When Does Life Begin?

This report from the UN lists poor nutrition as being contributory[/b] to the deaths of 5.6 million children per year.

About half of the 30,000 per day figure that CI has tried to sell us.

In addition, it does not say that inadequate nutrition was the direct cause of death , i.e. they starved, but only that it contributed. Starvation would certainly be part of that but so would also a host of diseases, which might or might not be recovered from if one had adequate nutrition.

from http://www.undispatch.com/archives/2006/05/unicef_poor_nut_1.html

Quote:

2006
UNICEF: Poor nutrition kills millions of kids each year
"Poor nutrition contributes to the deaths of some 5.6 million children every year, and the world has fallen far short in efforts to reduce hunger by half before 2015, the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) said Tuesday. In its report, UNICEF said one of every four children under age 5, including 146 million children in the developing world, is underweight.

The most troublesome area in the world is South Asia, where 46 percent of children are underweight. India, Bangladesh and Pakistan account for half of the world's underweight children even though they have only 30 percent of the world's population of children under 5."

This story was the follow up on the one 6 months before, which again makes it clear that hunger was not always the primary cause, but was contributory.

from http://www.undispatch.com/archives/children/index.html

Quote:

r 22, 2005
Hunger Kills 6 Million Children a Year


"No developing region is on track to meet the international goal of reducing the number of hungry people by half, a UN agency has warned.

Nearly six million children die from hunger or malnutrition every year, the Food and Agriculture Organisation says. Many deaths result from treatable diseases such as diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria and measles, the agency says. They would survive if they had proper nourishment, the agency says in a new report on world hunger." [BBC]

On the other hand, the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion group, estimates the number of abortions worldwide at about 46 million per year(22% of 210 million pregnancies)

see http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_0599.html

In other words, abortion kills 7 times more children than hunger AND a number of major diseases together.

Things look a little different when you know the facts, don't they?

Not at all. But your stated viewpoint ought to be consistent with your own beliefs. In this case, it is not.

Why do you use a term like 'imperfect'? To you it can have no meaning, since you don't believe in anything 'perfect', right?

Also your stated viewpoint fails to show a contradiction in the Bible, since the Bible never refers to human emotions as 'imperfect'. This is an erroneous assumption on your part.

real life wrote:

Not at all. But your stated viewpoint ought to be consistent with your own beliefs. In this case, it is not.

Why do you use a term like 'imperfect'? To you it can have no meaning, since you don't believe in anything 'perfect', right?

Also your stated viewpoint fails to show a contradiction in the Bible, since the Bible never refers to human emotions as 'imperfect'. This is an erroneous assumption on your part.

As I said, yes I would if need be. But to assume that one would have the foreknowledge of one's 'certain' death is a fallacy. That is why your scenario does not truly reflect reality.

real life wrote:

As I said, yes I would if need be. But to assume that one would have the foreknowledge of one's 'certain' death is a fallacy. That is why your scenario does not truly reflect reality.

Of course it doesn't reflect reality. What we say we'd do and what we'd actually do are two different things. But I am convinced that there have been, and will be, situations in reality that are such that the one who saves a person must sacrifice his life to do so.

But I think precious few people would do that for someone they didn't know or care for.

Not at all. But your stated viewpoint ought to be consistent with your own beliefs. In this case, it is not.

Why do you use a term like 'imperfect'? To you it can have no meaning, since you don't believe in anything 'perfect', right?

Also your stated viewpoint fails to show a contradiction in the Bible, since the Bible never refers to human emotions as 'imperfect'. This is an erroneous assumption on your part.

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Not at all. But your stated viewpoint ought to be consistent with your own beliefs. In this case, it is not.

Why do you use a term like 'imperfect'? To you it can have no meaning, since you don't believe in anything 'perfect', right?

Also your stated viewpoint fails to show a contradiction in the Bible, since the Bible never refers to human emotions as 'imperfect'. This is an erroneous assumption on your part.

You used the term 'imperfect' in relation to your claim that God should not have 'imperfect' human emotions. Your statement was not about eggs, but about God.

Regarding hate, this is a verb which requires an object, does it not? What one hates would have relevance to whether the emotion was appropriate, it would seem.

A sizable portion of your latest claims presuppose the existence of a god with no proof to support it, whereas I have well countered your claims that Christianity does not abide by killing. The fact of the matter is that the bible if rife with deity approved death.

A sizable portion of your latest claims presuppose that the bible is to be taken as interpretive, whereas you previously have claimed it to be historical and accurate. How convenient for you to switch horses whenever it pleases you with no rationale beyond covering up all the murder and mayhem (presumably) directly / indirectly instituted by your god.

The fact of the matter is that the bible is rife with deity approved / instituted murder and mayhem and you have done nothing successful to counter that argument.

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Not at all. But your stated viewpoint ought to be consistent with your own beliefs. In this case, it is not.

Why do you use a term like 'imperfect'? To you it can have no meaning, since you don't believe in anything 'perfect', right?

Also your stated viewpoint fails to show a contradiction in the Bible, since the Bible never refers to human emotions as 'imperfect'. This is an erroneous assumption on your part.

You used the term 'imperfect' in relation to your claim that God should not have 'imperfect' human emotions. Your statement was not about eggs, but about God.

Regarding hate, this is a verb which requires an object, does it not? What one hates would have relevance to whether the emotion was appropriate, it would seem.

Nope you claimed perfection "can have no meaning, since you don't believe in anything 'perfect" and I have demonstrated the falseness of your trumped up claim. It's that simple.

As to your trumped up claims of hate, nope, I made no reference to hate needing to be "appropriate" you did.

I can't imagine you'll address my post directly and to the point, par for the course, oh well I guess it's the best you can do from a position of weakness.

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Not at all. But your stated viewpoint ought to be consistent with your own beliefs. In this case, it is not.

Why do you use a term like 'imperfect'? To you it can have no meaning, since you don't believe in anything 'perfect', right?

Also your stated viewpoint fails to show a contradiction in the Bible, since the Bible never refers to human emotions as 'imperfect'. This is an erroneous assumption on your part.

You used the term 'imperfect' in relation to your claim that God should not have 'imperfect' human emotions. Your statement was not about eggs, but about God.

Regarding hate, this is a verb which requires an object, does it not? What one hates would have relevance to whether the emotion was appropriate, it would seem.

Nope you claimed perfection "can have no meaning, since you don't believe in anything 'perfect" and I have demonstrated the falseness of your trumped up claim. It's that simple.

As to your trumped up claims of hate, nope, I made no reference to hate needing to be "appropriate" you did.

I can't imagine you'll address my post directly and to the point, par for the course, oh well I guess it's the best you can do from a position of weakness.

My point, which you missed addressing of course, is that you brought up the topic of 'perfect' and 'imperfect' in the context of morality, not eggs.

(Although unless you have a 'perfect' number of eggs, agreed upon as a standard, having an 'imperfect' number of eggs is also meaningless.)

The other point, which you also missed addressing entirely , is that 'hate' must have an object.

You want to know if 'hate' is 'perfect' or 'imperfect', and the obvious question that I brought up is 'Hate what[/i]?'

It should be self evident that hating injustice is not the same as hating people with big noses, for instance.

One type of hatred may be appropriate, commendable and not a disqualification for any standard of 'perfection', while another type of hatred can be inappropriate, worthy of condemnation and not consistent with 'perfection'.

I am sure that you actually do understand this.

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Not at all. But your stated viewpoint ought to be consistent with your own beliefs. In this case, it is not.

Why do you use a term like 'imperfect'? To you it can have no meaning, since you don't believe in anything 'perfect', right?

Also your stated viewpoint fails to show a contradiction in the Bible, since the Bible never refers to human emotions as 'imperfect'. This is an erroneous assumption on your part.

You used the term 'imperfect' in relation to your claim that God should not have 'imperfect' human emotions. Your statement was not about eggs, but about God.

Regarding hate, this is a verb which requires an object, does it not? What one hates would have relevance to whether the emotion was appropriate, it would seem.

Nope you claimed perfection "can have no meaning, since you don't believe in anything 'perfect" and I have demonstrated the falseness of your trumped up claim. It's that simple.

As to your trumped up claims of hate, nope, I made no reference to hate needing to be "appropriate" you did.

I can't imagine you'll address my post directly and to the point, par for the course, oh well I guess it's the best you can do from a position of weakness.

My point, which you missed addressing of course, is that you brought up the topic of 'perfect' and 'imperfect' in the context of morality, not eggs.

(Although unless you have a 'perfect' number of eggs, agreed upon as a standard, having an 'imperfect' number of eggs is also meaningless.)

The other point, which you also missed addressing entirely , is that 'hate' must have an object.

You want to know if 'hate' is 'perfect' or 'imperfect', and the obvious question that I brought up is 'Hate what[/i]?'

It should be self evident that hating injustice is not the same as hating people with big noses, for instance.

One type of hatred may be appropriate, commendable and not a disqualification for any standard of 'perfection', while another type of hatred can be inappropriate, worthy of condemnation and not consistent with 'perfection'.

I am sure that you actually do understand this.

I did not bring up the topic of 'perfect' and 'imperfect' in the context of morality, I brought it up in the within the context of the anthropomorphic providential perfect Christian god reference, not the same thing at all.

You are way off base when you say "that 'hate' must have an object" as I said given that the human emotions of anger and jealousy are in combination tantamount to hate.

I do not want to know if hate is perfect or imperfect, I asked you the above questions which you have failed to answer, no object needed the context is clear.

Given that I said the human emotions of anger and jealousy are in combination tantamount to hate it is wholly bizarre that you would misleadingly contextualize hating injustice as having relevance here.

The universe either began or has existed forever. If it had a beginning, then everything can trace itself back to a common origin before which there existed, literally, nothing at all; but, from nothing, nothing comes, so without God the universe didn't begin. So it has existed forever? Imagine that you have a goal to reach, and that there are an infinite number of steps that must be taken to reach that goal. Will you every reach the goal? No. What about the step right before the goal? No, because there are an infinite number or steps before it. The same is true of the step before the step before the goal... and before that, and on down the line. If the universe has existed forever, then we could never be in this moment, because there would have been an infinite(never-ending) number of moments, a never-ending amount of time, before now. Therefore, the universe must have begun. Therefore God must exist. The very fact that we are here, now, discussing proves it.

It was not I who "interpreted", but you. You took the passages out of context and the meaning of the passages was then automatically changed. I observed the meaning in the context that it was written in order to understand the meaning. That is the foundation of correctly understanding a historical text. Your counter falls on its face. You are the one guilty of your own accusations. You cannot justify murder and especially not abortion with the Bible. (do not confuse murder and killing and do not confuse man killing and God killing. otherwise, we'll be stuck at this all week!)

I guess it is a fine diversion for you, so that you do not have to support your claim that the examples you posted were representative of murder. I say again, they do not fit the definition of murder.

Sure, if you believe in an anthropomorphic providential perfect Christian god. Though why a perfect god has need of imperfect human emotions such as jealousy and anger is rather odd as are these imperfect human emotions manifesting themselves in deity approved / enabled / directed actions resulting in murder and mayhem (oops I mean death and destruction).