Previous 11 - 20 Next
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.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: Jul 25, 2014 12:02 PM
You lie again, FLMC. Name one mammal we "can raise" in a test tube. Dolly was implanted into the womb of another sheep after her cloned cell was produced, was not "raised in a test tube," and even then, Dolly was the sole survivor of 29 attempts. I expect, in your depthless ignorance, you were trying to refer to "in vitro" fertilization, where embryos are produced outside the womb and later implanted, rather than "artificial insemination." In this process, many fertilized eggs are created, but only the "most viable" are actually chosen for implantation - even then, the success rate is less than 40%. I oppose this because it intentionally creates lives and wastes the vast majority of them. People who cannot have children on their own should turn to adoption, instead of greedily wasting lives. The end result of this pointless tangent is that it is NOT "doable." Your hypocritical "moralizing" is beyond ridiculous. The only reason you continually bring up this stupidity is to cloud the issue as you are unable to defend your fallacious, murderous ideology.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: Jul 25, 2014 11:35 AM
Name the technology, then, clown. Oh wait - you can't, because it doesn't EXIST! You are so uninformed it isn't even funny! A "miscarriage" is typically when the baby dies in the womb, either due to a defect in the baby, or a defect in the mother. The majority of miscarriages occur during the first few weeks after fertilization. At this point, most women don't even know they were pregnant in the first place. The earliest our technology currently allows us to preserve the lives of babies is 21 weeks and 5 days - that is the record for a preterm baby to survive. And coming from someone who, twice in this thread, called women "sluts," I don't really give a damn about your bloviating on "moral superiority to women." You've got nothing but "moralistic" strawmen, which is why you have to try to pin the stupidity you actually stand for, on your opponents. In any case, again, miscarriage doesn't ever enter into this debate, because miscarriage is a natural, unintended, unpreventable occurrence, while abortion is a human-caused, intended, preventable act. One is the equivalent of letting someone die of old age, while the other is the equivalent of slitting someone's throat. Pound that simple reality through your skull.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: Jul 25, 2014 11:17 AM
In that case, you are both IDIOTS who apparently can't understand the concept of INTENT and how that differentiates our treatment of similar events.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: Jul 25, 2014 11:15 AM
BS, Flaming Liberal Jack@$$. You lack-wit lefties CANNOT provide a single other example of a living human organism which is *not* a "human being." That means you have carved out a special "exception" in order to suit your bloody-handed ideology without any rational justification or even explanation. That is the mark of fallacy and exceptional stupidity. It doesn't matter what you "think" when it's in direct conflict with observable, provable FACTS. Irrational disagreement with fact is a sign of insanity. If murder is the "unlawful killing of a human being," then what is it when the dictator of some third world communist hell-hole strangles one of his countrymen for his own amusement? They don't have a law against such a thing, so is that somehow NOT murder? Of course it is, imbecile! The definition of murder is "the unjustified intentional killing of another person." It doesn't matter if there is a law against it or not, murder is still murder. As I said earlier, the "notion of 'Human Being' is CENTRAL" to YOUR ARGUMENT, not this debate. It has no bearing on this debate because it is a meaningless term. It is presumptive and extraordinarily hubristic of YOU to try to limit the debate to your own nonsensical bloviations WHEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF to back up your arguments. You can whine about identity, you can whine about consciousness, you can whine about soul, but without ever bothering to DEFINE when those things come about, or how we can recognize them, YOU HAVE NO LEG TO STAND ON. I didn't name Ann Coulter, so apparently you HAVE "thought of her," you pathetic FLAMING LIAR.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 7:43 PM
You are welcome to do the work yourself. I'm not giving you anything, considering that you will ignore it anyway - it doesn't conform to your ideology. Good luck, and good riddance, HoG.
Previous 11 - 20 Next