real life wrote:Doktor S wrote:real life wrote:Doktor S wrote:Quote:
Then they must not be 'hard wired' correctly? You have physical evidence of that, or just your opinion? Specifically what 'wiring' is not correct?
My opinion, supported by the volumous collection of information that constitutes evolutionary theory.
Deviations/mutations aren't always beneficial but natural selection has a way of eliminating self destructive memes.
So if you have specific physical evidence that people who kill their children aren't 'hard wired' correctly, then out with it.
Put it on the table.
Otherwise you are simply blowing smoke.
You miss the point completely. There is no 'correctly'. That implies some ultimate design to be lived up to. That's your style not mine.
There is what works and furthers genetic material, and what doesn't.
Killing your children is counterproductive behavior in this respect, obviously. I wouldn't think you would need this explained to you.
Your claim is that 'evolution' has 'hard wired' humans to produce a certain behavior.
When I point out that some humans do the opposite, you are unable to substantiate your claim with any real evidence of 'hard wiring'.
Only your opinion gets repeated over and over.
It is about what I expected really. I just thought it might be entertaining if you tried to produce evidence to back your claim.
But actually it has been a lot of fun watching you back away from your own words.
You certainly have an aptitude for putting a creative spin on reality, I will give you that.
hi Diest
Did you really think I was saying that ABORTION is the killing of a NEWBORN?
C'mon.
Also you certainly seem to be backing away from your reliance on 'majority of scientific opinion' since I 'dared' to tell you how bogus your argument was.
Yeah how dare I. What a bloated ego you must have.
As for abortion being , 'none of my business' because 'it doesn't affect me', that has got to be the lamest argument I've heard.
You'd better stick to outer space, because you're not doing so well with logic.
As for what you find 'amoral' ........... please.
You believe ALL morality is subjective. So who cares what you think is 'amoral'.
To you, EVERYTHING is, or can be, depending on one's opinion.
So yours is a circular argument, by your own admission. 'I think you're wrong because I think you're wrong.'
Like I said, stick to outer space.
...If one is so concerned about the unborn, why not more about infanticide in India and China, or the killing fields of Sudan?
My arguement is has never been "I think you're wrong because I think you're wrong." My arguement has been: "It doesn't matter if you think it's wrong, it's not your bussiness." There is nothing circular about my arguement.
RL, here's what I think of you're articles
The first article follows a group of 6 "cute blonde soroity girls" and asks their opinion. It doesn't ask different people from different communities. Finding six friends that believe similar things isn't hard to do if it helps you're story, especially if thier in a sorority, a common place for "group think." The article makes little meantion of male opinion. One of the girls even has used the morning after pill! That makes her and abortionist I'm sure. But wait? her friends didn't seem to object.
The article talks about a drop from 64% to 55% of incoming freshmen reporting that they are pro-choice. It credits that to numerous things but cites that this gereration has more confidence in their birthcontrol options and don't feel that they will be forced to make a choice. As for polling incoming freshmen, that's more of a measure of what american households have taught their children, i.e.- old generation teaches new generation. In college, I'd be comfortable saying that people become more pro-choice as they realize the scope of politics and where they fit. Once outside of the the "My daddy sez were Republicans" life that many people experiance, I think people learn to think for themselves. I'd like to see a poll of exiting seniors opinions.
The Second article also makes no meantion of male opinion. On top of that, it interviews strongly opinionated college females on organizations that lobby for such things. Further, the article basically makes the point that most pro-choice females (women) don't feel that the issue is as important as other political issues and they feel confident that their rights won't be threatened any time soon.
No time to read the rest right now, I'm sure their much the same.
"I've seen the numbers and I find them unbelievably shocking," says Alexander Sanger, chairman of the International Planned Parenthood Council (and grandson of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger)."Isn't it obvious that young women have to be at the forefront of fighting for their reproductive rights because they're the ones who need them?" On his tours of college campuses, he has noticed that numerous campuses no longer have a pro-choice group. But he has yet to visit one that doesn't have a strong, vocal faction of pro-life women turning out to hear him speak. "It's not just the numbers that are down among pro-choice women," he says. "It's the enthusiasm."
"In Corpus, where we grew up, there now are a lot more kids who would say that they were pro-life, and be able to talk about why, than there were when Amy was younger," says Kristen. Survey after survey backs her up and proves it's a nationwide trend. In 1993 just about half of women between the ages of 18 and 29 said abortion should be available to anyone who wants it, according to a CBS/ New York Times poll; 10 years later, in 2003, the number of young women who felt that way dropped to 35 percent.
Pretending that no one but the woman is affected by abortion is 'politically correct', but logically false.
Do you have ANY medical evidence that the unborn is not a living human being?
Your inability to answer this reveals the lie behind your position.
Diest TKO wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
My arguement is has never been "I think you're wrong because I think you're wrong." My arguement has been: "It doesn't matter if you think it's wrong, it's not your bussiness." There is nothing circular about my arguement.
Which is another way of saying 'it doesn't matter if you think it's wrong, because it doesn't matter if YOU think it's wrong'
Circular.
Your political sloganeering (Don't like abortion? Don't have one.) passes for intelligent discourse on the playground. But in reality, it's a pathetic dodge.
How about:
Don't like rape? Don't be a rapist.
Don't like theft? Don't be a thief.
i believe if a woman jus goes out and **** all the time she shud have to raise but if she gets raped she shud be able to have an abortion
real life wrote:
Pretending that no one but the woman is affected by abortion is 'politically correct', but logically false.
Do you have ANY medical evidence that the unborn is not a living human being?
Your inability to answer this reveals the lie behind your position.
1) Explain how you are effected? Otherwise it's sound. It might have an emotional "affect" on you, but it doesn't effect you at all. Keep to your own bussiness.
Here in Missouri, Amendment 2 passed.
Stem cells derived from embryos have the greatest potential to become a wide range of other cells found in various tissues and organs within the body. Based on research conducted to date, stem cells derived from adult tissues appear to have a more limited potential, as they are not able to differentiate as widely, often confined to reproducing cells identical to the those found in the tissue from which they were harvested.
indefinitely in the laboratory.
Embryonic stem cells are taken from embryos that come from eggs fertilised in an IVF (in vitro fertilisation) clinic. Spare embryos that are not required for implantation are used. They are donated for research purposes only with informed consent from the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilised within a woman's body as it is illegal in Australia to conduct any type of research on embryos that are conceived naturally. Embryos cannot be specifically created for research purposes.
top stem cell researchers have welcomed the bill, which lifts a ban on therapeutic cloning by allowing the creation of human embryos specifically for research.
The bill, which will now go before the House of Representatives, allows a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).
This involves removing the nucleus from an egg and replacing it with one from a non-reproductive body cell, of a patient for example, to produce an embryo, the same method used to produce Dolly the sheep.
Under the bill, narrowly passed by two votes in the Senate, SCNT embryos will not be implanted, but used to produce embryonic stem cells and then destroyed after 14 days.
Diest TKO wrote:real life wrote:
Pretending that no one but the woman is affected by abortion is 'politically correct', but logically false.
Do you have ANY medical evidence that the unborn is not a living human being?
Your inability to answer this reveals the lie behind your position.
1) Explain how you are effected? Otherwise it's sound. It might have an emotional "affect" on you, but it doesn't effect you at all. Keep to your own bussiness.
Since I'm a guy, why should I care if there are laws against rape? It doesn't affect me.
Since I'm poor, why should I care if there are laws against stealing from the rich? It doesn't affect me.
Since I'm white, why should I care if there are laws protecting blacks? It doesn't affect me.
These are all consistent with your view that I 'should mind my own business.'
That is to say, they are illogical.
$30 million and a pack of lies bought an amendment.
I commended you, and still do , for at least being honest enough to call it cloning. It is.
The proponents of A2 are lying profiteers, creating human beings and destroying them in the name of research, while denying that what they support is cloning.
You should be ashamed of being associated with them. But I can see you are not. The end must justify the means in the minds of the supporters.
Embryonic stem cell results cannot hold a candle to adult stem cell results. Why aren't you supporting what is proven and what works?
Since I'm a guy, why should I care if there are laws against rape? It doesn't affect me.
Since I'm poor, why should I care if there are laws against stealing from the rich? It doesn't affect me.
Since I'm white, why should I care if there are laws protecting blacks? It doesn't affect me.
These are all consistent with your view that I 'should mind my own business.'
That is to say, they are illogical.
LOL. I knew you'd eventually say something stupid like this. You make me laugh.
You're retort presurposes that rape, theft, and hate crimes are only the issues of the respective female, rich, and black communities. You're an idiot.
1) You don't have to be rich to need laws against theft.
2) You don't need to be black (you could be *ahem* Asian) to uphold that slavery is wrong.
3) And lastly you certainly don't have to be a woman to be raped.
You honestly never let me down. I'm adding this to the list of stupid things you've said.Since I'm a guy, why should I care if there are laws against rape? It doesn't affect me.
Since I'm poor, why should I care if there are laws against stealing from the rich? It doesn't affect me.
Since I'm white, why should I care if there are laws protecting blacks? It doesn't affect me.
These are all consistent with your view that I 'should mind my own business.'
That is to say, they are illogical.
LOL. I knew you'd eventually say something stupid like this. You make me laugh.
You're retort presurposes that rape, theft, and hate crimes are only the issues of the respective female, rich, and black communities. You're an idiot.
1) You don't have to be rich to need laws against theft.
2) You don't need to be black (you could be *ahem* Asian) to uphold that slavery is wrong.
3) And lastly you certainly don't have to be a woman to be raped.
You honestly never let me down. I'm adding this to the list of stupid things you've said.
