Catholic Teacher Fired

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Again, not life…[/quote]

Technically could be considered life, but so are a lot of other things even plant cells that nobody cares about.[/quote]

Sure, pat obviously does, depends on your personal philosophy.

But my point in this IVF discussion is that many, many people do not think that an embryo consisting of eight cells does not constitute life. If pat wants to subscribe to catholic doctrine and call that life, then so be it, that’s his right to do so. He doesn’t have to participate in the IVF process if he doesn’t want to, and is perfectly free to take a vocal stand against it if he so chooses.

Neither pat nor his religion have the right to “ban it altogether” based on their religious beliefs. Pat doesn’t seem to get that.
[/quote]

Ah, I see you are going for the ‘human life is ok to take at certain points’. So by this, I take it you concede it’s an autonomous human life? Now we’re on to ‘well it doesn’t really look like ‘us’.’

Your obsession with my religion is bordering on creepy. I don’t talk about it as much as you do. Not even close.[/quote]

NO

I’m still going with the “eight cells clumped together is not human life”, and the “hell no it’s not an autonomous human life”.
[/quote]

Fine, prove it. What is it, if not a autonomous human life? Every living thing is a clump of cells so you can drop that nonsense.[/quote]

Cant prove a negative.

Prove that its no unicorn.[/quote]

Prove a negative? What the hell are you talking about. Prove a human zygote isn’t a unicorn. Uh, ok.
The cells are human, the DNA contained with in, is a complete human DNA package and has all the info that will make everybody part as it develops, therefore it’s not a unicorn.
If it had Unicorn DNA in unicorn cells, then it would be a unicorn.
I am not sure why I even bothered. unicorn… duh.

222

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
For the love of hamburgers can we not turn this into an abortion thread ?[/quote]

Mmmmmm shrimp.

I love shrimp.[/quote]

ABOMINATION!!!

223

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
You’re not just singling out people in the church?[/quote]

No, but this discussion IS about the catholic clergy, their abuses, and the giant cover up.
[/quote]

No it’s not. It’s about a teacher who did not have her contract renewed because she chose to participate in immoral act and ran her dumb ass mouth about it.

Seriously, where did you get confused?[/quote]

I’m not confused, I assure you. This thread has become quite long and our discussion has taken a few turns; are you being intentionally evasive? A discussion of the catholic clergy, their abuses, and the cover up that followed was also being discussed. Please try to follow along.

And IVF is only immoral in the eyes of those who hold that belief. I realize that as an institution the catholic church views it as immoral, and yes, this teacher was quite stupid to have been running her mouth about it. If I was coaching football at one of the local catholic high schools, and my wife and I were pursuing that procedure, I sure as hell wouldn’t be broadcasting it.

On the other hand, if it’s so important to catholic institutions that their employees share their values and beliefs, why do they insist on hiring people people who don’t share their values and beliefs? Seriously, wouldn’t they be better off hiring Catholics in the first place?

Personally, I;m glad that they don’t exclusively hire Catholics; we have a couple of great catholic football programs here in the west Michigan area and I wouldn’t mind coaching on one of them someday.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
You do realize this is a world wide pandemic and you are outraged damn it![/quote]

Yes I do, and yes I am.[/quote]

Good for you. Who else are you mad at because of it?[/quote]

Now you’re being childish, congratulations.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
You’re concerned about the kids right? You’re upset about what happened to them right? [/quote]

Yes, child sexual abuse bothers me, and leaves me quite disgusted. Which is why I get so disgusted when I enter into conversations, such as this, regarding the child sexual abuse that was carried out and covered up by the catholic church. It disgust me in every circumstance, however at the moment, we’re talking about the child sexual abuse that was carried out by THE CATHOLIC CLERGY. The same church that expended so much effort in a cover up, but yet claims to love children. I say, by the evidence of their actions, they love their church just a bit more. Wouldn’t you say?[/quote]

The ‘church’ didn’t expend effort to cover it up, people in the church did, but it’s not the whole damn thing. Like I said, this involved less than 1% of the clergy. Well horrible in it’s own right, it’s far from epidemic as you would hope. If you did any research at all in the topic rather than just nod your head at the news media and your little atheist propaganda you take unchecked as fact, you would find that the vast majority of child sexual abuse was and is not committed by clergymen. Accusations don’t count as real accounts in that many folks were looking to get paid too. But acquittals are page 50 news.[/quote]

  1. I would never, and have never “hoped” for an epidemic such as child sexual abuse. Show me where I have or shut the fuck up.

  2. I’ve never claimed that it WAS an epidemic; I only claimed that it happened, and more than a few times. It was the cover up that I also had a huge problem with, which displayed for the world where their values were. Those assholes should’ve been thrown out of the church and handed over to the authorities, but they weren’t were they. Why was that?

  3. Less than 1% you say? Big fucking deal. If it happened ONE TIME and the church covered it up, then I’d hold the church in contempt and so should you. Forget IVF, the church is showing us the way w/r/t REAL immorality.

  4. Since when don’t the people in an organization make up that organization? Sure it wasn’t “the whole damned thing”, there’s lot’s and lot’s of very good, very moral clergy; but this discussion wasn’t about them. It was about the clergy who molested little boys, and the clergy who covered it up.

[quote]pat wrote:
I am pretty sure you actually don’t give a crap about truth and fact. You have some jihad against religion and you want to attack it anyway you can. You don’t give a fuck about kids or sexual abuse. That’s the truth. [/quote]

This is where you can FUCK OFF. I’ve already tried to tell you that I have a personal background in child sexual abuse, and I don’t care to go into it with a shit bird like you. Have you been in my shoes or the shoes of a victim? If not then quit trying to tell me what the fuck I care about w/r/t child sexual abuse. You don’t have a fucking clue.

This was the second assumption you’ve made about what I know and who I am, do you ever tire of being an ignorant douchebag? I’m betting not.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Oh yea, and parents choosing IVF are “grave immoral sinners” too.

Okay…sure.[/quote]

If they are willfully creating and subsequently destroying human life, then yeah.[/quote]

You just don’t get it, do you. YOU consider an eight cell embryo to be “life”, I do not.

YOU are free to believe that it constitutes “life” if YOU want to, that’s YOUR right to believe whatever YOU want. YOU can make choices in life based on YOUR beliefs, and live your life as YOU see fit. Have fun with that.

You do not, however, get to push your beliefs onto others who do not share them. It’s that whole “freedom” thingy you know…

224

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Correct. Eight cells clumped together is not in any way “life”. No brain, no heart beat, no organ structure, no nervous system, nothing. No life. Is this all very confusing for you?[/quote]

Oh, so let me get this strait, these 8 cells clumped together aren’t life? [/quote]

NO

[quote]pat wrote:
You sure you want to stand by that statement? They aren’t alive, there is no life within them? That’s you’re serious proposition?[/quote]

Yes, I stand by my position that living tissue is not “life”.

[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, I’ll play. So is it dead? Or isn’t some spontaneous mineral reaction happens and “POW!”, a person pops out for no reason? Now I am confused.[/quote]

Yes, I’m quite aware that this is confusing to you. —>insert face palm here<—

[quote]pat wrote:
Oh, does that mean that something with out a nervous system, brain, no heart, then it’s not alive?[/quote]

Correct. No brain, no heart, no organ structure, no nervous system, nothing.

Not life.

[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, but I know lots of stuff that doesn’t have any of that stuff and it’s still a living autonomous thing.[/quote]

Go on…

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I know how much you love your catholic soap box, but all of your religious pontification won’t change the fact. Myself and a very large part of the US population do NOT see the embryo as “life”, they see it as a cell clump and nothing more. [/quote]

Just a hint, this would be a good time for one of those links. You know the one that backs up, your shit about the population thinking? That’s also called ‘argumentum ad populum’

Of course, I think it would be an utter waste of time. Because it has nothing to do with the fact that the a fore mentioned 8 cell clump is an autonomous human life or it it isn’t.

You are really obsessively concerned about my faith. It seems to be all your really concerned with. Why, I am not actually talking about it at all, you keep, repeating bring it up. Beats me why, unless you really got nothing else going. You either need to prove to me that the said 8-cell clump is not an autonomous human life, or you have to convince me that there is a point where the human life matters less than at other points in the cycle between life and death.

Bringing up my faith is completely relevant to the issue. Your atheism colors your thoughts, so who cares. Not everything is a religious stance pissing contest. [/quote]

Silly me, I thought that discussing your catholic faith w/r/t IVF would be relevant in a thread about catholic faith w/r/t IVF. Huh…

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I realize that this bothers you, and to be honest, I don’t really give a fuck.[/quote]

Seems to me, you give a giant fuck. Your obsessed.[/quote]

See above.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
If it helps though, you could hang out after mass and talk with the other parishioners about what dreadful sinners we all are. But forcing your religious belief onto others isn’t very nice patty cakes.[/quote]

Oh, is that an accusation? Please show where I have done that. [/quote]

Honestly, I have no idea if this is something that you actually do. I was just adding some funny to the point that forcing your religious beliefs on others isn’t very nice. I was also, once again, getting at the fact that fact that you’re perfectly free to think otherwise regarding IVF and whehter or not an eight cell embryo is “life”. You’re a catholic, and the catholic church, as well as all of it’s followers, are free to believe whatever the fuck you want. And yes, you’re even free to discuss the “grave immoral sins” of people like me.

My comment however, WAS based on my personal experiences w/r/t mass. I WAS a practicing catholic before I proudly joined the reality based community.
[/quote]

The issue of IVF itself is not a ‘catholic’ issue. The teacher being fired was, but you weren’t really talking about that. You were claiming that a zygote, in the earliest of stages isn’t a human life. I say it is, I have backed it up with a source. I can happily re-post the source or dig up some new ones if you wish.

The fact that an zygote is or is not a human life is not a religious issue. The religious part of the issue is whether or not it’s ok to take a human life or discard a human life.
The issue of whether or not the zygote is an autonomous human life is a scientific question. I know you really badly not want it to be one, but you thinking it with no back up of any kind is pretty much completely meaningless.

So if it’s not an autonomous human life what is it? And also please include one unbiased link to back it up.

And I really don’t give a shit what you once were so you can not waste your time telling me. For being reality based, you sure function off of a whole lot of wishful thinking. First you say you’re all about science. Now science backs up something you don’t like so I guess science is not full of shit and your right. Wow, you sure have it together… Whatev’s…

You talk all big and tough, but it’s just a giant facade, behind it ain’t much.[/quote]

You keep making the wholly unwarranted leap that eight human cells clumped together constitutes “human life”. It does not. It’s telling that you keep trying to quietly move past that particular point; the point on whether eight human cells clumped together is “human life”.

You keep trying to make this discussion about whether or not it’s OK to take a human life; it is not and I’ve never claimed that it’s OK to discard human life carelessly. This discussion hinges on whether or not eight human cells clumped together constitutes “human life”. I don’t hold that opinion but you obviously do; whatever, but quit trying to make this discussion something it’s not. You’re being disingenuous.

And I certainly don’t need links to back up the fact that this cell clump that we speak of has no organ structure whatsoever, no brain, no heart, no nervous system, nothing at all. Period.

You claimed a source earlier that supposedly backs you up on whether or not this eight cell embryo is a human life; well, I’ve looked and I can’t find your link so go ahead and re post it. Like I said, I don’t need any links that back me up on my claims. Have fun.

225

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Too bad this thread is now so far off topic it can’t be saved…[/quote]

You are correct, lanchefan1, it’s definitely run it’s course. We’re at the point where points are simply being restated. Methinks I will move on at this point.

Stay low and stay safe, brother.

226

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are the children evil? If an act is evil, then the results must be too.[/quote]

I’d like to see your proof for this.

But it’s not.
[/quote]

(1) Getting in-vitro is evil.
(2) Good cannot come out of evil, especially ‘inherently evil’.
(3) Therefore the kids are a result of an evil act and are evil.

Exorcism recommended.
[/quote]

(1)“Getting in-vitro” is not evil. Harvesting human lives, and willfully destroying them in the process of trying to get the one you want is the evil act.
(2) Does the Catholic church not forbid abortion even in the case of rape? You are being willfully ignorant.
(3) See point two above.

Now, a question back at you, do you disagree with point one? Is it morally acceptable to destroy multiple human lives in order to secure one for yourself? Particularly when other means are available?

227

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Again, not life…[/quote]

Define life. [/quote]

I think the extended definition regarding what defines human life is personal and philosophical in nature. Personally, I think that human life begins at some point when an embryo has developed into a fetus with the parameters that I’ve already talked about; organ structure, brain function, heart beat, nervous system, etc. Certainly not an eight cell embryo, in a lab, with none of those qualities.
[/quote]

Well, we can all now see that you are just as religious as any other theist here. You just disagree with them as to when the soul is fused with body.

228

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Correct. Eight cells clumped together is not in any way “life”. No brain, no heart beat, no organ structure, no nervous system, nothing. No life. Is this all very confusing for you?[/quote]

Oh, so let me get this strait, these 8 cells clumped together aren’t life? [/quote]

NO

[quote]pat wrote:
You sure you want to stand by that statement? They aren’t alive, there is no life within them? That’s you’re serious proposition?[/quote]

Yes, I stand by my position that living tissue is not “life”.

[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, I’ll play. So is it dead? Or isn’t some spontaneous mineral reaction happens and “POW!”, a person pops out for no reason? Now I am confused.[/quote]

Yes, I’m quite aware that this is confusing to you. —>insert face palm here<—

[quote]pat wrote:
Oh, does that mean that something with out a nervous system, brain, no heart, then it’s not alive?[/quote]

Correct. No brain, no heart, no organ structure, no nervous system, nothing.

Not life.

[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, but I know lots of stuff that doesn’t have any of that stuff and it’s still a living autonomous thing.[/quote]

Go on…

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I know how much you love your catholic soap box, but all of your religious pontification won’t change the fact. Myself and a very large part of the US population do NOT see the embryo as “life”, they see it as a cell clump and nothing more. [/quote]

Just a hint, this would be a good time for one of those links. You know the one that backs up, your shit about the population thinking? That’s also called ‘argumentum ad populum’

Of course, I think it would be an utter waste of time. Because it has nothing to do with the fact that the a fore mentioned 8 cell clump is an autonomous human life or it it isn’t.

You are really obsessively concerned about my faith. It seems to be all your really concerned with. Why, I am not actually talking about it at all, you keep, repeating bring it up. Beats me why, unless you really got nothing else going. You either need to prove to me that the said 8-cell clump is not an autonomous human life, or you have to convince me that there is a point where the human life matters less than at other points in the cycle between life and death.

Bringing up my faith is completely relevant to the issue. Your atheism colors your thoughts, so who cares. Not everything is a religious stance pissing contest. [/quote]

Silly me, I thought that discussing your catholic faith w/r/t IVF would be relevant in a thread about catholic faith w/r/t IVF. Huh…

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I realize that this bothers you, and to be honest, I don’t really give a fuck.[/quote]

Seems to me, you give a giant fuck. Your obsessed.[/quote]

See above.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
If it helps though, you could hang out after mass and talk with the other parishioners about what dreadful sinners we all are. But forcing your religious belief onto others isn’t very nice patty cakes.[/quote]

Oh, is that an accusation? Please show where I have done that. [/quote]

Honestly, I have no idea if this is something that you actually do. I was just adding some funny to the point that forcing your religious beliefs on others isn’t very nice. I was also, once again, getting at the fact that fact that you’re perfectly free to think otherwise regarding IVF and whehter or not an eight cell embryo is “life”. You’re a catholic, and the catholic church, as well as all of it’s followers, are free to believe whatever the fuck you want. And yes, you’re even free to discuss the “grave immoral sins” of people like me.

My comment however, WAS based on my personal experiences w/r/t mass. I WAS a practicing catholic before I proudly joined the reality based community.
[/quote]

The issue of IVF itself is not a ‘catholic’ issue. The teacher being fired was, but you weren’t really talking about that. You were claiming that a zygote, in the earliest of stages isn’t a human life. I say it is, I have backed it up with a source. I can happily re-post the source or dig up some new ones if you wish.

The fact that an zygote is or is not a human life is not a religious issue. The religious part of the issue is whether or not it’s ok to take a human life or discard a human life.
The issue of whether or not the zygote is an autonomous human life is a scientific question. I know you really badly not want it to be one, but you thinking it with no back up of any kind is pretty much completely meaningless.

So if it’s not an autonomous human life what is it? And also please include one unbiased link to back it up.

And I really don’t give a shit what you once were so you can not waste your time telling me. For being reality based, you sure function off of a whole lot of wishful thinking. First you say you’re all about science. Now science backs up something you don’t like so I guess science is not full of shit and your right. Wow, you sure have it together… Whatev’s…

You talk all big and tough, but it’s just a giant facade, behind it ain’t much.[/quote]

You keep making the wholly unwarranted leap that eight human cells clumped together constitutes “human life”. It does not. It’s telling that you keep trying to quietly move past that particular point; the point on whether eight human cells clumped together is “human life”.

You keep trying to make this discussion about whether or not it’s OK to take a human life; it is not and I’ve never claimed that it’s OK to discard human life carelessly. This discussion hinges on whether or not eight human cells clumped together constitutes “human life”. I don’t hold that opinion but you obviously do; whatever, but quit trying to make this discussion something it’s not. You’re being disingenuous.

And I certainly don’t need links to back up the fact that this cell clump that we speak of has no organ structure whatsoever, no brain, no heart, no nervous system, nothing at all. Period.

You claimed a source earlier that supposedly backs you up on whether or not this eight cell embryo is a human life; well, I’ve looked and I can’t find your link so go ahead and re post it. Like I said, I don’t need any links that back me up on my claims. Have fun.

[/quote]

You do need something other than your words to back up your opinion. Because all indicators are the opposite of what you say. The facts of the matter are, the cells are human ones, they are alive, the posses the complete dna structure of an entire human person, not a part. If that doesn’t make it a human life, what is it then?

Saying it isn’t, isn’t enough. If its something other than a human life, what is it? If you are very certain about your opinion, this should not be a hard question. What is it, if not a human life?
This is the only question that matters.

Here are the links, no religion required.

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/commentary/lifeascommodity.htm

“That the human embryo is a human life is agreed upon by all sides. Indeed, if the human embryo were not a human life, and recognized as such, the research would be ethically non-contentious.”

229

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are the children evil? If an act is evil, then the results must be too.[/quote]

I’d like to see your proof for this.

But it’s not.
[/quote]

(1) Getting in-vitro is evil.
(2) Good cannot come out of evil, especially ‘inherently evil’.
(3) Therefore the kids are a result of an evil act and are evil.

Exorcism recommended.
[/quote]

(1)“Getting in-vitro” is not evil. Harvesting human lives, and willfully destroying them in the process of trying to get the one you want is the evil act.
(2) Does the Catholic church not forbid abortion even in the case of rape? You are being willfully ignorant.
(3) See point two above.

Now, a question back at you, do you disagree with point one? Is it morally acceptable to destroy multiple human lives in order to secure one for yourself? Particularly when other means are available?

[/quote]

Personally, the old fashion way is a lot more fun…

230

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are the children evil? If an act is evil, then the results must be too.[/quote]

I’d like to see your proof for this.

But it’s not.
[/quote]

(1) Getting in-vitro is evil.
(2) Good cannot come out of evil, especially ‘inherently evil’.
(3) Therefore the kids are a result of an evil act and are evil.

Exorcism recommended.
[/quote]

(1)“Getting in-vitro” is not evil. Harvesting human lives, and willfully destroying them in the process of trying to get the one you want is the evil act.
(2) Does the Catholic church not forbid abortion even in the case of rape? You are being willfully ignorant.
(3) See point two above.

Now, a question back at you, do you disagree with point one? Is it morally acceptable to destroy multiple human lives in order to secure one for yourself? Particularly when other means are available?

[/quote]

Personally, the old fashion way is a lot more fun…[/quote]

Plus, raw dog all day. People think Catholics are stodgy with our no condoms thing. Really? Raw dog vs. sterilized sex??? Who’s boring now.

231

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are the children evil? If an act is evil, then the results must be too.[/quote]

I’d like to see your proof for this.

But it’s not.
[/quote]

(1) Getting in-vitro is evil.
(2) Good cannot come out of evil, especially ‘inherently evil’.
(3) Therefore the kids are a result of an evil act and are evil.

Exorcism recommended.
[/quote]

(1)“Getting in-vitro” is not evil. Harvesting human lives, and willfully destroying them in the process of trying to get the one you want is the evil act.
(2) Does the Catholic church not forbid abortion even in the case of rape? You are being willfully ignorant.
(3) See point two above.

Now, a question back at you, do you disagree with point one? Is it morally acceptable to destroy multiple human lives in order to secure one for yourself? Particularly when other means are available?

[/quote]

Personally, the old fashion way is a lot more fun…[/quote]

Plus, raw dog all day. People think Catholics are stodgy with our no condoms thing. Really? Raw dog vs. sterilized sex??? Who’s boring now. [/quote]

Don’t forget only vaginal sex is allowed.

232

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Again, not life…[/quote]

Define life. [/quote]

I think the extended definition regarding what defines human life is personal and philosophical in nature. Personally, I think that human life begins at some point when an embryo has developed into a fetus with the parameters that I’ve already talked about; organ structure, brain function, heart beat, nervous system, etc. Certainly not an eight cell embryo, in a lab, with none of those qualities.
[/quote]

Well, we can all now see that you are just as religious as any other theist here. You just disagree with them as to when the soul is fused with body. [/quote]

You can’t disagree to the “when” on something that doesn’t exist.

233

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Again, not life…[/quote]

Define life. [/quote]

I think the extended definition regarding what defines human life is personal and philosophical in nature. Personally, I think that human life begins at some point when an embryo has developed into a fetus with the parameters that I’ve already talked about; organ structure, brain function, heart beat, nervous system, etc. Certainly not an eight cell embryo, in a lab, with none of those qualities.
[/quote]

Well, we can all now see that you are just as religious as any other theist here. You just disagree with them as to when the soul is fused with body. [/quote]

You can’t disagree to the “when” on something that doesn’t exist.[/quote]

Then it’s dishonest to argue “when” an organism becomes a ‘being.’ Such as when the human embryo becomes a human being. All you need to know is that the human embryo, an organism (life), is the same organism as a human adult. Just different stages in already existing human life.

234

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Again, not life…[/quote]

Define life. [/quote]

I think the extended definition regarding what defines human life is personal and philosophical in nature. Personally, I think that human life begins at some point when an embryo has developed into a fetus with the parameters that I’ve already talked about; organ structure, brain function, heart beat, nervous system, etc. Certainly not an eight cell embryo, in a lab, with none of those qualities.
[/quote]

Well, we can all now see that you are just as religious as any other theist here. You just disagree with them as to when the soul is fused with body. [/quote]

You can’t disagree to the “when” on something that doesn’t exist.[/quote]

Now THAT is an excellent point. Seriously.

Okay so, now replace “soul” with “life” and see what you can do with that.

235

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are the children evil? If an act is evil, then the results must be too.[/quote]

I’d like to see your proof for this.

But it’s not.
[/quote]

(1) Getting in-vitro is evil.
(2) Good cannot come out of evil, especially ‘inherently evil’.
(3) Therefore the kids are a result of an evil act and are evil.

Exorcism recommended.
[/quote]

(1)“Getting in-vitro” is not evil. Harvesting human lives, and willfully destroying them in the process of trying to get the one you want is the evil act.
(2) Does the Catholic church not forbid abortion even in the case of rape? You are being willfully ignorant.
(3) See point two above.

Now, a question back at you, do you disagree with point one? Is it morally acceptable to destroy multiple human lives in order to secure one for yourself? Particularly when other means are available?

[/quote]

Personally, the old fashion way is a lot more fun…[/quote]

Plus, raw dog all day. People think Catholics are stodgy with our no condoms thing. Really? Raw dog vs. sterilized sex??? Who’s boring now. [/quote]

Don’t forget only vaginal sex is allowed.
[/quote]

Where does it say that?

And personally, I don’t know about you, but I am rather fond of vaginas. The look cool, they are fun to play with, they fit perfectly, they feel good, and you can come up with lots of funny names for them…

Saying ‘all you can have is vagina’ is like saying all you can have if filet mignon… Medium Rare please…

236

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are the children evil? If an act is evil, then the results must be too.[/quote]

I’d like to see your proof for this.

But it’s not.
[/quote]

(1) Getting in-vitro is evil.
(2) Good cannot come out of evil, especially ‘inherently evil’.
(3) Therefore the kids are a result of an evil act and are evil.

Exorcism recommended.
[/quote]

(1)“Getting in-vitro” is not evil. Harvesting human lives, and willfully destroying them in the process of trying to get the one you want is the evil act.
(2) Does the Catholic church not forbid abortion even in the case of rape? You are being willfully ignorant.
(3) See point two above.

Now, a question back at you, do you disagree with point one? Is it morally acceptable to destroy multiple human lives in order to secure one for yourself? Particularly when other means are available?

[/quote]

Personally, the old fashion way is a lot more fun…[/quote]

Plus, raw dog all day. People think Catholics are stodgy with our no condoms thing. Really? Raw dog vs. sterilized sex??? Who’s boring now. [/quote]

And you can where hats…

237

If you want to debate a non believer, I would avoid using words like “soul”

that word holds no value to most of except in poetic terms

238

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are the children evil? If an act is evil, then the results must be too.[/quote]

I’d like to see your proof for this.

But it’s not.
[/quote]

(1) Getting in-vitro is evil.
(2) Good cannot come out of evil, especially ‘inherently evil’.
(3) Therefore the kids are a result of an evil act and are evil.

Exorcism recommended.
[/quote]

(1)“Getting in-vitro” is not evil. Harvesting human lives, and willfully destroying them in the process of trying to get the one you want is the evil act.
(2) Does the Catholic church not forbid abortion even in the case of rape? You are being willfully ignorant.
(3) See point two above.

Now, a question back at you, do you disagree with point one? Is it morally acceptable to destroy multiple human lives in order to secure one for yourself? Particularly when other means are available?

[/quote]

Personally, the old fashion way is a lot more fun…[/quote]

Plus, raw dog all day. People think Catholics are stodgy with our no condoms thing. Really? Raw dog vs. sterilized sex??? Who’s boring now. [/quote]

Don’t forget only vaginal sex is allowed.
[/quote]

Where does it say that?[/quote]

I read it on wiki when I was discussing CC sex policies with sloth. Only unprotected vaginal sex within marriage is allowed. Sex rules are imperative to religion. Need them to propagate.

239

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Again, not life…[/quote]

Define life. [/quote]

I think the extended definition regarding what defines human life is personal and philosophical in nature. Personally, I think that human life begins at some point when an embryo has developed into a fetus with the parameters that I’ve already talked about; organ structure, brain function, heart beat, nervous system, etc. Certainly not an eight cell embryo, in a lab, with none of those qualities.
[/quote]

Well, we can all now see that you are just as religious as any other theist here. You just disagree with them as to when the soul is fused with body. [/quote]

You can’t disagree to the “when” on something that doesn’t exist.[/quote]

Now THAT is an excellent point. Seriously.

Okay so, now replace “soul” with “life” and see what you can do with that.

[/quote]

Done, but I’m sure you would disagree.

240

[quote]therajraj wrote:
If you want to debate a non believer, I would avoid using words like “soul”

that word holds no value to most of except in poetic terms[/quote]

In which case life is only a scientific biological term.

Pretty much all “non-believers” I’ve discussed this with still claim a special value for human life, when by there own claims, there should be none. If there is no supernatural uniqueness to a human life, there is no uniqueness to it at all. It is not even possible to physically define the “specialness” without convoluted and contradictory logic riddled with holes. The only claim to the inherent specialness of humans is the non-physical. You can “disbelieve” all you want, but you should be honest with yourself about what you are disbelieving.