When Does Life Begin?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I'll answer it!

1) Abortion - Yes but with limitations. The current UK legal stance on abortions is fine as it is.
2) Adoption - I'm all for it, but with obvious restrictions to ensure the parents are worthy of adopting a son/daughter.
3) SCNT embryonic stem cell research - Yup, absolutely for it.
4) IVF - Frankly, I think they should go for adoption instead, but I'm not really against it.
5) Iraq war - against it.
6) Darfur intervention - Definitely for it, but it has to be planned out well and not like that Iraq debacle.

Thanks!
K
O

0 Replies

I will answer as well. However, I will answer as asked with a simple for or against rather than cloud it with comments although I don't know what you expect this "survey" to produce. And, no I did not feel left out.

1) Abortion - Against
2) Adoption - For
3) SCNT embryonic stem cell research - Against
4) IVF - For
5) Iraq war - Against
6) Darfur intervention - For peacekeeping

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

I will answer as well. However, I will answer as asked with a simple for or against rather than cloud it with comments although I don't know what you expect this "survey" to produce. And, no I did not feel left out.

1) Abortion - Against
2) Adoption - For
3) SCNT embryonic stem cell research - Against
4) IVF - For
5) Iraq war - Against
6) Darfur intervention - For peacekeeping

The purpose of my survey which you questioned earlier comes when you can answer why you support IVF but not SCNT.

I alos forgot a question. I can't believe I forgot. Being that you are for adoption, are you also for same sex couples having adoption rights?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
I will answer as well. However, I will answer as asked with a simple for or against rather than cloud it with comments although I don't know what you expect this "survey" to produce. And, no I did not feel left out.

1) Abortion - Against
2) Adoption - For
3) SCNT embryonic stem cell research - Against
4) IVF - For
5) Iraq war - Against
6) Darfur intervention - For peacekeeping

The purpose of my survey which you questioned earlier comes when you can answer why you support IVF but not SCNT.

I alos forgot a question. I can't believe I forgot. Being that you are for adoption, are you also for same sex couples having adoption rights?

T
K
O

Your last question first begs the question on whether same sex couples should be an issue. Are you speaking of same sex married couples?

I may be wrong, but I think that unmarried people of opposite sex cannot adopt. If this is correct, I would look at the same for same sex couples.

I don't condone same sex couples, but I certainly have no objection to the lifestyle that they choose.

The bottom line would be....I would agree with same sex couples adopting children if they are married.

The reason that I accept IVF is that an unfertilized egg is used with an attempt to fertilize it. This is an attempt to create life where none exists.

Frankly, I am somewhat torn on SCNT and maybe I don't understand enough about it. Until I could be convinced otherwise, I will stand with my original answer.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
. . . Fess up religionists you cannot show the bible defines what is or is not human! . . .
David wrote:
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 139:16)
Nope no skin cells mentioned. No cloning mentioned either. For that matter the scripture you quote is very dubious in its translation, and naturally enough your claims of a viable argument that the bible defines what is or is not human. In fact many "understand" Psalm 139:16 to teach predestination. Many also view this as biblical "proof" for the omniscience of god.

Psalm 139:16 Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed. -NRSV

In any case the Hebrew text of Psalm 139:16 has asterisks toward the end of the verse indicating serious problems with the text. Various ways of reconstructing or understanding the verse account for a variety of ways this verse is translated.

http://www.crivoice.org/psa139.html

Perhaps most entertaining however is the implicit and explicit logical fallacy called argument by authority when quoting the bible.

You asked for what the bible said, Sparky.

0 Replies

With most abortions that occur:

Abortion does not give a child hope in finding a family of it's own as does adoption!

Abortion does not give the sick hope in possible technological breakthroughs that may provide a cure as postulated by some that stem cell research does!

Abortion does not give hope that a woman can carry a child of her own as with IVF and have a family!

Abortion does not free anyone from a dictorial rule and give people a chance at democracy giving hope!

Abortion does not prevent or stop genocide but may reflect it.

What grand hope does abortion give with most all cases? What hope that amount to any of these?

Abortion does none of this! Not even close......

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Intrepid - Yes it's a game. It's a big riddle of mine, and yes I expect participation. It's not trivial, and the survey is a quick collection of questions I have asked in this thread or other abortion related threads here on A2K. If you are to be held accountable for your beliefs, you have to put them out for display. BTW, you're welcome to answer as well, if you were feeling left out.

The point is simple. If you truly believe what yu believe, you should be ready to defend it.

Reposted as per request. I had to go back 20 pages to get this, iexpect it answered. Note the colored word.

Diest TKO wrote:
Bart - A direct survey for you. You want me to be nice again, you'll answer it without question.

Answer for or against for the following topics.

1) Abortion
2) Adoption
3) SCNT embryonic stem cell research
4) IVF
5) Iraq war
6) Darfur intervention

Answer and answer promptly.

T
K
O

Look at the way you addressed me here and singled me out...shouting and harping on me to answer.....

Calling me a coward.....?

When you had yet filled out your own survey or asked or demanded....WITHOUT QUESTION....anyone else to answer!

you still have'nt....

I ask you to simply take the remark back. Take as much time and thought to answer as you need!

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
. . . Fess up religionists you cannot show the bible defines what is or is not human! . . .
David wrote:
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 139:16)
Nope no skin cells mentioned. No cloning mentioned either. For that matter the scripture you quote is very dubious in its translation, and naturally enough your claims of a viable argument that the bible defines what is or is not human. In fact many "understand" Psalm 139:16 to teach predestination. Many also view this as biblical "proof" for the omniscience of god.

Psalm 139:16 Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed. -NRSV

In any case the Hebrew text of Psalm 139:16 has asterisks toward the end of the verse indicating serious problems with the text. Various ways of reconstructing or understanding the verse account for a variety of ways this verse is translated.

http://www.crivoice.org/psa139.html

Perhaps most entertaining however is the implicit and explicit logical fallacy called argument by authority when quoting the bible.
You asked for what the bible said, Sparky.

Right you are, it's just a question then of what the bible says.

My understanding is that your interpretation is far from the only one, and other interpretations are quite different than yours.

These other interpretations are not only popular but appear to have as least as much substance in their interpretative rationale as does your interpretation.

So I ask: by what superior interpretative rationale do you infer that your response provides for "what the bible said"? And thusly by default the other as discussed interpretations do not provide for "what the bible said".

0 Replies

You are speaking as though you expect that the bible is the final and definitive answer to the question. Shocked

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

You are speaking as though you expect that the bible is the final and definitive answer to the question.

Sorry no, you are simply playing the Straw Man logical fallacy card by making such a specious claim.

If you want to be a bit less pedestrian and predictable, I suggest boning up on some of the less shop-worn logical fallacies.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
You are speaking as though you expect that the bible is the final and definitive answer to the question.
Sorry no, you are simply playing the Straw Man logical fallacy card by making such a specious claim.

If you want to be a bit less pedestrian and predictable, I suggest boning up on some of the less shop-worn logical fallacies.

C'mon, Chumply, You are the one who brings up bible claims and then refutes whatever others say about it. Please try to be a little more clever and a little less pedestrian in your comments. Your tact is to attack everything that Neo says with your own form of straw man.

0 Replies

Yeah, what Intrepid said.

You asked what the bible had to say

I told you

Then you said there were other interpretations

But you have not mentioned them.

I suggest boning up on your understanding of logical fallacies which you commit as often as you 'discover' in others.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
You are speaking as though you expect that the bible is the final and definitive answer to the question.
Sorry no, you are simply playing the Straw Man logical fallacy card by making such a specious claim.

If you want to be a bit less pedestrian and predictable, I suggest boning up on some of the less shop-worn logical fallacies.

C'mon, Chumply, You are the one who brings up bible claims and then refutes whatever others say about it. Please try to be a little more clever and a little less pedestrian in your comments. Your tact is to attack everything that Neo says with your own form of straw man.

Now you move a bit into ad hominem logical fallacy territory whereby you attack me instead of trying to support your specious claim.

Go ahead, show me how you came to the conclusion that I spoke as though the bible is the final and definitive answer to the question.

0 Replies

Because you keep referring to it and then attacking those who try to answer on it?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Yeah, what Intrepid said..

Argumentum ad Populum logical fallacy: one potato two potato three potato four five potato six potato seven potato more.........

neologist wrote:

You asked what the bible had to say

Straw Man logical fallacy Mr. Potato! What I said was " . . Fess up religionists you cannot show the bible defines what is or is not human! . . ." Sorry that is not the same at all.

neologist wrote:

I told you

Argument From Authority logical fallacy unless you can show that what you say is how the bible should be understood.

neologist wrote:

Then you said there were other interpretations

Yes in fact I did say that, good for you in getting that right.

neologist wrote:

But you have not mentioned them.

You are now making a false claim which I might well assume you are doing intentionally, as I did give other examples in the very post in question.

I in fact said the psalm in question is often interpreted to refer to your Christian god's presumed omniscience.

Howz-bout something more challenging from the peanut gallery than that which simply relies on remembering a prior post or two, and thusly exposing a few of worn-out logical fallacies; something with some zip howz-bout?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Because you keep referring to it and then attacking those who try to answer on it?

Nupe, that is simply a clichéd rhetorical version of the Straw Man logical fallacy and as such it does not show your reasoning in terms of how you came to the conclusion that I spoke as though the bible is the final and definitive answer to the question.

As I said to neo as I say to you: howz-bout something more challenging from the peanut gallery than that which simply relies on remembering a prior post or two, and thusly exposing a few of worn-out logical fallacies; something with some zip howz-bout?

0 Replies

Why don't you guys take up the challenge vis a vis my views about what a human being is and the modified Turing Test?. That might keep the Christian hornet's nest buzzing for a slight spell.

0 Replies

I have plainly stated that I consider life to begin with conception. I don't know how it can be any clearer than that. Even you, Chumly, should be able to understand that.

There is no further discussion needed on that point. I am not trying to convince you to change your mind or force my opinions onto you. You can accept my opinion or dismiss it. I don't really care either way.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Argument From Authority logical fallacy unless you can show that what you say is how the bible should be understood

Did I say that? Or did I just give you a relevant quote from the bible?

Sorry, but again you are dishing up argumentum ad smorgasbordium.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know