Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

No, you see the demand for proof is on the one making the claim, basic scientific principle.

Pro lifers are claiming personhood starts at conception, I am saying there is no proof of that. If you can prove such a thing I am waiting…
[/quote]

Hmm, well I have asked first. You’ve provided nothing. But I will provide science.

https://www.all.org/abac/aq0203.htm

“Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception). Yet, never does one see in the media, nor in the Councils identified above, such a reference, even though it is there in virtually every textbook. We exist as a continuum of human life, which begins at fertilization and continues until death, whenever that may be.”

http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

"Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the
life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined â??moment of
conception.â?? This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and
independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life
or of human embryos. "

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

When your done reading all of that, I can easily provide more.[/quote]

You fail to understand what proof or even evidence constitute

402

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

Actual video.[/quote]

Funny, he still says it. The context just makes it more whacked.

404

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Have you read the Bible? All of it, not a few lines or a book or two?[/quote]

In my teens, yes. Not since then.

I was once a believer, but started having those questions that were answered with “You just have to have faith”. That’s when I realized I didn’t have that faith anymore.
[/quote]

Fair enough, if you say you have read the actual whole thing I cannot say you haven’t. I just get irritated with those who see fit to criticize and ridicule something they have never read. It happens far to often.

405

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Have you read the Bible? All of it, not a few lines or a book or two?[/quote]

In my teens, yes. Not since then.

I was once a believer, but started having those questions that were answered with “You just have to have faith”. That’s when I realized I didn’t have that faith anymore.
[/quote]

Fair enough, if you say you have read the actual whole thing I cannot say you haven’t. I just get irritated with those who see fit to criticize and ridicule something they have never read. It happens far to often. [/quote]

Is your mind open to the possibility that your faith is completely misplaced and there is no god?

408

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Pro lifers are claiming personhood starts at conception, I am saying there is no proof of that. If you can prove such a thing I am waiting…
[/quote]

No, they don’t, technically. They claim human life starts at conception and implicitly equate human life with personhood. You can’t beat them on the first part of the claim, and you are going to get inundated with stacks of science. And continual “burden shifting” challenges between the sides is tiring and pointless. If you claim a human zygote is not a “person,” or should not have full rights of personhood, you should be prepared to explain why. Neither side has “proof” that a zygote should have full rights of personhood, because its a legal and ethical question, not a scientific one.

410

Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Pro lifers are claiming personhood starts at conception, I am saying there is no proof of that. If you can prove such a thing I am waiting…

No, they don’t, technically. They claim human life starts at conception and implicitly equate human life with personhood

No offense because I know you said technically,but isn’t this just semantics?

411

750×750 58.2 KB

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I have a closed mind in this regard. I admit it. Others? They won’t. So who’s the hypocrite? The one who has a closed mind in this matter and admits it or the one who has a closed mind and doesn’t admit it?

Maybe it all comes down to Honest Hypocrite or Dishonest Hypocrite?

Which one are you?

Doogie, is your mind open to the possibility that your non-faith (or faith is something else) is misplaced? That there is a God, and the Bible was divinely inspired?
[/quote]

412

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
, bit bankrupt.
[/quote]

Says the guy who moves the goal posts every time he gets challenged.

You’re being delayed like a mofo, what is your other screen name?

413

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
You and pro lifers are the ones making the claim that personhood begins at conception, prove it or stop saying it.

[/quote]

Please go back and quote were anyone other than you, putting words in people’s mouth, said what you claim, in this thread.

416

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Have you read the Bible? All of it, not a few lines or a book or two?[/quote]

In my teens, yes. Not since then.

I was once a believer, but started having those questions that were answered with “You just have to have faith”. That’s when I realized I didn’t have that faith anymore.
[/quote]

Fair enough, if you say you have read the actual whole thing I cannot say you haven’t. I just get irritated with those who see fit to criticize and ridicule something they have never read. It happens far to often. [/quote]

I don’t think I criticized or ridiculed it. I was just curious if Push’s mind is as open as he wants everyone else’s to be.

417

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

So when god aborts a fetus it is ok, when we do it it is an abomination?

[/quote]

Yep.

Your difficulty in comprehending this is that you have fallen for the premise first used a long time ago in the Garden where the first woman was assured she could become like God.

You think you (we) have become gods and as such can taunt our fellow God about what we perceive to be His inconsistencies. This has been going on for a long time. You think we can create “Gotcha” scenarios with the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of the Universe.

You can’t. You’re a fucking pipsqueak. I’m a fucking pipsqueak. Get over yourself.
[/quote]

OK, so god commanding Saul to commit genocide upon the Amalekites is ok because god is infallible.

Our all knowing, all seeing, all powerful god who kills us and damns us to eternal torture in hell, because he loves us.

Sounds like an abusive stepfather.

418

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Doogie, is your mind open to the possibility that your non-faith (or faith is something else) is misplaced? That there is a God, and the Bible was divinely inspired?
[/quote]

I’m open to the possibility. I can’t force or trick myself into believing it at the moment, but I’m open to the possibility.

420

[quote]pushharder wrote:
A prudent man, however, would probably surmise that things musta been pretty damn bad at that time. Wouldn’t you agree?[/quote]

I would be more inclined to agree with a statement like “a prudent man would not rush to take the oral history of Bronze Age sheepherders at face value”.

For what it’s worth, I am skeptical about the historicity and veracity of the stories of Prometheus’s theft of the sacred fire, Pandora’s Box and Deucalion’s Ark, as well, lest you think that I confine my disbelief to the myths of some illiterate sheepherders and not of others.

Though I would happily believe in Pan and Aphrodite and Dionysus and nymphs, if only that would make them real.