I stand by everything I've said here...and I still maintain that I have not said...nor in any way inferred...by anything said here...that I have no problem with (some areas) of abortion.
That was a rather large...and completely unwarranted jump there, Baddog.
Simply because you "believe" something does not make it so.
The "truth"...is that a fetus is a fetus.
When it is an embryo or a fetus...it is living tissue. No one here is disputing that. BUT IT IS NOT A LIVING HUMAN BEING while it is a fetus or an embryo.
As you know, I believe the moon is made of green cheese. Therefore the moon is made of green cheese. See my point?
Do me a favor, Dog. Do not attribute any "beliefs" to me. I have on several occasions said that "...it is my opinion that...."...
...and I would prefer that you characterize those things as opinions rather than "beliefs."
Well...anything is possible. But I suggest that it is a very far reach to suppose there are women who are saying "Well...people like Frank Apisa think a woman has a right to end a pregnancy should she choose...so I am going to end mine."
It is my opinion that a woman has a right to end a pregnancy if she chooses for any reasons she has...whenever she chooses to do so.
Frank:
Quote:I stand by everything I've said here...and I still maintain that I have not said...nor in any way inferred...by anything said here...that I have no problem with (some areas) of abortion.
Whether or not inferred is ambiguous, and moot at this point. I am satisfied that you indeed have problems with some areas of abortion. I would appreciate it if you would share those "areas" with us that you speak of - not for reasons of debate, but for reasons of potential education.
Quote:That was a rather large...and completely unwarranted jump there, Baddog.
I have no idea what you mean here Frank.
Quote:Simply because you "believe" something does not make it so.
Would that assertion also apply to:Quote:The "truth"...is that a fetus is a fetus.
How about:Quote:When it is an embryo or a fetus...it is living tissue. No one here is disputing that. BUT IT IS NOT A LIVING HUMAN BEING while it is a fetus or an embryo.
Quote:As you know, I believe the moon is made of green cheese. Therefore the moon is made of green cheese. See my point?
As used in the above referenced quotes of yours and in my statements that you selected; I see a vague yet unrelated analogy. Basically a "stretch" at best.
Quote:Do me a favor, Dog. Do not attribute any "beliefs" to me. I have on several occasions said that "...it is my opinion that...."...
...and I would prefer that you characterize those things as opinions rather than "beliefs."
I had no hidden agenda in using the term "belief" instead of "opinion". I was in hopes that we were past any diversion by semantics. If you look in Merriam-Websters Thesaurus; the first synonym shown for "opinion" is "belief". However as you requested; I will happily do my best to use the word "opinion" instead of "belief".
Quote:Well...anything is possible. But I suggest that it is a very far reach to suppose there are women who are saying "Well...people like Frank Apisa think a woman has a right to end a pregnancy should she choose...so I am going to end mine."
It is my strong belief that hundreds of thousands of women have artificially aborted the human-fetus-living beings that grew inside their bodies, fed from their bodies, grew from this food and would have eventually become persons if not terminated at some stage of their pregnancy. And it is also my strong belief that a large percentage of these life-ending decisions were made by women who felt their decisions to end this life were validated by pro-choice advocates such as yourself.
...it is basic human nature to conclude that "if a large group of intelligent, normal people believe it is fine for me to make a decision based solely on my own convenience, and in fact support me in this decision, then by golly, it is OK with me too! In fact, my boyfriend is being a pain, I want to party a few more years before having kids, and besides all of that, I look fat! So this human-fetus-life growing inside of me actually means nothing because it has not exited my birth canal yet, so let's get rid of it."
Quote:It is my opinion that a woman has a right to end a pregnancy if she chooses for any reasons she has...whenever she chooses to do so.
I guess the humanitarian part of me is saddened by your position.
....
ore you jump all over that; I already know you could care less about my (or anyone else's humanitarian) opinion. But on a basic human level, it troubles me.
So to summarize for you and I:
You do not care how alive, growing, developing, feeling, etc. human-living-fetuses become; even if they were potential children, grandchildren, relatives of yours - they are always and absolutely expendable, whether on a whim, for the sake of convenience, or simply whatever - until they exit the woman's body - you support their artificial termination.
And I believe that life begins at, well - when life begins.
Is that an accurate summary?
"With that knowledge, "advocating" is my big issue here, and probably because of our non-accountable society. As you know, I believe that all living fetuses constitute "life". Therefore a human-fetus is a human-life."
Essentially that last sentence says that because you "believe" that all living fetuses constitute life...it is life. Well...your "beliefs" are not the determinant of what is and what is not.
But you are stuck in that mode...and if you want to suppose it is comparable to your assumption that because you "believe" something it is so...do that.
I am not interested in your "beliefs"...whether they are strongly held or not. They are, at their core...guesses. And I am not sure of just how good a guesser you are.
This is so illogical and contrived...I will not respond further than I already have.
As I mentioned...I support a president's right to commit troops and to set foreign policy...even though I have lots of "problems" with the way our present president is doing so. That does not stop me from supporting his right to do it....and if it appears that he does it because there are many of us who support his right to do so...so be it.
No...I suspect it is the religious part of you. And I am not especially concerned that the religious part of you is saddened.
You have no idea, by the way, of how much the humanitarian part of me is saddened by your position.
I have as many humanitarian concerns as you do, Dog.
Not especially.
In fact, I think it is a rather self-serving, smarmy summary.
There is no need to summarize what I say. I write as I speak...and I speak very clearly.
Note: This is the second reply to the post by Frank Apisa on 9-2-05, 2:44 am. I am unsure why my 1st reply was not posted. BD1
Quote:"With that knowledge, "advocating" is my big issue here, and probably because of our non-accountable society. As you know, I believe that all living fetuses constitute "life". Therefore a human-fetus is a human-life."
Essentially that last sentence says that because you "believe" that all living fetuses constitute life...it is life. Well...your "beliefs" are not the determinant of what is and what is not.
The fact that I "believe" it to be true coincides with reality, just as one may say: "A fetus is a fetus". The point of the associated statement is not about "belief"; that's just a diversion from the issue. The issues are whether or not a human-fetus is human-life and whether or not a fetus is a fetus. Both cases happen to be true and real as proven by science, no matter who believes it or not.
Quote:But you are stuck in that mode...and if you want to suppose it is comparable to your assumption that because you "believe" something it is so...do that.
See above.
Quote:I am not interested in your "beliefs"...whether they are strongly held or not. They are, at their core...guesses. And I am not sure of just how good a guesser you are.
Please stop dodging the point of my statements and offer your opinion on said subject. Those who read this would like to see your answers/opinions to my direct questions and statements, not further diversion.
Quote:This is so illogical and contrived...I will not respond further than I already have.
Another case of diversion.
Or else you're seriously out of touch with mainstream America. I deal with kids of all ages, sizes, races, backgrounds, etc. on a regular basis, and there is nothing illogical or contrived about my example. It is based on real-life!
Quote:As I mentioned...I support a president's right to commit troops and to set foreign policy...even though I have lots of "problems" with the way our present president is doing so. That does not stop me from supporting his right to do it....and if it appears that he does it because there are many of us who support his right to do so...so be it.
I know you're not attempting to compare the decision making process of the president and his staff to a 17 year old girl who kills a human-fetus-life because of inconvenience or peer pressure! That is absurd.
Quote:No...I suspect it is the religious part of you. And I am not especially concerned that the religious part of you is saddened.
I was wondering when you would pull the religion-card out and play it.
It's one of your MO's and you hadn't done it with me yet.
To clearly answer your assertion; NO - this is not "the religious part of me" coming out. If/when I choose to include religion, you won't need to "suspect" what I'm saying, it will be evident!
Quote:You have no idea, by the way, of how much the humanitarian part of me is saddened by your position.
Saddened by what? And how much? Please explain.
Quote:I have as many humanitarian concerns as you do, Dog.
I have many Frank!
Quote:Not especially.
In fact, I think it is a rather self-serving, smarmy summary.
How am I self-serving? I cannot even give birth, much less consider whether or not to have an abortion.
Quote:There is no need to summarize what I say. I write as I speak...and I speak very clearly.
You certainly don't have to summarize anything, and you do speak clearly. Summaries are commonly utilized in all forms of conversation - from debates to marriage vows to newscasts. It was a reasonable request.
Aw, how sweet - Apisa done gone and made yet another friend...
Quote:Aw, how sweet - Apisa done gone and made yet another friend...
Snood: That's pretty funny! :wink:
Frank:
I enjoyed the discussion while it was on-topic, however I have no further interest in debating about the definition of "belief", "opinion", et al. It's a waste of time and not pertinent to the original topic. There are common courtesies involved in all forms of conversation including debates and you're a bit over the edge for me in that regard. This particular topic is much more serious (to me) than worrying about whether to use belief or opinion in the dialogue. From what I've seen, you very much enjoy voicing your opinion on several topics in this forum and when someone presents an opinion and/or evidence different than yours, the diversions to wordage, religion, etc. pop up. Everyone gets their jollies from something, and this works for you. It doesn't for me.
As to further discussion about this topic (with you) - I see no point. Our opinions differ, for different reasons. You have your personal agenda and I have mine, so we'll just move on.
BD1
Quote:Aw, how sweet - Apisa done gone and made yet another friend...
Snood: That's pretty funny! :wink:
Frank:
I enjoyed the discussion while it was on-topic, however I have no further interest in debating about the definition of "belief", "opinion", et al. It's a waste of time and not pertinent to the original topic. There are common courtesies involved in all forms of conversation including debates and you're a bit over the edge for me in that regard. This particular topic is much more serious (to me) than worrying about whether to use belief or opinion in the dialogue. From what I've seen, you very much enjoy voicing your opinion on several topics in this forum and when someone presents an opinion and/or evidence different than yours, the diversions to wordage, religion, etc. pop up. Everyone gets their jollies from something, and this works for you. It doesn't for me.
As to further discussion about this topic (with you) - I see no point. Our opinions differ, for different reasons. You have your personal agenda and I have mine, so we'll just move on.
BD1
Foxfyre wrote:It is as disingenous to use those ancient texts as evidence of what modern Christians or Jews believe and teach as it is disingenuous to use the old scientific texts as evidence of what science teaches today. Do a tiny minority of believers still believe those old texts are to be taken literally today? Yes they do. And there is still a flat earth society too. But only the dishonest or ignorant will hold out the exception as evidence to condemn the whole.
In another thread here I posted this letter.
Quote:An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook.
Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible - the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.
To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our creator.
To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.
We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.
We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
I thought it was a good step to help counter the noisy "few" that are trying to force their religious views into our educational system.
It was pointed out to me that the 7000+ signatures that have been obtained so far are few in comparison to the nearly 500,000 clergy in the US.
Would you care to comment on the letter?
baddog1 wrote:Quote:Aw, how sweet - Apisa done gone and made yet another friend...
Snood: That's pretty funny! :wink:
Frank:
I enjoyed the discussion while it was on-topic, however I have no further interest in debating about the definition of "belief", "opinion", et al. It's a waste of time and not pertinent to the original topic. There are common courtesies involved in all forms of conversation including debates and you're a bit over the edge for me in that regard. This particular topic is much more serious (to me) than worrying about whether to use belief or opinion in the dialogue. From what I've seen, you very much enjoy voicing your opinion on several topics in this forum and when someone presents an opinion and/or evidence different than yours, the diversions to wordage, religion, etc. pop up. Everyone gets their jollies from something, and this works for you. It doesn't for me.
As to further discussion about this topic (with you) - I see no point. Our opinions differ, for different reasons. You have your personal agenda and I have mine, so we'll just move on.
BD1
The ultimate dodge.......just when it was getting fun.
Yeah, I guess one man's beating his head against a wall is another man's fun. To each their own.
The ultimate dodge.......just when it was getting fun.
It has been fun.
If you change your mind...stop back.
Otherwise...I'm sure I will see you around in other threads.
As long as I am hiding in a womb, am I void of the law?
The possibilites are endless...right now I'm thinking of the atrocities that I could commit...forget going to Mexico, I'll just hide in some lady to get the law off my back.
Seriously though Frank, what is the difference between a developing human inside a womb, and one who is outside.
Does it change him/her?
The only difference I see, is that one baby is dependent on the conditions of the mother's insides, and the other can make it outside.
...well, abortion (or a discussion of it) has raised its ugly head in A2K once again.
In another thread...one of the religious fanatics is railing on and on about the savagery of abortion.
The advocates of reversing Roe v. Wade (mostly zealot Christians) keep railing on about how there is a heartbeat and there are brain waves....so there has to be, in their opinions, a "living human being."
Well...it is my opinion that a human embryo or fetus is no more a "living human being" than an egg is a chicken. And the fact that there is movement (rudimentary heart beats or brain waves) does not change that one whit.
But there is one facet...one question...of the debate that seems to get very short shrift from the Christian apologists.
From the Christian perspective...even if there were a living individual there....(something there is not!)...but even if there were a living individual there....what is the cost to that idividual in being aborted?
If the embryo is, as they are wont to insist, a living human being....the same thing happens to it as happens to every human being when it dies.
So what happens to it?
It is totally innocent....absolutely without any sins (except the Original Sin nonsense)...and it seems completely logical, from this Christian perspective, to suppose its soul instantly gets a free pass into Heaven...and it begins its eternity in complete bliss with the god the Christians worship.
So what is the problem?
Where is the foul?
Any of you Christians want to discuss this?
Frank Apisa wrote:...well, abortion (or a discussion of it) has raised its ugly head in A2K once again.
In another thread...one of the religious fanatics is railing on and on about the savagery of abortion.
The advocates of reversing Roe v. Wade (mostly zealot Christians) keep railing on about how there is a heartbeat and there are brain waves....so there has to be, in their opinions, a "living human being."
Well...it is my opinion that a human embryo or fetus is no more a "living human being" than an egg is a chicken. And the fact that there is movement (rudimentary heart beats or brain waves) does not change that one whit.
But there is one facet...one question...of the debate that seems to get very short shrift from the Christian apologists.
From the Christian perspective...even if there were a living individual there....(something there is not!)...but even if there were a living individual there....what is the cost to that idividual in being aborted?
If the embryo is, as they are wont to insist, a living human being....the same thing happens to it as happens to every human being when it dies.
So what happens to it?
It is totally innocent....absolutely without any sins (except the Original Sin nonsense)...and it seems completely logical, from this Christian perspective, to suppose its soul instantly gets a free pass into Heaven...and it begins its eternity in complete bliss with the god the Christians worship.
So what is the problem?
Where is the foul?
Any of you Christians want to discuss this?
Hmm ... totally innocent, absolutely without any sins (except the Original Sin nonsense).
I would expect that those Christians who believe that original sin is *not* nonsense, would take issue with your attempt to remove one of their reasons for claiming that abortion is bad. IOW, if original sin is not nonsense, then there is at least *one* reason why they wouldn't want people performing abortions.
I
Implicator wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:...well, abortion (or a discussion of it) has raised its ugly head in A2K once again.
In another thread...one of the religious fanatics is railing on and on about the savagery of abortion.
The advocates of reversing Roe v. Wade (mostly zealot Christians) keep railing on about how there is a heartbeat and there are brain waves....so there has to be, in their opinions, a "living human being."
Well...it is my opinion that a human embryo or fetus is no more a "living human being" than an egg is a chicken. And the fact that there is movement (rudimentary heart beats or brain waves) does not change that one whit.
But there is one facet...one question...of the debate that seems to get very short shrift from the Christian apologists.
From the Christian perspective...even if there were a living individual there....(something there is not!)...but even if there were a living individual there....what is the cost to that idividual in being aborted?
If the embryo is, as they are wont to insist, a living human being....the same thing happens to it as happens to every human being when it dies.
So what happens to it?
It is totally innocent....absolutely without any sins (except the Original Sin nonsense)...and it seems completely logical, from this Christian perspective, to suppose its soul instantly gets a free pass into Heaven...and it begins its eternity in complete bliss with the god the Christians worship.
So what is the problem?
Where is the foul?
Any of you Christians want to discuss this?
Hmm ... totally innocent, absolutely without any sins (except the Original Sin nonsense).
I would expect that those Christians who believe that original sin is *not* nonsense, would take issue with your attempt to remove one of their reasons for claiming that abortion is bad. IOW, if original sin is not nonsense, then there is at least *one* reason why they wouldn't want people performing abortions.
I
Ah, yes.
And I am willing to discuss a god that will not have a baby's soul in its presence because of something that the baby's great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents did.
Yes...that would be fun.
