Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Besides, your stand on abortion doesn't balance with anything you might say regarding your "disregard of children." I just mention the plight of living children to show the hypocrisy of your stand against abortion of women you don't even know.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's an easy observation; haven't heard you say anything concerning the plight or help you've given children in need.

"I'm not trying to legislate anything here, either" You don't have to. Your support for Bush says all that needs to be said.

'Scuse me! Do you need my list of charitable contributions? Or the names of those I have helped directly with my resources?

Also, I did not vote for Bush and never supported him. The best I can say for him is I think he would be a lot more fun at one of Joe Sixpack's barbecues than Ted Kennedy. He'd probably snarf less booze, too.

Or maybe not. But he would be more fun. Just think of the malapropisms.

I really don't think you have paid much attention to my posts. Not that I deserve it; but if you are going to answer them. . .

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I prefer facts over style, Timber.

I gave the facts.

Prefer, perceive, and present what and as you wish. You still have not answered the original question which kicked off this digression, you persist in straw men, red herrings, irrelevancies, misdirections, and mischaracteriztions.

Quote:

Planned Parenthood charges money for abortion, which you had flat out denied.

No, I did not. I said PP does not perform abortions. PP does not perform abortions; medical professionals, who may or may not be employed by or under contract to Planned Parenthood perform abortions as referred by Planned Parenthood counselors. Planned Parenthood does not perform the services, acreditted medical professionals perform the services. The organization itself does not perform the services.

rambling on, you wrote:

Your weak acknowledgement that you had this wrong apparently hasn't tempered your bluster any.

What acknowledgement? But enough of this sillyness - I direct your attention once more to the issue first broached by your assertion HERE, challenged by Frank Here, then posed as a direct question from me to you HERE, whch post was quoted in its entirety, but not answered, by you HERE, re-itterated by me HERE, wherein I specifically wrote:

Quote:

Whutinhell does what PP provides, free or otherwise, have to do with my challenge to you? I am not ignorant of the fact you have not addressed my specific request, which, to re-itterate, is what evidence demonstrating a vested financial interest can you produce? You have produced none. You spin, you opine, you preach, you parrot, you proselytize, you pontificate, you prevaricate, you obfuscate, you assiduously avoid meeting the specific challenge.

You yourself quoted that entire post HERE, again without answering the question asked. I once again asked the question Here, with you again quoting the entire question-containing post HERE, and it was again quoted by maporsche HERE, and again quoted by myself, HERE
wherein I posed yet one more request for a direct response to the relevant question. A few posts later on, you quote that post, yet again without replying to the relevant question, HERE.

Now, one more time, what vested financial interest on the part of Planned Parenthood in the matter of keeping abortion legal and profitable can you demonstrate? Where is the investment nexus? Will you meet the challenge and provide the requested evidence, or will you continue to spin, opine, preach, parrot,proselytize, pontificate, prevaricate, obfuscate, and assiduously avoid meeting the specific challenge?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
Planned Parenthood charges money for abortion, which you had flat out denied.

No, I did not. I said PP does not perform abortions. PP does not perform abortions; medical professionals, who may or may not be employed by or under contract to Planned Parenthood perform abortions as referred by Planned Parenthood counselors. Planned Parenthood does not perform the services, acreditted medical professionals perform the services. The organization itself does not perform the services.

So can we say that General Motors does not build cars, mechanical professionals who may be employed by them do?

Your "logic" is a pathetic display indeed from someone who lectures others ad nauseum.

timberlandko wrote:

Now, one more time, what vested financial interest on the part of Planned Parenthood in the matter of keeping abortion legal and profitable can you demonstrate? Where is the investment nexus? Will you meet the challenge and provide the requested evidence, or will you continue to spin, opine, preach, parrot,proselytize, pontificate, prevaricate, obfuscate, and assiduously avoid meeting the specific challenge?

It should be obvious, to nearly everyone but you apparently, that when you sell a product or service, you have a vested interest in keeping the product or service you render legally available so you can continue to sell it, and profitable for your organization so you can continue in existence as an enterprise.

If you cannot figure out why they would like to keep it legal and profitable, then maybe you should take a few classes in basic business. Be sure to ask for the classes with 101 at the end of the name.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's an easy observation; haven't heard you say anything concerning the plight or help you've given children in need.

I found him. He's over here guys. Here's the guy who said his moral standards apply only to himself and not to others. Here is the..........

Oh maybe not.

0 Replies

real life, apparently, you just don't get it. You have yourself convinced, obviously, but you do not effectively present your case.

0 Replies

Zoroastrianism

0 Replies

Jazzy3113 wrote:

Zoroastrianism

Welcome to the forum, Jazzy. Finally, someone who simply answers the question posted with a plain declaration. But tell us why, Jazzy? Why?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life, apparently, you just don't get it. You have yourself convinced, obviously, but you do not effectively present your case.

Getting your facts straight first would have helped you present yours, Timber.

I've asked anyone, including you, to show why a child in the womb with a heartbeat and brainwaves should not be considered a living human.

Too bad you can't seem to answer with anything of substance anymore. Just denials and vanity trips trying to impress with Latin. Kinda sad for us to see you this way. Must really stink for you, too. How long ya been like this?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
real life, apparently, you just don't get it. You have yourself convinced, obviously, but you do not effectively present your case.

Getting your facts straight first would have helped you present yours, Timber.

I've asked anyone, including you, to show why a child in the womb with a heartbeat and brainwaves should not be considered a living human.

Timber feels differently from me on this, but...

...for one thing....it ain't a "child" if it is still in the womb. It may be a zygote, or an embryo, or a fetus....but it simply is not a child until it is born...which of course, means when it no longer is still in the womb.

Quote:

Too bad you can't seem to answer with anything of substance anymore. Just denials and vanity trips trying to impress with Latin. Kinda sad for us to see you this way. Must really stink for you, too. How long ya been like this?

How long have you been in such deep denial, Life?

That is the question with which you ought to be dealing.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

... Getting your facts straight first would have helped you present yours, Timber.

What facts have I not gotten straight?

Quote:

I've asked anyone, including you, to show why a child in the womb with a heartbeat and brainwaves should not be considered a living human.

Perhaps you have asked me and I missed it. Fair enough; I submit that by legal definition, a living human being is one who has been born. One may consider whatever one cares to consider in whatever manner one cares to consider the matter. What one may or may not find convenient has no bearing on what is. Born means born, unborn means unborn, a human being has been born. A student is a student, not a graduate, unless and untill that student graduates. Most do. Some, for various reasons an by various causes, don't; some fail, some drop out, some are terminated. A graduate is a student who has graduated. Prior to graduation, that student may be a graduate candidate, but is a student, not a graduate. A being in utero may be a potential or incipient human being, but none the less remains a being in utero untill and unless born or terminated.

Quote:

Too bad you can't seem to answer with anything of substance anymore.

Reckognize, acknowledge, accept, dismiss, mischaracterize, or ignore what you will. That in no way changes what is. Oh, and once again, where is the investment nexus?

Quote:

Just denials and vanity trips trying to impress with Latin. Kinda sad for us to see you this way.

Not much I can do about your mood, your level of education or understanding, or your intellectual integrity, but, personally, I'm enjoying this immensely, without a twinge of sadness. Stomping on ludicrous arguments of the sort you've been putting forth is great entertainment - the moreso when the disadvantaged party persists in absurd defenses of illfounded propositions.

Quote:

Must really stink for you, too.

Not that I've noticed - any foul effluvia offending your tender sensibilities must be a phenomenon peculiar to your particular locality.

Quote:

How long ya been like this?

I don't really qualify as a babyboomer; the Second World War had some time yet to run when I arrived on the scene. Now, this is conjecture on my part, but I imagine it highly likely I was a registered voter, an honorably discharged veteran, a college graduate, a professional, a home owner, and a parent before you were a zygote.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
I've asked anyone, including you, to show why a child in the womb with a heartbeat and brainwaves should not be considered a living human.

Perhaps you have asked me and I missed it. Fair enough; I submit that by legal definition, a living human being is one who has been born. One may consider whatever one cares to consider in whatever manner one cares to consider the matter. What one may or may not find convenient has no bearing on what is. Born means born, unborn means unborn, a human being has been born.

Your guess as to my age would disappoint you if you knew the truth. But you are full of guesses aren't you?

You guessed that Planned Parenthood did not provide abortion. Perhaps you didn't think anyone would fact check your faulty assertion. I didn't need to check. I already knew. All I did was provide documentation.

You guessed that folks would buy your weak assertion that Planned Parenthood doesn't provide abortions, it's their employees that do! Sorry, if my kids had ever tried that kind of reasoning (come to think of it, they did)......well it didn't fly then, and it doesn't fly now.

As I've indicated the question is a medical one. Is a child in the womb with a heartbeat and brainwaves a living human?

Interesting that you've chosen to ignore that and taken refuge in a flimsy "legal" definition created by a court.

A previous court had decided in the Dred Scott case that blacks did not qualify as persons also. Would you have supported that decision and proclaimed blacks non-persons?

0 Replies

A legal definition of a human being?
A medical definition?

For those of you who believe the bible, there is God's definition:
"For you yourself produced my kidneys;
You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother.
14 I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful,
As my soul is very well aware.
15 My bones were not hidden from you
When I was made in secret,
When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them." (Psalm 139: 13-16)

Lots of symbolic language there. But Joe Sixpack understands it pretty well.

Now, if you don't believe the bible, consider this: Who will you trust to define your right to be a human being?
The lawyers?
The doctors?

OK, OK, OK! I just realized I left out. . .
The clergy?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I've asked anyone, including you, to show why a child in the womb with a heartbeat and brainwaves should not be considered a living human.

You keep asking this question as a delcaration as to why you're against abortion. Around day 24 an embryo develops a heartbeat; around day 56 you can measure brainwaves.

Can I assume that you approve of abortion PRIOR to a heartbeat and brainwaves, since that's the question you've tried to drive home?

I'm betting that you do not approve of abortions even prior to HB & BW. So please give us another reason.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I've asked anyone, including you, to show why a child in the womb with a heartbeat and brainwaves should not be considered a living human.

To answer your question though, I do think that in the 2nd trimester an embryo is considered human. I do not approve of ELECTIVE abortions after the 1st trimester.

0 Replies

real life, you presume to presume a bit much; nothing within your sphere of influence would be instrumental in providing me disappointment. And whether you are young and deluded or old and deluded has no bearing on the magnitude of your delusion, only on its duration. I submit again, your manner of argument convinces no one but those predisposed to the delusion at the core of your argument.

Now, whether one supports or objects to a duly enacted law of the land, one is subject to the law of the land. Foundational to the laws of this land is The Constitution, which instrument specifivally provides that religious precepts, tentets, and dogmas shall not constitute the law of this land. You may choose to think a legal definition is a weak definition, but for purposes of the law of the land, its the law - by definition.

Oh, and BTW, some divisions of General Motors engage in the manufacture of motor vehicles and/or related components. Some don't. I have never said that PP does not advocate abortion (in fact, I object to their advocacy of abortion in preference to alternatives); my contention is that providing abortions is a matter entirely up to individual chapters. Some do, some don't. Planned Parenthood does not provide abortions, though abortions are available through many PP chapters. Perhaps thats a legalistic differentiation, but its good enough to stand up in court (and many times has), and by the law of the land, thats good enough under the law.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:

I've asked anyone, including you, to show why a child in the womb with a heartbeat and brainwaves should not be considered a living human.

To answer your question though, I do think that in the 2nd trimester an embryo is considered human. I do not approve of ELECTIVE abortions after the 1st trimester.

Hi maporsche,

Thank you for your answer.

Actually, abortion is currently legal in some U.S. jurisdictions through all three "trimesters" up until the moment the child emerges from the womb. The child is legally NOT considered a person until then, thanks to the Supreme Court. Just as in the Dred Scott case, the Court legally "defined away" the personhood of an entire class of human beings and declared them so much property, at the disposal of their masters. They may live or die at the whim of the master with the complete blessing of the Supreme Court.

Some jurisdictions have passed restrictions and some have not. Those that have are the object of intense vilification and endless litigation by the pro-abortion crowd.

Partial birth abortions are performed on 9 month gestation children.

The child is delivered, kicking feet first, and when the entire body up to the waving arms and shoulders is outside, the abortionists takes an instrument, pierces the base of the skull which is still slightly inside the mothers body, sticks a vacuum thru the pierced portion and sucks out the brain.

This is a procedure that your local Planned Parenthood and your local pro-abortion politicos and philosophers insist MUST continue or the Republic will collapse because a woman will have been denied her "right to control her body."

Formation of the heart is between the 9-20th day generally and heartbeat/blood flow thru the body is OBSERVABLE on ultrasound by the 24th day. Keep in mind, this is when we can see it, not necessarily when it began.

Brainwaves have been observed before the 42nd day. Again they may have started earlier. Indeed , for the heart to beat regularly wouldn't the support of the nervous system be required? So we can postulate that nervous system activity probably is going on long before we can observe brain activity.

Of course, the whole argument of the pro-abortionist is that this is just a lump of undifferentiated protoplasm, a part of the mothers body.

The moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg, the newly formed has a distinct DNA pattern all it's own. It is a new individual, already distinct from the mother's body genetically, although obviously very dependent on the mother to protect it's life.

To answer your other question directly: Obviously, I do not approve of abortion prior to heartbeat. I am for protecting the child throughout the duration. Many pro-abortionists (not all) on the other hand are pro abortion for the entire 9 months. So if we are looking for an area of mutual compromise, a complete prohibition on abortion post-heartbeat would be a good step in the right direction.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

To answer your other question directly: Obviously, I do not approve of abortion prior to heartbeat. I am for protecting the child throughout the duration. Many pro-abortionists (not all) on the other hand are pro abortion for the entire 9 months. So if we are looking for an area of mutual compromise, a complete prohibition on abortion post-heartbeat would be a good step in the right direction.

If you would use the "brain waves" you have, Life, you'd eventually see that the problem we are dealing with is not whether or not to "prohibit abortion" at any stage of the embryo's development...

...BUT WHETHER OR NOT THE ABORTIONS ARE GOING TO BE LEGAL AND SAFE.

Why can't you get that through your thick skull?????

Abortion has been around for thousands of years. Abortionist is the second oldest profession on this planet...occasioned by the oldest.

GET IT???????

Women are going to get abortions.

The choice is whether they are going to do so in a sanitary clinic or hospital...or in a goddam back alley with a coat hanger.

Listening to your arguments makes me wonder whether "brain waves" ever start!

0 Replies

Get real, do you understand anything about world population growth and how it threatens all life on earth? We now have six billion humans on this planet, and it's anticipated that by 2050, there will be ten billion humans. There are only a finite supply of natural resources on this planet. Do you understand anything about logistics? It's only a matter of time when more humans will starve to death. Are you willing to sacrifice your family?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Get real, do you understand anything about world population growth and how it threatens all life on earth? We now have six billion humans on this planet, and it's anticipated that by 2050, there will be ten billion humans. There are only a finite supply of natural resources on this planet. Do you understand anything about logistics? It's only a matter of time when more humans will starve to death. Are you willing to sacrifice your family?

Is this an argument for abortion, for contraception, or for more successful suicide bomb attempts?

0 Replies

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know