Life begins
when you are in my phonebook. :wink:
I can answer that; ZERO. He has some grandiose idea that his rhetoric has the power of god - or some such; out of touch with reality.
Religious fundamentalists do have real world power and influence in the US, if not all parts of the planet, that's why I asked.
Well, I see the same "power" and influence of Islam; both have extremists.
cicerone imposter wrote:real can't seem to get it through his head that he has no influence on other people's lives.
He's so concerned about the zygote, he's forgotten about all the children already living without food or shelter.
If he believes it's his responsibility to force his religous' beliefs on others at the zygote stage, specifically pregnant women, where's his concern about the living? What makes him think he can force his wishes on all women in this world? He's out of touch with the real world.
Fundamentally, it's none of his business.
Perhaps I've missed it - but where is RL
forcing his beliefs (religious or otherwise) on others? And please do your best to keep the hypocrisy to a minimum while doing this. :wink:
baddog, I should have said "trying to force" his religious' beliefs...
However, he's trying to "win" the argument by claiming that a zygote is a human baby, and abortion is murder. Why does he care for all zygotes? Some die naturally during or after birth.
He's trying to defeat Roe vs Wade to stop all abortions; that's where he leaves the world of reality behind.
In reality, in this world, women will continue to have abortions, infanticide in India, and over 13 million children without parents.
He's out of his freaking mind. If he really cares about "life," why isn't he doing anything about the living children?
cicerone imposter, writing about real life in particular but pro life in general wrote:
He's out of his freaking mind. If he really cares about "life," why isn't he doing anything about the living children?
To which I have repeatedly asked:
If he were to finance an orphanage and adopt several parentless or disabled children, would that change your opinion of when life begins?
If you answer no, then why do you belabor the point? Do you like herring? If you answer yes . . .
cicerone imposter wrote: I'm not the one trying to save all the zygotes, and I understand fully that I have no influence on others. That's my reality; life goes on, and I'm not trying to force women to have their babies by calling it "murder" if they decide on abortion. I'm not trying to overturn Roe vs Wade. What the woman decides is none of my business.
None of my business, either. All I am asking is for a morally consistent definition of human life.
neologist wrote:cicerone imposter wrote: I'm not the one trying to save all the zygotes, and I understand fully that I have no influence on others. That's my reality; life goes on, and I'm not trying to force women to have their babies by calling it "murder" if they decide on abortion. I'm not trying to overturn Roe vs Wade. What the woman decides is none of my business.
None of my business, either. All I am asking is for a morally consistent definition of human life.
Morally consistent? That sounds a lot like "I want the definition of life to be based on what my morals say - regardless of any medical or scientific evidence to the contrary"
Your "morally consistent" is based solely on your religious beliefs - which is an oxymoron from the start.
Have you stoned/killed any homosexuals lately?
neologist favors oxymorons.
cicerone imposter wrote:Your "morally consistent" is based solely on your religious beliefs - which is an oxymoron from the start.
Have you stoned/killed any homosexuals lately?
If I had would that mean a fertilized egg is human?
Does the fact that I have not mean that a fertilized egg is not human?
Or vice-verse. Which way is your herring swimming?
USAFHokie80 wrote:neologist wrote:cicerone imposter wrote: I'm not the one trying to save all the zygotes, and I understand fully that I have no influence on others. That's my reality; life goes on, and I'm not trying to force women to have their babies by calling it "murder" if they decide on abortion. I'm not trying to overturn Roe vs Wade. What the woman decides is none of my business.
None of my business, either. All I am asking is for a morally consistent definition of human life.
Morally consistent? That sounds a lot like "I want the definition of life to be based on what my morals say - regardless of any medical or scientific evidence to the contrary"
OK, give a medical definition of what constitutes human life.
Chumly wrote:neologist favors oxymorons.
Actually, I am quite sympathetic to morons.
neo, Nobody has said a fertilized egg is not a human embryo. Your red herring.
Your problem: why do you have a need to define morally what a human baby is? There is no relationship between an embryo and legal status.
An embryo has no brain. Your red herring.
As for the later stages of pregnancy, it's only the woman's business whether she wants to carry the embryo to term. It's none of your business. You're not even the father. Your red herring.
neo: Actually, I am quite sympathetic to morons.
You must have sympathies for yourself all the time.
Quote:None of my business, either. All I am asking is for a morally consistent definition of human life.
Don't think you're going to get an answer neo.
Just more poppycock...
