0
   

When Does Life Begin?

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 10:28 am
Would you prefer to use the word 'axiom' instead of 'premise?'
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 02:30 pm
I understand the need for the axiomatic and that the words axiom, postulate and assumption are interchangeable.

I am only willing to accept mutually agreed upon axioms, of which the following are not inclusive:

1) a fertilized egg is a human being
2) there is a god
3) intuition is obvious

I suggest the word theorem. Theorems can be derived from deduction and are demonstrable with proof.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 01:43 am
All you posters may be amused by this thread where I tacitly argue against god's nonexistence (well at least I do nearer the end)!

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=107389&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 03:34 pm
JPB wrote:
Where does that say that a near-term woman can change her mind and have an abortion on demand?


Why could she not?
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 11:19 pm
Because it's a person then?

I still cannot logically and rationally understand how the unborn under law can be given the Constitutional protection of a right to life and under the law not be given it at the same time?

Regarded as a human with rights by government and others.... none?

Does this make any logical sense? Do they have rights or not?

If the woman wants to carry it....it's a human child with rights? If not....no rights?

Is this what women are told at planned parenthood? If they ask if it's a human being or unborn child....does PP say "Well that depends on if you want it or not"?

I think not. Then PP would be somewhat misleading women now would'nt they?

PP would not have the right to tell a woman whether the unborn had a right to life or not or whether it was a child or not since it's the woman's choice that decides what it is in the first place.... right?

Do you see the inconsistency here?

There is only one way to resolve these inconsistencies!

Which way do you see?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 12:42 am
Your failure to understand, is just that: Your failure, not the system.

Not Roe v Wade

Not a law that defines legal definition for offences to the unborn.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 12:45 am
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life016.html
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 12:47 am
How ya bean TKO?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 12:48 am
How ya bean Barty?
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 12:48 am
Diest TKO wrote:
Your failure to understand, is just that: Your failure, not the system.

Not Roe v Wade

Not a law that defines legal definition for offences to the unborn.

T
K
O


Although I do not see the logic or rationale behind it......

I understand it more than you know.

Thanx for your answers..
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 12:53 am
Chumly wrote:
How ya bean Barty?


Good, and you ol' chum?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 12:57 am
Chumly wrote:
How ya bean TKO?


Vanilla bean icecream, with warm apple pie.

Thanksgiving = great foods.
K
O
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 01:10 am
To TKO & Barty:

I have the flu real bad and I have drifted off to other threads. Not that I don't pop in from time to time to see if you guys have solved the entire world's problems yet.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 02:11 am
I missed the Turkey this year, because I was in Tibet. Sure miss them good 'ole Merican food!
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 08:33 am
Bartikus wrote:
.....how the unborn under law can be given the Constitutional protection of a right to life and under the law not be given it at the same time?


An inevitable legal showdown has been set up.

Either the unborn can have protection as a person under the law, or he cannot.

The current schizophrenia cannot remain.

If the unborn is not a person, then it cannot be the 'victim' of anything (assault and battery, murder, etc) .

So if a man kills a pregnant woman, he can only be liable for one death , not two.

Radical pro-aborts agree that this is so, but they are often afraid to say so because they know there is little public support for their contorted position.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 08:39 am
real life wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
.....how the unborn under law can be given the Constitutional protection of a right to life and under the law not be given it at the same time?


An inevitable legal showdown has been set up.

Either the unborn can have protection as a person under the law, or he cannot.

The current schizophrenia cannot remain.

If the unborn is not a person, then it cannot be the 'victim' of anything (assault and battery, murder, etc) .

real, You are wrong; there was a recent case in California where the man killed his pregnant wife, and he wes charged with double murder.

So if a man kills a pregnant woman, he can only be liable for one death , not two.

Radical pro-aborts agree that this is so, but they are often afraid to say so because they know there is little public support for their contorted position.


real, Can't you get anything right? Have you ever heard of Laci Peterson?

http://www.lifenews.com/nat1037b.html
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 09:53 am
I told ya to get a flu shot, Chumly
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 10:04 am
Chumly wrote:
To TKO & Barty:

I have the flu real bad and I have drifted off to other threads. Not that I don't pop in from time to time to see if you guys have solved the entire world's problems yet.


Get better soon... no, get better now!

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 10:46 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
real life wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
.....how the unborn under law can be given the Constitutional protection of a right to life and under the law not be given it at the same time?


An inevitable legal showdown has been set up.

Either the unborn can have protection as a person under the law, or he cannot.

The current schizophrenia cannot remain.

If the unborn is not a person, then it cannot be the 'victim' of anything (assault and battery, murder, etc) .

real, You are wrong; there was a recent case in California where the man killed his pregnant wife, and he wes charged with double murder.

So if a man kills a pregnant woman, he can only be liable for one death , not two.

Radical pro-aborts agree that this is so, but they are often afraid to say so because they know there is little public support for their contorted position.


real, Can't you get anything right? Have you ever heard of Laci Peterson?

http://www.lifenews.com/nat1037b.html


How can Scott Peterson be charged with the murder of his 'son' Conner if Conner is not a person, since he had not yet been born?

You support abortion up till the time of birth, Imposter.

If Laci had killed (aborted) Conner , it would not have been illegal would it?
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 12:57 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I missed the Turkey this year, because I was in Tibet. Sure miss them good 'ole Merican food!


I had enough for ya. I'm still recovering.
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. » When Does Life Begin?
  3. » Page 153
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 08:20:31