Posted on 08/06/2005 9:39:34 PM PDT by beavus
Yes to 539 also?
Yes.
You've got to at least give me time to respond!! LOL!
Because it's unpleasant to you?
Same for sperm? If it's done in an unpleasant - to you - manner?
Yes.
Same for sperm?
Yes.
Final question:
Are you being serious?
Of course! You were being serious to me about realizing there is no natural division in continua like the life cycle and the electromagnetic spectrum. The least I can do is return the courtesy.
What is wrong with my views, anyway? I mean, I AM open to reason if you disagree with me. It is not as though making these decisions regarding legality is a simple matter of fundamental observational fact--like Newton's laws of motion, or the impossibility of a start time for human life.
Unless I just haven't seen it. If I haven't, let me know.
Well, I am patient, as I think I've demonstrated quite sufficiently. I let you fool me into continuing.
My patience does have limits, and you've convinced me thoroughly: You are unable or unwilling to discuss the issue seriously in a courteous and considerate manner.
For your benefit, I suggest you either look at your social skills or at whatever it may be about this particular subject that causes your behaviour.
Goodbye.
O dear! You mean you were not offering sincere debate, but were a lying ba$tard instead?
My patience does have limits, and you've convinced me thoroughly: You are unable or unwilling to discuss the issue seriously in a courteous and considerate manner.
Let's take a trip down "courteous and considerate" lane with some of the most persuasive D-fendr quotes:
"So, I dunno what to tell you. If you have a gun to your head, you might have a moment of divine inspiration about it." -- post 485
"Now, I know the topic of threads is not about trivial subjects like human life, and I hate to stop talking about the names given to wavelengths of light, but, could you answer my one of questions" -- post 489
"You're scared to death of the question. A whole thread trying to deal with your fear. Try facing it, not looking at it, running from it only makes it worse." -- post 497
"Are you purposefully a victim of this confusion? Consciously or unconsciously? Or did you just think I will fall for it?" -- post 502
"Based on your extreme lengths to avoid the question" -- post 503
"I've run out of patience for your avoiding the topic of the thread you started." -- post 506
"You'd rather lower it to the level of sense perception and avoid the question." -- post 509
"it's an irrelevant dodge" -- post 510
You don't really expect people to just take it up the rear from you, do you, Mr. "social skills". It is I who have been exceedingly patient putting up the verbal abuse of a raging buffoon.
My door is always open if you ever choose to conform to the rules of common decency and thoughtfulness. I don't abuse idiots who are polite.
Amen and Amen!
And they look for evidence of Him, yet destroy it in its purest form.
I've been away for awhile beavus, so you and everyone else will have to forgive me for thinking this thread would die like others on other sites (of course this is freerepublic, I should've known better:-).
A woman has no right to terminate her pregnancy in a vast majority of cases (as you reiterated, fetal right to life). I'm not prepaired to argue the "exceptions" with you because even for the sheer amount of time I've spent on the subject, it's all still a blur.
1. "Lack thereof" was the correct phrase, though the woman does have the right to PROTECT a life she had a hand in creating.
2. "Biological division"--both the way I meant it and the way you meant it in your original post--describes the human "species" and how it relates to other "species", not the biological condition of the human body during any point of life or death. If by the "converging and diverging" path you are refering to the genetic variety we gain through "breeding" as a "race", then we are very similar and very different from one another as individuals. To those trying to figure this out, he's refering to differences such as blue and hazel eyes, or curly and wavy hair between relatives and non-relatives.
Still, just because my brother has my mom's nose and I have my dad's does not mean he is any less human then I am. Genetic diversity among humans does not make any one of us less human then the others. There is no blurred line between myself (an American) and an asian man despite the slight differences in our eyelids and our earlobes. We're both human. Before you attack the definition of human as broad, I'd remind you that DNA testing can reveal the difference between a human and a chimp or between a human and any animal. One last preemptive strike on this point--the stark "similarity" between human and chimp DNA is quickly diverging. Read the link: (copy it to the address bar if you have to)
www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070
3. A human sperm by itself is not human and by itself, cannot become one. Neither can the human egg. Only together do they create something that becomes much larger --human life. Thus, the human zygote is the earliest stage of human.
4. Touché for taking advantage of my choice of words, but for that only. The second the fertilization process BEGINS within the human zygote, it should be protected under homicide laws. Abortion is feticide, a form of homicide, i.e. murder and is illegal.
5. (the zygote is the earliest form of human). The chicken came first. Look at Genesis. You don't except Genesis? That's your soul. I'd truly love to debate you on Biblical validity and the existance of God, but that topic will also take us off this course.
"There are always earlier forms of human life going back as far as we have records."
I know what you mean, but using the term "earlier forms" is a little ambiguous. As long as we've had records, human life has existed (so where does that place us? 3000B.C. about?). In fact human life existed before that--I'm sure we've lost a good number of "records" over the millenia.
The people who founded the U.S. had specific "rights" in mind that they wanted to bestow on our people. The term "inalienable rights" refers to our "God-given rights". Connect the dots, most of our laws and rights come from the Bible in one form or another. The Ten Commandments (5. Do not murder) and Christ's "love your neighbor as you love yourself" (I'm paraphrasing), i.e. The Golden Rule have a great impact on our laws which determine which rights we have and do not have. Again, let's save the Biblical debate for another forum. Consider this: if you don't except that your neighbor has any right to rights, then you are dead to rights as well.
6. You said: "Wow. That raises two questions. First, how would you go about punishing all of our soldiers, police, executioners, and self-defenders who have committed homicide?"
Wow, let's get more complicated, shall we? When soldiers are used in defense of a country (an advanced form of self-defense), when police are used in defense of their beats (another advanced form of self defense), and when self-defenders are defending themselves, then it is not murder. Self-defense is not homicide, even if it kills.
Don't hold your breath, i'm not done. If a soldier was in Hitler's army and he's fighting for the Nazi cause against the Allies (let's say the Allies attacked first in this situation), he is not justified. Just as the Soviet secret police were not justified in "defending" the Soviet state. If you're a cop or a soldier working for bad people for a bad cause then you are not justified. Who decides what is good or bad? God does; refer to all of my previous statements in this post.
If a cop or soldier kills to kill, he or she is not justified (murder).
Just in case you're tempted, as God and the Bible, Iraq is too far off topic, but again, another day perhaps...
I appreciate the complement, but you know most of this doesn't come from me (look up). Nice analogy.
-The Commentator
Egg from mom and sperm from dad provide continuous converging paths of life. Mom and dad heading into the sunset provide diverging paths. But there are no skips or jumps--no instantaneous breaks in this network of human life. Nature reveals no sharp temporal divisions to us.
Before you attack the definition of human as broad, I'd remind you that DNA testing can reveal the difference between a human and a chimp or between a human and any animal.
I'll give you a printout of a creature's nucleic acid structure, and you point out to me where rights are located. Be careful though, because I will intersperse animal DNA with human DNA. I'm sure you can tell the difference.
I always thought rights had to do with something we didn't need PCR to evaluate. I guess the ancients had no concept of rights.
A human sperm by itself is not human and by itself, cannot become one. Neither can the human egg.
Not human? Then what are they, canine? Of course they are human. And NOTHING, not even an embryo or fetus can become an adult person by itself. However, given the right conditions, a fetus, like a sperm or an egg, can grow up to express a misunderstanding of reality.
Thus, the human zygote is the earliest stage of human.
Gametes precede zygote, and so are an earlier stage. In fact, for every zygote you identify, there are thousands of earlier human stages that came after the gametes. Time flows smoothly. There is no magical poof from gametes to zygote.
The second the fertilization process BEGINS
There is no time point at which fertilization begins. Time flows smoothly. We can identify states. We cannot identify abrupt changes between any states. In fact, we look, and we see that no such abrupt changes exist.
Wow, let's get more complicated, shall we? When soldiers are used in defense of a country (an advanced form of self-defense), when police are used in defense of their beats (another advanced form of self defense), and when self-defenders are defending themselves, then it is not murder. Self-defense is not homicide, even if it kills.
Homicide is literally the killing of another person. That includes killing for any purpose, including self-defense. It doesn't imply a value judgment, only a judgement of causality. Homicide may or may not be illegal. Did you not mean "homicide"?
I know what you mean, but using the term "earlier forms" is a little ambiguous. As long as we've had records, human life has existed (so where does that place us? 3000B.C. about?). In fact human life existed before that--I'm sure we've lost a good number of "records" over the millenia.
What is ambiguus? We know what "human" means and we know what "life" means. As long as the thing we are describing is not near death and existed within the last several thousand years, there is NO ambiguity.
Of course I realize that in a political setting people use "human" and "life" in ambiguous ways that creates unnecessary confusion. I'd rather not stoop to that level. If a thing has functioning mitochondria and an intact cell membrane, and it is a biological product of a human being, then it literally is "human life". No biologist would find that sense confusing. You'll need to use other terms with me if you mean something else.
if you don't except that your neighbor has any right to rights, then you are dead to rights as well.
I find that insightful. Maybe you'd like to start there in explaining what the nature of rights is.
The chicken came first. Look at Genesis. You don't except Genesis? That's your soul.
I would like to know how you can tell that God doesn't place the soul in the eggs at the time the mother is born. Or the sperm as they are created, or as they enter the uterus. Or in the 28 week old fetus. How do you know the soul doesn't enter when the sperm and egg are close, but not in contact? How can you tell that the soul isn't built up gradually over a period of time, like the biology we observe.
Whatever your answer one thing is for certain--if the soul pops in instantaneously, there are no clues from biology to tell us when that might be.
I just wanted to say as a woman I agree with you.
Abortion has never been about a woman’s rights .
It is murder plain and simple !
I appreciate your post thanks for sharing
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.