Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 09:18 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Jason,

You can come out of your room if you promise to play nice. It's ok, Momma said so. Intrepid, you can come out too. Laughing



http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y75/Intrepid2/whistle.gif
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 09:27 pm
real life wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
A louse also has it's own body. A louse is most definitely a parasite.
Parasitical in that it cannot survive away from the host.
I think independence of symbiosis is as good a criteria for 'rights' as any presented...


DS, at what point could an infant survive on it's own? He is not going to be independent for a number of years.

Do you favor the parent's 'right' to kill their children at any point that they might prove too inconvenient to care for?

How 'bout those parasitical sick folks who can't survive on their own? Kill 'em? Yea or nay?

C'mon don't be coy. Let your utilitarian view be fully known.

Apples and oranges.
A fully functional adult, nevermind an infant, still requires outside support of some form to survive. You are not challenging a position I hold.
I am asserting that a reasonable distinction between something with 'rights' and something without them is the ability to be 'alive' free of another living host.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 10:38 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Did we every find out who Larry is?


So, you haven't found out yet?


Uh, no. You haven't told us.


Does he have brothers named Darrell?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 10:44 pm
We'll have to ask Jason, but he suddenly has gone mute.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 10:46 pm
Real Life,

And the other brother Darrell too! ROFL!
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 10:49 pm
Doktor S wrote:
real life wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
A louse also has it's own body. A louse is most definitely a parasite.
Parasitical in that it cannot survive away from the host.
I think independence of symbiosis is as good a criteria for 'rights' as any presented...


DS, at what point could an infant survive on it's own? He is not going to be independent for a number of years.

Do you favor the parent's 'right' to kill their children at any point that they might prove too inconvenient to care for?

How 'bout those parasitical sick folks who can't survive on their own? Kill 'em? Yea or nay?

C'mon don't be coy. Let your utilitarian view be fully known.



Apples and oranges.
A fully functional adult, nevermind an infant, still requires outside support of some form to survive. You are not challenging a position I hold.
I am asserting that a reasonable distinction between something with 'rights' and something without them is the ability to be 'alive' free of another living host.


First you must prove that the unborn has no rights. You cannot assume your point in order to prove your point.

The unborn has a right to live. Whether this right is recognized and protected by civil authority or not does not change the existence of his right.

The Founders described rights as coming from God and protected or upheld by civil authority. This is the basis of our law. The right to life is not the creation of human authority.

Your comparison of the unborn to a parasite falls apart completely when you are asked to defend it.

That is because your concept of who is independent enough to merit a right, and the idea that the Founders used in forming our country are completely incompatible.

Since then, we must choose between your concept of rights and that of the Founders, I think we will stick with the Founders and leave your concept of rights to the landfill.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 10:54 pm
Hey dok. Long time no see. Technically speaking dok we are never totally free from another living host. There are bacteria's that are within us that are necessary for us to remain healthy. Taking too many antibiotics can wipe out the good bacteria and leave us susceptible to disease and what not because it's not there to wipe out the bad bacteria...
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 11:02 pm
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
So, the egg and the sperm have to be fertilized so it can be called "human being."
But the zygote has the DNA of the mother and the father, doesn't it? And it is aliveĀ…and the same thing applies to sperms, MA.


This is simply incorrect.

The unborn has his own distinctive DNA. His DNA is not that of the father (they don't match) nor is it that of the mother (they don't match) .

He has a little of each, and probably some that resembles grandma and grandpa , but he is a copy of NONE of them. He is an individual from the moment of conception.

Neither the sperm or the egg are human beings because they lack the requisite number of chromosomes (46) to be a human being.

No matter how long the sperm or the egg is protected and nourished it will never be a human being.

The sperm and the egg both carry just 23 chromosomes and do not constitute a human being, get it?

The ridiculous argument of abortion supporters that 'an egg is not a chicken, therefore the unborn is not a human being' is just evidence of ignorance of basic biological facts; or maybe just the willingness to conceal and ignore them while hoping others are ignorant.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 11:08 pm
hephzibah wrote:
LOL Ok then.

So if a doctor of the medical sciences determines the time of death by when the heart stops beating how can he turn around and say that an embryo with a heartbeat is not alive?

And if it's a human embryo then obviously it's not an egg or a zygote. Neither of those have a heartbeat. However an embryo develops one some time between 5-8 weeks. By 10 weeks the embryo has detached from the wall of the uterus and is now swimming in the womb separate from it's mother except for the umbilical cord. Which serves the purpose of providing the necessary nutrients and oxygen the it needs for normal growth and development as well as removing waste products.

Oh, by the way... do things that are not alive produce waste? Do they need oxygen or nutrients?

And if this human embryo is in fact alive at the time it's heart starts beating according to medical science's definition of when death occures, how is that considered any less murder than if I were to drown my own child in the bathtub because he was being bad?


Just thought I'd throw this back in there.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 11:20 pm
And the peanut gallery lapses into silence... LOL
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 11:25 pm
The penis gallery is still going........
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 11:26 pm
Shocked Why does that not surprise me? LOL
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 11:42 pm
hephzibah wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
LOL Ok then.

So if a doctor of the medical sciences determines the time of death by when the heart stops beating how can he turn around and say that an embryo with a heartbeat is not alive?

And if it's a human embryo then obviously it's not an egg or a zygote. Neither of those have a heartbeat. However an embryo develops one some time between 5-8 weeks. By 10 weeks the embryo has detached from the wall of the uterus and is now swimming in the womb separate from it's mother except for the umbilical cord. Which serves the purpose of providing the necessary nutrients and oxygen the it needs for normal growth and development as well as removing waste products.

Oh, by the way... do things that are not alive produce waste? Do they need oxygen or nutrients?

And if this human embryo is in fact alive at the time it's heart starts beating according to medical science's definition of when death occures, how is that considered any less murder than if I were to drown my own child in the bathtub because he was being bad?


Just thought I'd throw this back in there.


It gets worse for the abortion supporters.

The heart starts beating before the end of the fourth week.

see http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072907932/student_view0/chapter_22/chapter_summary.html
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 11:50 pm
real life wrote:
It gets worse for the abortion supporters.

The heart starts beating before the end of the fourth week.

see http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072907932/student_view0/chapter_22/chapter_summary.html


GREAT! Then let's deliver it at four weeks and save all the rest of that pregnancy time.

Anon
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 12:09 am
Hmm that's interesting. Years ago I used to volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center and I did a lot of research while I was there. Until now I had never seen anything that said the heart was beating that soon. It's amazing.

Having thought of this issue since yesterday I have come to the conclusion that while people bash the bible and say over and over it contradicts itself, it is abundantly clear that the law contradicts itself because it says we cannot murder a human or we will go to jail, then bends the rules when it comes to a living human being with a heart beat and possibly even brain waves, inside of a womans womb.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 07:09 am
hephzibah wrote:
Hmm that's interesting. Years ago I used to volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center and I did a lot of research while I was there. Until now I had never seen anything that said the heart was beating that soon. It's amazing.

Having thought of this issue since yesterday I have come to the conclusion that while people bash the bible and say over and over it contradicts itself, it is abundantly clear that the law contradicts itself because it says we cannot murder a human or we will go to jail, then bends the rules when it comes to a living human being with a heart beat and possibly even brain waves, inside of a womans womb.


Contradictory, monstrous, barbaric.........god

mirror, mirror.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

God loves us....the unborn as much as me....as much as Frank.

Jesus is the word of God made flesh. He died for us.

Our God is an awesome God! A forgiving God through our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.

How many more innocent children must be destroyed before mankind sees
who is really playing the role of the BARBARIC MONSTER GOD?

I too have some barbaric and disgusting traits....but knowing that Jesus loves me...gives me the courage to face the truth.

To face the..........mirror.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 07:10 am
Momma Angel wrote:
[ Well, ask Frank. He will tell you that a fetus is a parasite in the body of a woman who is the host.


You have made this comment several times...and I've passed it by as evidence of desperation. But this is one time too many.

I DEFY YOU TO CITE ONE INSTANCE OF ME SAYING THAT A FETUS IS A PARASITE IN THE BODY OF A WOMAN.

You may use all the thousands of posts in any of the threads here in A2K...and any of the tens of thousands of posts in any of the threads over in Abuzz.

I DEFY YOU TO DO IT.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 07:16 am
Bartikus wrote:
[Contradictory, monstrous, barbaric.........god

mirror, mirror.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

God loves us....the unborn as much as me....as much as Frank.

Jesus is the word of God made flesh. He died for us.

Our God is an awesome God! A forgiving God through our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.

How many more innocent children must be destroyed before mankind sees
who is really playing the role of the BARBARIC MONSTER GOD?

I too have some barbaric and disgusting traits....but knowing that Jesus loves me...gives me the courage to face the truth.

To face the..........mirror.


Your god is a disgusting blight on the planet Earth...and you are terrified of it. That probably forms the core of your reasons for wanting to take women back 2000 years with regard to their rights.

I pity you.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 07:22 am
My God loves you and died for you Frank.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 07:23 am
I've got lots of errands...and plenty of poker to play...which, I am sure you will understand, all takes preference in my life to trying to penetrate the concrete you poor boobs have in your heads.

Sounds like Jason has done an excellent job of laughing at a silly hypothetical imposed over another silly hypothetical.

But I doubt you frightened, superstitious little children will ever recognize, much less, acknowledge that you are all wet.

No problem. Humanity has survived the likes of Caligula, Attila, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, and George Dumbya Bush...so more than likely, America will survive its version of the Taliban.

I love ya all a tremendous lot...each and every one.

Keep spouting your superstitions. I may be back today to share my feelings again. If not...certainly by some time tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ABORTION.......
  3. » Page 163
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/21/2025 at 01:51:42