Which Religion is the One True Religion?

real life wrote:

When others do not share my view from a religious standpoint, I think most people can understand from at least a medical standpoint that this is a living human being we are talking about.

No....it most definitely is NOT a living human being. It is an embryo...or at some point, a fetus. BUT IT IS NOT A LIVING HUMAN BEING.

If, and when, it gets born....it will be a living human being...and not before.

Quote:

So if someone cannot come all the way over to my position perhaps they can at least share part of it. And many do.

Anyone who does....is out of their mind.

You nuts are out to terminate a woman's right to abort a pregnancy if she chooses. Give you nut cases an inch...and you will eventually take a mile.

Best to fight you at every turn.

And I hope you are happy that it is people like you who harden so many of us into our positions....so that we are unwilling to give in areas where, if you nuts could be trusted, we might be willing to give.

Quote:

The radical position of supporting abortion thru all 9 months of pregnancy is, I think, a very small minority position.

And because of people like you....it is becoming larger.

Quote:

And the more information people have regarding fetal development , the more and the earlier pro-life they tend to become.

Give me a goddam break! That is such self-serving pap it bearly warrants a response. In any case, enough of us are champions of a woman's right to have dominion over her own body to keep you people in check.

Quote:

In my experience, it has been the extreme pro-abortion crowd that wants to keep people in the dark regarding what abortion procedures actually are, and what the medical facts regarding the baby inside the womb are.

That is not your experience...that is more self-serving bullshyt.

An abortion is a medical procedure. It is, for the most part, an agonizing decision for a woman. To have people like you making the decision even more agnonizing disgusts me...and most people with a brain.

.........it is people like you who harden so many of us into our positions....so that we are unwilling to give in.........

Your so-called "medical facts" doesn't even meet the legal definition in the US, so what are you talking about? You're the one confusing an embryo with a baby. Can't you get it through your head that legally, it's none of your business?

C.I.

Unfortunately the only opinion that seems to count with the intolerant followers of religion is their own. I guess it is inevitable that those who follow religion would pick up it's most dominant trait. "Intolerance"

neologist wrote:

Quote:

OK, life begins at conception. That's my final answer and I'm stickin to it.

You have every right to your opinion. However, you have no right to foist it on anyone else. That is something the schmuck in the White House and the religious community will not accept.

I think it's very telling that you could not refute the medical facts of the case, so instead of addressing them, you wrap yourself in the flag of "women's rights" and run for cover.

In many countries the proportion of babies who are aborted is heavily female, because these cultures do not value women as highly. I don't hear you screaming for women's rights over this issue, however.

Your argument for no human consciousness (or do you think they are conscious, just not worthy of protection?) in an unborn is echoed, and expanded with a twist, by professor Peter Singer. I wonder do you subscribe to his view as well?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff091399.asp

http://www.euthanasia.com/prince.html

neologist wrote:

OK, life begins at conception. That's my final answer and I'm stickin to it.

OK, now what do you mean by conception? Does that include IVF?

Frank Apisa wrote:

.........it is people like you who harden so many of us into our positions....so that we are unwilling to give in.........

I want y'all to notice something Frank says here.

He says that : I (or similar folks) harden them in their positions.

Where have we heard language like this before?

Oh yeah : God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

What is Frank saying here? Is he saying that I ( a harmless lovable little fuzzball ) have the ability to harden him, to determine how he thinks, how he responds and what he does ?

No.

What he is describing is his reaction. A reaction which he chose freely, as indicated by the phrase "so that we are unwilling to give in......."

Isn't it interesting that Frank uses language in exactly the way that I stated that the Bible used it?

Now we know for certain that you CAN understand this, Frank..........

real life wrote:

Your argument for no human consciousness (or do you think they are conscious, just not worthy of protection?) in an unborn is echoed, and expanded with a twist, by professor Peter Singer. I wonder do you subscribe to his view as well?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff091399.asp

http://www.euthanasia.com/prince.html

Where in the hell have you ever heard me argue for "no human consciousness?

Do you make this shyt up on your own...or do you have help?

That's why it was a question, Frank. See the little curved symbol after the word "protection" ? Like that there ? And there ?

Your argument for no human consciousness (or do you think they are conscious, just not worthy of protection?) in an unborn is echoed, and expanded with a twist, by professor Peter Singer. I wonder do you subscribe to his view as well?

Do you think the unborn....

Do you think the unborn have no human consciousness; or do you think they do have human consciousness but are just unworthy of protection?

And do you subscribe to Professor Singer's position?

I know they are not "living human beings"...as you have termed them....and I think that the host carrying them....the pregnant woman....has a right to decide if she wants to terminate the pregnancy by abortion.

mesquite wrote:

neologist wrote:

OK, life begins at conception. That's my final answer and I'm stickin to it.

OK, now what do you mean by conception? Does that include IVF?

Does IVF produce a different result than the missionary position?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I know they are not "living human beings"...as you have termed them....and I think that the host carrying them....the pregnant woman....has a right to decide if she wants to terminate the pregnancy by abortion.

By "the woman's right to an abortion" are you speaking of a legal right? Or a moral right?

If a woman lives where abortion is illegal, would you still say you think she has a right to an abortion?

Where does this right come from? Are you postulating moral rights that may or may not be recognized by the law?

If there are moral rights that are not recognized by the law then the child can also have a moral right to life, even though it is not recognized by the law, could he not?