Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]pushharder wrote:
More things to consider just for fun, maybe:

The antediluvian earth could have easily contained a billion or more people.

Entire earth was probably very warm, temperate from pole to pole. Vastly different climate (even evolutionism surmises that).

Easy to grow lots and lots of stuff.

Folks were vegetarians.

Land masses and oceans likely looked very different than today. More land, less ocean.

No mountains to speak of and shallow seas.

Very violent people. Maybe they were indeed meat-eaters.

Long lives lived due to a number of factors, mainly protection from sun’s harmful rays and the harmful effects it causes due to water vapor canopy described briefly in Gen.

Other cool stuff I can’t think of right this minute. Lots of interesting things to think about as long as one allows his intellect to escape the modern day mythological box.

[/quote]

The Billion Violent Vegans of the Fertile Cloud Planet of Yahweh!

That’s a great title for a sci-fi story if I ever heard one.

With emphasis on the fi rather than the sci, of course. :slight_smile:

362

[quote]confusion wrote:
pushharder is clever in that he picks a point to debate,ignores the one’s he canr disagree with and then makes little quips and insults and appears clever,which I am sure he is. This makes it appear that he is dominating the discussion. I think a good place to start is.not actually with the Bible per se but with the existance of God,then go from there about.the.Son and the holy spirit,which all happen to be males. If pussharder makes it that far,discuss the proof of Jesus existance,or even mention of his name by historians OF HIS TIME,a test he will fail…and so on. He has a lot of practice at this so he may “win” anyway.[/quote]

Or alternatively, just ignore him and go lift.

I debate him because he’s good friend of mine, and I enjoy these little mental fencing sessions, but nobody says you have to.

363

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
pushharder is clever in that he picks a point to debate,ignores the one’s he canr disagree with and then makes little quips and insults and appears clever,which I am sure he is. This makes it appear that he is dominating the discussion. I think a good place to start is.not actually with the Bible per se but with the existance of God,then go from there about.the.Son and the holy spirit,which all happen to be males. If pussharder makes it that far,discuss the proof of Jesus existance,or even mention of his name by historians OF HIS TIME,a test he will fail…and so on. He has a lot of practice at this so he may “win” anyway.[/quote]

Or alternatively, just ignore him and go lift.

I debate him because he’s good friend of mine, and I enjoy these little mental fencing sessions, but nobody says you have to.[/quote]

I will lift,don’t you worry.lol. I am enjoying the discussion. I don’t talk about reljgion with people,because I don’t feel the need to criticize a persons belief if its different then mine. This venue is a different thing,so I am stepping out of my.comfort zone. I was a Christian,several years ago I asked myself the question,“do I really believe in God?”. I was trying to and actually believed all of the Bible was true.

But,I thought if I trully thought God was real and omnipresent,I would never do anything wrong because I know he is standing right beside me. So,I was honest with myself and accepted that I don’t believe in God. From there,it was a difficult process for a while. Rethinking and creating new values in my 30’s was not an easy thing for me. That’s ok,because its worth it to me.

364

The carrying capacity of earth could very well have been a billion vegan homo sapiens.

Except I don’t buy the vegan part. Not for a minute.

Man is the tool maker. The weapon maker. The master of fire.

You cannot expect me to believe that he crafted his spears and his arrows and his atlatls and bows and clubs and stone knives and axes only for killing OTHER PEOPLE, and only ate fruit.

Sorry, but no.

Back to the billion part.

How many years between Adam and the flood, again? 1500? 1600?

Please explain to the audience how a population of two can become a population of one billion in the space of one thousand six hundred years. You will no doubt expect us to take into account the assumption that a single woman might breed for six or seven hundred years, squeezing out another bawling brat every year, all of them surviving to breeding age themselves.

365

I would like to see a single fossil,or anything else(other than the bible) that shows people lived 600 years or more.

366

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[/quote]

You do realize you started your shit arguments using the “science” line of justification, and have gone on to post nothing even remotely related to scientific sources to back up anything?

Now we have a morning show on the radio as assertions to your position?

It’s rather pathetic.

367

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[/quote]

You do realize you started your shit arguments using the “science” line of justification, and have gone on to post nothing even remotely related to scientific sources to back up anything?

Now we have a morning show on the radio as assertions to your position?

It’s rather pathetic. [/quote]

There is no point, as you keep stating that you just know life starts at conception. Where is your proof? Why does life not start with the creation of sperm?

Personhood itself is a construct, we are matter that has gained consciousness. All your morals, ideas of what constitutes personhood, they are not real tangible things.

So you saying this magical point is where personhood begins means nothing, there is a reason you can’t show “scientific proof” for personhood, the entire premise is a human invention.

Just like rights are not real, rape is not an actual thing, they are things we created. Until you acknowledge that, you can keep harping on about people vacuuming “babies” as if that means anything.

Now if you want to put a case forth for why we should accept your timeframe for the personhood construct, then fine, but stop saying it as if it is an actual reality.

Also, do you realise that sourcing actual scientific studies and data online means nothing unless you can get an entire publication on it which isn’t so easy to get on the internet. Not many usable kept up data sites.

Also funny how you demand scientific sourcing for everything but your own position, which you have no science to back up.

Now why should we back your socially constructed morality that states that personhood begins at conception?

368

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[/quote]

You do realize you started your shit arguments using the “science” line of justification, and have gone on to post nothing even remotely related to scientific sources to back up anything?

Now we have a morning show on the radio as assertions to your position?

It’s rather pathetic. [/quote]

Also they mock the moronic pro life propoganda where a fetus narrates from the room and then does a song about why his mummy killed him. Hillarious bit. Shows the mindset of people who are adamant sucking out a fetus is akin to hitting a two year old with a five iron.

369

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[/quote]

You do realize you started your shit arguments using the “science” line of justification, and have gone on to post nothing even remotely related to scientific sources to back up anything?

Now we have a morning show on the radio as assertions to your position?

It’s rather pathetic. [/quote]

People above have claimed Noahs ark is real, climate change is false and evolution is a myth, you didn’t demand sources from them, why do you only demand sources for certain things? Do you have any sources showing personhood is an actual thing and when it occurs and how? Obviously not, otherwise abortion would not be legal.

370

[quote] Perlenbacher15 wrote:

Personhood itself is a construct, we are matter that has gained consciousness.

[/quote]

Personhood is a “construct?” What does that mean? You mean there is no distinction between a living organism and ordinary matter? Is that what you’re saying?

Not “real” or “tangible?” So are morals abstract entities then? “Constructs” like personhood? If morality is not “real” then there is no right and wrong right?

So rape is not really immoral right? In fact, nothing is immoral for an existential nihilist is it?

371

I think a point to realize is ABORTION ISN’T GOING TO END. Try as anyone likes,the government will never overturn the supreme court ruling. There is a large group of people who would like to see the ruling changed,but tbat group isn’t big enuf and may progressively get smaller. I think the new testament teaches pacifism,so I would like to see.that on the pro life agenda. It also seems obvious that a person with guns who is a christian is using them for hunting or killing vermin. What greater protector do they have than God? No need for guns for defense. We a told in the new testament Romans 12:18King James Version (KJV)

18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men", if we are doing that and loving our neighbor as ourself,we would never be fighting in foreign wars…I don’t have a problem with guns for defense,but I think it is hypocritical for Christians to . A few random.thoughts. Confusion

372

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

There is no point, as you keep stating that you just know life starts at conception. Where is your proof? [/quote]

My proof lies with every single qualified doctor, biologist and any sane and logical thinking person.

Also note, I’m not the one, rather you, that tried to prevent “science” as my rational for my position. You did. I challenged you.

Because sperm is not a new person with a complete set of DNA.

[quote]Personhood itself is a construct, we are matter that has gained consciousness. All your morals, ideas of what constitutes personhood, they are not real tangible things.

So you saying this magical point is where personhood begins means nothing, there is a reason you can’t show “scientific proof” for personhood, the entire premise is a human invention.

Just like rights are not real, rape is not an actual thing, they are things we created. Until you acknowledge that,[/quote]

Again with this fucking nonsense. I expect nothing less from someone trying to justify the murder of other people, but good lord.

We get it that it means nothing to you, you’ve stated it plenty of time.

[quote] Also, do you realise that sourcing actual scientific studies and data online means nothing unless you can get an entire publication on it which isn’t so easy to get on the internet. Not many usable kept up data sites.

Also funny how you demand scientific sourcing for everything but your own position, which you have no science to back up.

Now why should we back your socially constructed morality that states that personhood begins at conception?[/quote]

Laughably weak.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Also they mock the moronic pro life propoganda where a fetus narrates from the room and then does a song about why his mummy killed him. Hillarious bit. Shows the mindset of people who are adamant sucking out a fetus is akin to hitting a two year old with a five iron.
[/quote]

So people that don’t agree with you are morons? Got it. No wonder you’re okay with people being slaughtered in the womb, they might be born and think differently than you! God forbid.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
People above have claimed Noahs ark is real, climate change is false and evolution is a myth, you didn’t demand sources from them,[/quote]

Three posts from you, none backing up your original stance, and all just bashing other people…

You’re real good at this debate thing.

Because I don’t care to argue the merits of taking the bible literal. I’m only concerned in this thread with continuing to point out your ridiculous original assertion and then your flopping around with the “there is no spoon” nonsense.

I don’t care about eden, arks or any of that here.

[quote]Do you have any sources showing personhood is an actual thing and when it occurs and how? Obviously not, otherwise abortion would not be legal.
[/quote]

How about you actually back up your assertions. You jumped in head first, and thus far have proven to be shit at debating this. Stop deflecting and actually put up or shut up.

373

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ Fact in point: Varq posting a link to man’s purported evolution from ape-like primates and labeling it as “truth.” Not a hypothesis derived from “curiosity driven truth waiting to be found,” just “truth.”

This was a statement based on good ol’ fashioned fairh.[/quote]

Modern Homo sapiens are apes, as are every species of the genus Homo. We have ample fossil evidence of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis, all of which are undoubtedly more “human” like than “ape” like. Do you deny that human species other than our own have existed? [/quote]

[/quote]

Yeah, here’s your hero Dawkin’s espousing the morality of infanticide up to 2 years old.

Invoking somebody as morally repugnant as Dawkins does not help your argument in anyway.

374

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Perlenbacher15 wrote:

Personhood itself is a construct, we are matter that has gained consciousness.

[/quote]

Personhood is a “construct?” What does that mean? You mean there is no distinction between a living organism and ordinary matter? Is that what you’re saying?

Not “real” or “tangible?” So are morals abstract entities then? “Constructs” like personhood? If morality is not “real” then there is no right and wrong right?

So rape is not really immoral right? In fact, nothing is immoral for an existential nihilist is it?
[/quote]

Morality is a construct, rape is immoral, if you support certain moral codes, like we have in our society. But sure, there is no real right or wrong, that was my point about how most of us, even if athiest are christian atheists, we hold most of the moral teachings that hundreds upon hundreds of years of christian society and its culture has imprinted onto our society.

Morality changes throughout history, hence why the fictions of the bible, the koran, the hadith etc all contains stuff that would be considered “evil” today, but was just reality at the time they were written.

This is why it is funny to see christians and muslims attempt to theologically bend their religion to fit todays moral code.

We see the real literalist interpretation that was upheld for the majority of the time of the religions existence being dropped and cherrypicking and the bandaid of a non literal reading being pushed.

What was moral 300 years ago is not moral today, what is moral today will be seen as savage 300 years in the future.

I am not a nihilist I merely subscribe to the same principle the scientific method is based on, materialism, which is basically dealing with fact over the unprovable aka the soul, spirit, other nonsense.

375

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ Fact in point: Varq posting a link to man’s purported evolution from ape-like primates and labeling it as “truth.” Not a hypothesis derived from “curiosity driven truth waiting to be found,” just “truth.”

This was a statement based on good ol’ fashioned fairh.[/quote]

Modern Homo sapiens are apes, as are every species of the genus Homo. We have ample fossil evidence of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis, all of which are undoubtedly more “human” like than “ape” like. Do you deny that human species other than our own have existed? [/quote]

[/quote]

Yeah, here’s your hero Dawkin’s espousing the morality of infanticide up to 2 years old.

Invoking somebody as morally repugnant as Dawkins does not help your argument in anyway. [/quote]

“If a baby turns one years old and has an awful terminal disease, I am in favour of infanticide”

Also the clip cuts off just before he says he is in favour of that for everyone if they choose it

But of course you picked one of the many christian user videos where someone edits it, puts a new title on it and tries to give the impression of something else.

But good try though, rather lie to try and preserve your silly religious moral code, than actually address it.

376

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[/quote]

You do realize you started your shit arguments using the “science” line of justification, and have gone on to post nothing even remotely related to scientific sources to back up anything?

Now we have a morning show on the radio as assertions to your position?

It’s rather pathetic. [/quote]

Also they mock the moronic pro life propoganda where a fetus narrates from the room and then does a song about why his mummy killed him. Hillarious bit. Shows the mindset of people who are adamant sucking out a fetus is akin to hitting a two year old with a five iron.

[/quote]

I am sorry but this has not been answered and it needs to be. Please provide scientific proof that the organism living inside the womb of a human female is not a human being.
You have no argument, you have no point until you have proven that the life you are taking is not a human one.
Ignoring this fact doesn’t make it go away. You cannot just ignore the question when it is the central, most important… Actually, it’s the only question that matters.

If the child in the womb is a human being, then killing it is wrong and there is nothing you can do about that fact.
If the child in the womb is not a human being, then all bets are off and it does not matter what you do to it.

You claim science. So provide scientific proof that the organism inside the womb of a female human being, is itself not an autonomous human being. That’s all you have to do and you win. Do it not, you lose.
It really is this simple. Everything else is a waste of everybody’s time. Race, creed, Religion, sexual orientation, dysfunction, money, population, evolution, etc. have nothing to do with it, at all, in anyway.

377

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

Morality is a construct…

[/quote]

Right, so if it’s a “construct” and it “is not real” then there is no right and wrong.

But you said morality is not real. How can rape, or anything else, be immoral if morality doesn’t exist?

Sure you are. You don’t believe that life has any purpose and you don’t believe in morality. That’s okay, but be honest about it. You’re a nihilist.

378

its obviously not an autonomous human being or it would be under its own power and not be inside its mother. however,I think you point is something different then that. Can you choose a different thing to prove? I don’t want anyone to say what I have.done and feel they have won the debate. Confusion

379

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Far be it from me to try and convince you of the sort but maybe you’d like to look into it a bit more. You don’t strike me as a card carrying member of the Closed Mind Club.[/quote]

Push, is your mind open to the possibility that your faith is misplaced? That there is no god, and the Bible wasn’t divinely inspired?

I fully expect some snarky response, but I’m genuinely curious since you accuse others of having closed minds so often.

380

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

Morality is a construct…

[/quote]

Right, so if it’s a “construct” and it “is not real” then there is no right and wrong.

But you said morality is not real. How can rape, or anything else, be immoral if morality doesn’t exist?

Sure you are. You don’t believe that life has any purpose and you don’t believe in morality. That’s okay, but be honest about it. You’re a nihilist.[/quote]

Why quote me out of context? I said rape is immoral IF you subscribe to a moral construct that women have a “right” which is a construct, of sexual autonomy.

Those are constructs, so to someone who upholds those, yes “rape” is immoral.

You took three words and highlighted them out of a sentence, bit bankrupt.