would be adulterers doesn’t make them love their wife anymore then they did before they thought twice about sleeping with their secretary based on their fear of LOOSING the MUSTANG not a fear of hurting or LOOSING their WIFE. to view the entire post visithttp://unitelater.com/pm/comments.php?id=33_0_1_0_C
SNF returned on 2/19/05. I was beginning to miss him, but that didn't last long. I'm considering whether or how much to consolidate his latest comments, but here they are in their entirety.
Yet again you’ve completely missed the point!But, it's easy to summarize anything to appear the way that you want it to when you do not post it in its entirety. Also I find it intriguing how you feel you have the ability to summarize what I meant when you’ve not yet shown any ability to understand the fundamentals of my arguments.the point of the post was simply this. Currently a fetus is not a person as defined by law. This is why abortions are legal.since you cannot prove that a fetus is a person I see no reason why we should stop abortion. So, no I am not saying that my definition of personhood SHOULD be put into law; I am saying that it already is...that's why abortions are legal. If we want to make them illegal we have to first prove that a fetus is different than a brain dead person who1. isn't aware of their own existence2. cannot sustain their own life.which is not the same as a comatose person or a person on a "respirator" who can do one of the following1. sustain their own lifeor 2. aware of their own existencebrain dead patients like a fetus cannot pass eitherhence the reason my brother's life support was terminated!So if we are going to make an exception for a fetus, then we should make an exception for people like my brother.My argument is simply that abortions are currently legal because nobody can prove a fetus is a "person". If we want to make them illegal we have to prove a fetus IS a "person"and if we do that we'd better make damn sure the proof is based on scientific evidence that can be repeated, defined, and quantified and not FAITH that cannot. If we don't the integrity of our ENTIRE legal system will be in jeopardy.Lots of things are alive, and lots of living things are made up of human tissue. But, lots of things ARE NOT believed to have “personhood”, and that is why we execute criminals and turn off the life support of brain dead patients, and yes, that is why women can abort a fetus.
Hmmm....So your new tactic isIf you can't beat them erase them, shorten them, edit them, and then throw in whatever meaning you think I meant. Not to mention preventing me from commenting at all to certain posts. I doubt you are qualified to summarize the underlying meaning in my comments since you continuously have trouble grasping the fundamentals of the points I make. If you'd like proof of what the scientific community thinks about abortion look to the arguments made for stem cell research. “The main cause of controversy about embryonic stem cells is their source: human embryos and fetuses from therapeutic abortions. "Attitudes toward the integrity of the early embryo run a broad spectrum," Daley noted, from those who see it as only a cluster of undifferentiated cells to those who believe these early human embryos should be accorded the same legal and moral respect as a child. Displaying photographs of human and mouse embryos, he showed that "they're essentially indistinguishable; one can't even ascribe humanity to the embryo at this stage."”Though I have my doubts that you are actually capable of this I'll post the link anyway. http://www.csis.org/tech/Biotech/nbpp/Seminar3Brief.htmThough I use to respect you, now I see that you are a weak person who has to remove from sight the things he cannot explain.
Here are some links you should visit, before trying to assert an opinion about what the majority of the scientific community believes.These articles represent the views of the majority of the scientific community.I could post more, but I wont. It is really a simple matter.Abortion is already legal, so anyone wishing to change that status must prove to everyone else that abortion is wrong. Or, more directly that a fetus is a person. Not simply that it is made up of human genetic material. http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Abortion_Philosophy_Sc.html http://www.scientists4pr.org/abortion1.htm http://www.csis.org/tech/Biotech/nbpp/Seminar3Brief.htm
Here are a few more links you can view to provide PROOF of how the scientific community actually views a fetus. As a SCIENTIST I can tell you that my colleagues, many of the biochemist and geneticist as well as myself view a fetus (in the early stages - currently legal for abortions) as a mass of human genetic material. http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Abortion_Philosophy_Sc.html http://www.scientists4pr.org/abortion1.htm http://www.csis.org/tech/Biotech/nbpp/Seminar3Brief.htmOnly time will tell if you'll delete this post too. Either way I no longer consider you worthy. Besides cheating is almost certainly a sign of defeat and desperation.
And, by the way.Though a infant child cannot feed itself, it can sustain its own life. By sustaining its own life, I mean that it canbreath, pump blood, digest, etc... on its own without assistance from outside sources or someone else’s body. It is easy to find fault in my logic when you leave out the majority of the post and take what I’ve said out of context. If you lack the capacity to understand the fundamental truths I figured you could discern without my explanation then I am truly unable to reason with you....for, if I have to explain to you why something can be both capable of sustaining its own life and starving at the same time you are without hope!And, yes I understand the definition of brain dead. That is why I am not lobbying to keep people from being taken off life support, nor am I in support of anti-abortion activists.If you apply the same rules of “personhood” to a fetus that you apply to a brain dead person, the fetus, like the brain dead person, does not pass and is therefore considered legally dead! I believe this is why abortions have been and are currently legal now!To simplify this even further, for those of us who are intellectually challenged. A human being “is a rational individual” A fetus fits the definition of a parasite more closely than it does the definition of a human being.This may be cruel, but this is fact! If you don’t like it lobby to change to the definition of human being and then lobby to change the definition of parasite.You Christians should be familiar with this definition thing. It is the same concept you are using to keep homosexuals from being able to legally marry. If marriage is by definition a union between a “man and a women” then gay people cannot marry. If a human being is by definition a “rational individual” then a fetus is not a human being.This is my proof, consult the dictionary for verification! Consult biology and genetic text books referring to the gestation process and the development of the fetus, and notice when the central nervous system becomes functional!Before there is a central nervous system the fetus is almost identical to a brain dead person living like a parasite off the life support machine, only in the case of the fetus the machine is its mother!This is as simple as I can make it for you! If you can’t comprehend this pray the Buddhists are right and there is such a thing as reincarnation, and then hope that the next time around “YOUR GOD” will see fit to bless you with a better mind!
I am sorry that this is so difficult for you to grasp.If you were capable of analyzing anything then perhaps you would be qualified to make such a statement as"As simple as it is, it is still logically flawed"The only thing that is logically flawed around here is your use of the scientific method, and your definition of objectivity. - the first rule of properly applying the scientific method is objectivity- the 2nd is to make sure that your source has been independently confirmed...I doubt this passes either of the above criteria...Wikepedia:"A book defending a Christian CREATIONIST view of human biology"- nice source for scientific info. Perhaps consulting a text book would have been more accurate, but we both know you are not interested in accuracy. - Guess next we'll be talking about how everything in the universe revolves around the earth and not the sun.In the end the fetus is still just a mass of human genetic material. If you want to call that a human being then fine, we'll call it a human being, but it is still a human being without a brain, without a mind, without thoughts, and without feelings. It is still a human being that is not capable of living outside of another human beings body.Waving a bible at women, threatening them with hell fire, and trying to tell them that they are nothing more than incubators for procreation will never place them back in the position your kind so desperately wishes to see them returned to. They gained their reproductive rights in the past, and should anything happen to those rights in the future I have no doubts that the women will lobby together and regain them. History has shown us that we cannot force morality, consult a history book if you do not believe this. Any educated woman that doesn’t want to continue her pregnancy, and for whatever reason was denied an abortion, knows that there are ways to encourage a miscarriage, and should those attempts prove unsuccessful there will still be Europe and Asia, just a plane ride away. They could do either of the above to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and no man would be the wiser, unless you’re going to suggest mandatory pregnancy testing next (I can’t wait to see how they’d go for that one).When the citizens of Europe and parts of Asia are reaping the medicinal benefits of stem cell research and the cure for diseases like cancer and AIDS start to become within our grasp this country will be forced to either get with the scientific program or fall to ruin in a cloud of religious ignorance and filth. We will never agree on this issue, but YOUR logic will always be flawed if you continue to refuse to view this in an objective manner. Quoting religious text and entries from a religious encyclopedia hardly qualifies as evidence in support of your argument. This has been fun but since you've degenerated into lunacy and have begun to utilized questionable debate ethics I feel that you have now become “a waste” of my time.Happy trails Christian soldier enlightenment awaits you in the REAL world.
For a final word:"Where do you get these definitions?" - GlennIf you ever get tired of lying to yourself, or for any other OBJECTIVE individuals interested in doing their own research the definitions I get come fromthe real encyclopedias (like the ones found at the library or any PUBLIC school)the links I posted all 3 of themany biology, psychology, or genetics text bookany other non Christian OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC source- rule of thumb if the title of your source has the words god, Christian, or bible in it whatever is printed within is probably a load of uncorroborated factually challenged crap!good luck.
good luck on that road to objectivity glenn
by the MAJORITY of the scientific community I mean the scientists that wrote the articles I linked you to, the scientists quoted in those arguments, the scientists teaching at our public schools, and the scientists that wrote the biochemistry, biology, genetics, and other text books which I've studies over the past 10 years and used to formulate my FACTUALLY backed position on this argument. "It is only cheating when there are established rules. This is my house, I make the rules. This is not a government subsidized, university hosted free speech zone. Once again, let me point out that all your comments in their entirety are right here"- call it what you will.But, if you're going to "EDIT" my comments it would probably be more prudent to refrain from placing your own comments within them and applying your own twisted summarization of the facts...But since I live in a world of objectivity and you do not it is no surprise to me that you fail to grasp the ethics of debate.twisting facts doens't make them any less true.
I really am begging you to actually read something before you continue to debate this issue. Inmates on death row no longer have LEGAL rights as a person. Consult a criminal psychology text book if you need an explanation for why. We are talking about the LEGAL PROHIBITION of ABORTION not the morality of it, because morality is now and always will be RELATIVE! Unless you’re going to provide proof that your god exists (Oh, how I would love to listen in on that debate.)Abortion is LEGAL because the fetus does not have rights ergo "personhood" under the law. This is what prolifers are currently trying to change. "Personhood"As our society defines it is much more complicated than simply being comprised of human genetic material. Death row inmates fail to maintain "personhood" under the LAW because they have detached themselves socially from our communal laws, beliefs, and systems. They have proven that they CANNOT function in our society...- consult a law book, a psychology book, an ethics book, and a criminology book for the clarification you lack on this issue. “Actually, abortion is legal because a handful of Supreme Court justices decided that an unborn child is not deserving of legal protection until the third trimester" - Glenn- Yes this is true because as I have said a fetus does not have "personhood" under the law"If we want to make them illegal we have to prove a fetus IS a "person"Once again, by what definition, and why should I accept the term as you define it?" - Glenn- A definition that is based on fact, research, and scientific evidence is what should be applied in any LEGAL discussion of this topic. I don't care what YOU accept but the LAW should accept a scientific definition because science is objective, proven, individually corroborated, and not clouded by religion and faith (because religion as we all know is RELATIVE this is why there are so many sects in Christianity. All of which swear they are the CHOSEN ones.)You have difficulty with my arguments because you lack the knowledge to fully understand them. I suggest you consult some legal journals and first understand what personhood is as defined by the law, and then maybe you can understand why to me there is no LEGAL difference between a “living” fetus with no brain, and a "living" brain dead person with a brain that doesn’t work. Both should be defined in the same manner under the LAW, and therefore given the same rights, or the criteria for said definition of "brain death" should be redefined. -Neither has a functioning brain (one has no brain at all) and neither can exist without being hooked up to outside sources. Under the LAW defining what something may potentially become is irrelevantLEGAL definitions must define what something IS not what it has the POTENTIAL to become.A separate sperm and egg is not a fetus, a fetus is not a baby, a baby is not a child, and a child is not an adult. Even though all 3 are comprised of human genetic material or are “human beings”.We cannot LEGALY define a child as an adult just because it has the potential to become one. We all know there are inherent differences between the mind of a child and that of an adult. This is why the rights and status of the 2 differ.Children cannot vote and are subject to the will of their parents. Just as a fetus is currently subject to the will of its mother. There are different stages of human development. Each stage is unique and always “living” and “human” (even in its limited stages ergo sperm and egg cells), each stage of human life is separate and does not deserve the same LEGAL status and protection as human life in the later stages....YOU are free to do as you wish, and teach and preach to YOUR children as you wish, but if you are talking about something that LEGALLY affects us all (and you are) then the standards must be raised to objective ones. No exceptions. Not even for bible thumping evangelical fanatics. And, if YOUR god disagrees let him come down here and tell us himself!
Below you will find what I tried to post in an area that you currently will not let me respond at: It is in response to your argument the jist of which isGlenn's post "EDITED FOR BREVITY" :P"I don't agree with your definiton of personhood because it didn't come from the bible, bla bla bla. I can't understand a thing you're saying cause I've never read a law book in my life and totally missed the point of your argument againbut, Inmates are the same as babies, they are people, so abortion is wrong.bla bla bla" - glennI suppose I could have quoted you directly, but that would have been FAIR, and that's not the way you play things around here. (I wouldn't want to not fit in)Finally I believe I have responded to all your posts for the sake of argument in class, and I can now be done with thi
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Well, I am sorry that you seem to be unable to take criticism of your ideas and beliefs.
I am not playing with you or wasting my time.
I am forced to visit these types of blogs by a psychology prof of mine. I am a chemist going back to school for a 2nd PhD and this class is one of the many that I must take along the way.
Too bad for us all that this prof is obsessed with the blog phenomenon.
However, I believe everything that I've said in it's entirety. I am sorry that my posts may have seemed harsh to you, but I have no interest in niecties.
In my world something either is or it isn't and there is nothing in between.
By editing my posts you have erased some of the points that I have brought up to you that you have not yet answered.
It is easy to say that my arguments lack logic or evidene when you do not post them in their entirety.
I print your post and we discuss them in class, yours along with about 10 other blogs that we all must comment on during our class time.
You and I apply 2 very different requirements for what we consider evidence and what we consider a valid argument.
I deal with facts, science, and things which have been proven and independently validated.
you deal with religion and faith and things that cannot be quantified or seen.
This is why you feel I am attacking you when I am merely trying to get you to explain to me how you can believe something that you cannot prove,
how you expect to pass into law something that cannot be defined, proven, or validated.
this is always the basis of my argument.
Well, I am sorry that you seem to be unable to take criticism of your ideas and beliefs.
No, it’s the ad hominem stuff, combined with endless circular ranting.
I am sorry that my posts may have seemed harsh to you, but I have no interest in niecties.
And I have no interest in crude belligerence.
In my world something either is or it isn't and there is nothing in between.
I agree. The question is, what is truth, and how can we know it? Oooh, now THAT’S a long thread coming…
By editing my posts you have erased some of the points that I have brought up to you that you have not yet answered. It is easy to say that my arguments lack logic or evidene when you do not post them in their entirety.
Every comment of yours is saved in it’s entirety here.
I print your post and we discuss them in class, yours along with about 10 other blogs that we all must comment on during our class time.
I’m sure you must get a kick out of that.
I deal with facts, science, and things which have been proven and independently validated.
You have not proven and independently validated that an unborn child is not a person worthy of legal protection.
you deal with religion and faith and things that cannot be quantified or seen.
You bow at the alter of “reason”, yet this is an entity that cannot be quantified or seen.
This is why you feel I am attacking you…
No, it’s all those ad hominem attacks that make me feel you are attacking me.
Below you will find what I tried to post in an area that you currently will not let me respond at:
It is in response to your argument the jist of which is
Glenn's post "EDITED FOR BREVITY"
"I don't agree with your definiton of personhood because it didn't come from the bible, bla bla bla.
I can't understand a thing you're saying cause I've never read a law book in my life and totally missed the point of your argument again
but, Inmates are the same as babies, they are people, so abortion is wrong.
bla bla bla" - glenn
I suppose I could have quoted you directly, but that would have been FAIR, and that's not the way you play things around here. (I wouldn't want to not fit in)
Finally I believe I have responded to all your posts for the sake of argument in class, and I can now be done with this. You can know that I expect no response from you, nor do I plan to respond to your posts regarding this topic any further unless the debate can be carried out in an ethical manner. (Jesus'll be visiting the whore of babylon at an abortion clinic in the basement of the vatican to stop the "murder" of the anti christ before that happens)
[URL= HTTP://UNITELATER.COM/S9Y/INDEX.PHP?/ARCHIVES/43-SNF-CONDENSED.HTML]EDITED FOR BREVITY[/URL]
[I] The remainder of this post is a duplicate of the [url= http://unitelater.com/s9y/index.php?/archives/19-Robert-E.-Lee-day.html#c416] comment posted here.[/url]
ESV Bible Search
Jeff McReynolds about Disassembly
Thank you thank you thank you for these pictures. I would ha ve NEVER gotten this overly co mplicated toilet back to [...]
Lynn about Freeze a Yankee...
Yes I had the River song too. It was really funny also. Something like Lots of thi ngs in Texas, that we al [...]
Jayme about Stupidest News Item Ever (Part 1)
Leith Kristin Merrow is immatu re and arrogant. She's read a couple of rock & roll books, a nd now wants to be the n [...]
Timmy about Is Joel Osteen teaching a false doctrine?
the claim you make there is un substantiated. Christians inde ed do not worship the same God as mulsims and hindus, [...]
Glenn about Twenty Dollar Bill Conspiracy Revisited
Mario- Dude, check the comm ent policy before you come aro und here calling me names. How rude of you. Speaki [...]
Mario about Twenty Dollar Bill Conspiracy Revisited
Your a F@#$ing idiot!!!! none of this is evidence of anythi ng. oh, the eagle must be tryi ng to attack him. Who [...]
maya about Jihad Watch: Letters from a mujahid
alrighty here who the hell do u think u r to make fun and ri dicule ISLAM and its PEOPLE??! ! do u not know that isl [...]
Maddy about Twenty Dollar Bill Conspiracy Revisited
Ok i belived the whole twin to wers and hte pentagon thing bu t this ... this is just stupid . cyclopsis dont exsist [...]
Scotty Boy about Is Joel Osteen teaching a false doctrine?
Be serious now. Joel Osteen is not a "Prosperity Preacher" h e's a False Teacher. His writi ng, TV show and Intervie [...]
Mierly about Comments policy
in the name of allah, the merc ifull, all precious be to alla h and dont forget 2 our phroph et muhammad in the na [...]
Choose Your Template
Deep Thought of the Day
God good, devil bad.
Jesus saves, Allah kills.
04/14/10 at 0:22 AM
07/19/09 at 22:59 PM
04/10/09 at 16:15 PM
Twenty Word Reviews, Apologetics and Design
01/09/09 at 2:10 AM
Twenty Word Reviews, Heroes and Fiction
01/09/09 at 1:16 AM
Excuses and apologies
12/09/08 at 1:00 AM
Response to Sara
12/02/08 at 21:23 PM
What marriage is not...
11/13/08 at 3:40 AM
08/30/08 at 2:37 AM
View From the Bird Cage
07/10/08 at 2:14 AM
What others are saying...
Two or Three dot Net
Gun Toting Liberal
FREE and SPAM-PROOF!CLICK HERE to sign up for Fred Langa's award-winning e-newsletter. You'll see how to get LOTS more from your hardware, software, and time online!
About Me By way of background, I'm a homeschool dad in College Station, TX. Southern Baptist, with tendencies for somewhat reformed views on various subjects. I'm registered independent, but I vote Republican. I'm an employer, a Sunday School teacher, and a heterosexual white male. I am living proof that God uses the foolish things...
Do you do blog polls?