1 - 10 Next
The homosodomites don't need an amendment - they just need a biased judge in their corner, who is willing to ignore legally-passed amendments on their behalf.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 21 hours ago (11:44 AM)
Why do you idiot lefties always insist on trying to "reinvent the wheel"? Death: "a permanent cessation of all vital functions" (Merriam-Webster) Death: "Death is defined as the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing." (The Free Dictionary) Death: "end of being alive: the ending of all vital functions or processes in an organism or cell" (Bing Dictionary) Please note that each of these definitions is easily obtained online, and contain the words "ALL VITAL FUNCTIONS." If modern day doctors weren't so interested in harvesting organs, and the "brain-death only" standard weren't applied, we wouldn't have people waking up in refrigeration units at the morgue and dying from the cold.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 21 hours ago (11:35 AM)
That addendum wouldn't have helped your "argument," anyway. When a young girl becomes pregnant, that is through her own choice. If you do stupid things, you deal with the consequences - that is LIFE. Making the correct choices, no matter how hard they may be, is a sign of maturation - choosing the easy way out, for yourself, while imposing hardship, suffering and death on others, is a sign of increasingly selfish childishness. If she doesn't want the child after the fact, or can't take care of it, then she should put it up for adoption. You idiot "religious liberal thinkers" (and I use the term "thinker" only with heavy sarcasm in your case) fail to understand that a single act can be both a sin AND a "mistake in judgment." In either case, it still does not excuse an individual from facing the consequences of their own behavior. According to my thought process, God saw fit to give the baby life, through the actions of its parents, be they good or bad. That child is fully deserving of life, throughout which, it will use its God-given free will to pursue good or bad, all on its own.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 22 hours ago (11:17 AM)
"Then you must be assuming that a baby born as a result of invitro is not loved by God and those of you ilk." No, I'm thinking that while you are in the running for FLMC's idiot crown, you still have a ways to go. The love of God, or worthiness of life of the child, is independent of the behavior of the parents. It doesn't matter how the child was conceived - "in vitro," adultery or even rape - that is still an innocent child, created equal, and fully invested with the God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You lose, do not pass go or collect $200.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: Jul 25, 2014 7:25 PM
@eula - You sound like one of those people so "open-minded" that your brain fell out and crawled away. Did you even read the drivel that FLMC wrote (writes), or are you just supporting a like-minded ideologue on auto-pilot? "I wonder how they feel about invitro fertilization when it is necessary for the doctors to do selective reduction?" Most pro-lifers oppose in vitro fertilization because of the waste of human lives inherent in that process. I already covered this point earlier in the thread. It's the same concept as embryonic stem cell research. "Instead of forming a real bad opinion of this procedure, why can't they marvel at the miracle the medical scientist (with God's help) have been able to do for women who are not able to carry a baby full term." Because, it isn't a "miracle," it is a travesty, and there's nothing Godly about it. If a doctor outright murders twenty people, taking organs from each of them, in order to save the life of one person, is he a "miracle worker," or is he a murderer? Since when do the ends justify the means?
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: Jul 25, 2014 4:55 PM
Let me revise my earlier statement: You are not "both IDIOTS," FLMC - you are the supreme idiot, with sjpatejak being a pale imitation of you. I use INTENT to differentiate between a chosen behavior, like murder (abortion), versus a natural occurrence, like death-by-old-age (miscarriage). The humanity of the embryo is not dependent on the intentions of the mother - it is simply a fact, well established by biology and genetics. The only thing "*extremely* dubious" in this thread, is the gibberish you are trying to pass off as "reasoning." Are you honestly incapable of recognizing the difference between allowing someone to die a natural death versus slitting someone's throat, or are you just feigning absurd levels of stupidity to try to defend your murderous ideology?
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: Jul 25, 2014 12:56 PM
You lie again, FLMC. Exodus 21:22 - 23 "And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then you shalt give life for life..." (American Standard Version) “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life..." (New International Version) "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life..." (King James Bible) Go ahead, pick whatever version you like - they all say the same thing. You lose, again.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: Jul 25, 2014 12:39 PM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson What is the earliest recognizable point when a human organism is "created"?
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: Jul 25, 2014 12:37 PM
No, you didn't address anything, other than nonsense. Capacity for reason is variable. As such, with the concept of "created equal" in mind, a variable cannot be the basis for determining which individual human organisms deserve the right to life, or not. First of all, I specified "organisms," not "entities." Red blood cells are NOT organisms - they are component cells of the organism which produced them. I already demolished your anencephaly argument - those infants have rights, up until the point they die. They have a right to LIFE and should not be murdered, but that doesn't mean we must artificially support them, as their is no reasonable expectation of recovery or survival - it would be like trying to prevent someone from dying of old age. The fact that something is "unusual" means it should not be the basis for an argument on behalf of the "rule," because it is an exception to the rule. My reasoning (if it is a living human organism, it is a person in full possession of rights) is universal and fully in line with the fundamental reasoning of our country, and does not rely on your silly need for special exceptions, which is built on nothing, other than your desire for an easy excuse to murder humans before they are born.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: Jul 25, 2014 12:23 PM
Negative. "Annfan" is correct when she says "life is life." In a human organism (as defined by biology and genetics), if life is present, it is human life. The individual cells are not organisms, but component cells of a single, individual organism. After the organism dies, the individual cells can only last about 24 hours. As such, if there is human cellular life, changes are that the human organism is alive. "REASON" is not the key, because "REASON" is variable by individual. Children do not exhibit reasoning until almost a year after birth - does that mean they don't possess individual rights, or is that just another "special exception" you are trying to hide behind? The fundamental American concept is that we are all "created equal" - that means from the point of our creation (the earliest possibility of our recognizable existence - conception) we are all equal in the eyes of the law - and invested with the God-given rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This, taken from the Declaration of Independence, was reiterated in the 5th Amendment. Phrases like "according to biology" and "that is recognized," are statements which mean "this is the widespread belief of biologists, based on empirical evidence." You can look in pretty much any biology textbook and find this information. My assertions are based on these scientific facts. Your refusal to accept those facts, without presenting any evidence to back up your own claims, demonstrates that YOU are the one with the "lack of empirical or logical support for your assertions." Feel free to keep expounding on your failings - you've got nothing else.
1 - 10 Next