Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[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 �¢??moment of
conception.�¢?? 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

[/quote]

If you don’t know how to read, I can’t fix that.
The embryo, at any stage is a human being is a plain scientific fact. There is nothing you can do about it.

443

[quote]confusion wrote:
According to the Bible,Adam was not alive until God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,and man became a living soul”. So,it appears that is the requirement for life straight from the scriptures[/quote]

Fun fact:

Both of the words for “soul” in the Hebrew Bible, nepesh and ruach (which correspond to the words psyche and pneuma in the Greek New Testament), both mean “breath”.

So yes, if we are to take the Bible literally, unless you breathe, you don’t have a soul.

444

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What I’ve been getting at, especially with SM, Varq,and now this Confused feller, is that the Bible stories so many take issue with due to their perceived impossibilities are very basically and simply told. And briefly.

To dismiss them because all you really know about them is what your third grade Sunday School teacher taught you is a grave disservice. Yeah, it allows you to be a taunting sumbitch (not directing that at anyone in particular) like the proverbial schoolyard bully that makes all the other kids laugh but you don’t really understand that which you make fun of and when that happens your intellect contracts, or at least it never is allowed to expand. And we don’t want that, do we?[/quote]

I understand what you’re saying; however, Noah’s Ark is a good example, imo, of why Christians should not take the bible literally. The Ark was smaller than a Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier and said Aircraft carrier could not house a pair of every animal on the Earth + food + fresh water. It couldn’t hold a fraction of the animals on this earth plus necessities. It’s logistically impossibly. [/quote]

It would have taken an ark three times the size of the one described in Genesis just to house all of the currently extant species of beetle.

Perhaps what Noah carried on the ark were the DNA samples of every species of terrestrial flora and fauna, from which which he then cloned breeding populations in his makeshift laboratory on Ararat. When he got drunk and Ham walked in on him jerking off to the Paleoboy Magazine centrefold, he got so flustered that he accidentally knocked over the tray containing all the dinosaur DNA, along with the DNA for the unicorns, centaurs and Cthulhu.

I mean, if people lived into their 900s back then, it is not at all unreasonable to assume that they also possessed cloning technology. [/quote]

And the fact animals like to eat other animals might pose a problem and the fact the earth was not connected the same way back then and it would of been impossible for example for the kangaroo to of made it to Australia from Turkey, especially in the midst of all the released cheetas and other predators dumped in the same spot :smiley:

447

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith, they believe what can be proved and not things that require belief without faith.

Comparing that to religion if moronic.[/quote]

Yet, when the science contradicts your belief you reject it, is particularly hilarious. Then you claim no faith. The conflict is blaring.

And since you seem to be the only one comparing religion to science, you are calling yourself a moron.

Life requires faith, you don’t know anything. You think you do, but your just trusting a bunch of people who are scientists aren’t lying to you. You’re not working the science, you’re not working the equations, you’re not interpreting results. You’re trusting people are telling you the truth. That’s the very definition of faith.

448

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

A healthy woman these days…[/quote]

Indeed. These days.

If the present is the key to the past…to all extent.
[/quote]

Please do me the courtesy of reading the rest of my post. I’ve addressed the shambling “present is the key to the past” scarecrow twice now.

450

[quote]pat wrote:

Life requires faith, you don’t know anything. You think you do, but your just trusting a bunch of people who are scientists aren’t lying to you. You’re not working the science, you’re not working the equations, you’re not interpreting results. You’re trusting people are telling you the truth. That’s the very definition of faith.

[/quote]

The difference, of course, being that you don’t have to take the scientists’ word for it. You can always go and look at the evidence yourself, and see whether they are honestly representing the facts.

452

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

It would have taken an ark three times the size of the one described in Genesis just to house all of the currently extant species of beetle.

[/quote]

Ahh…GrasshopperVarq, is that what the text says? Was every last species on the face of the earth to be represented?

You’re in a box, buddy, a box you can’t seem to get out of. You’re not thinking it through and it’s plainly evident you need to “study up.” You do NOT understand the creationism model. There are explanations you simply and clearly are not aware of.
[/quote]

A prophesy fulfilled. Hallelujah.

453

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Life requires faith, you don’t know anything. You think you do, but your just trusting a bunch of people who are scientists aren’t lying to you. You’re not working the science, you’re not working the equations, you’re not interpreting results. You’re trusting people are telling you the truth. That’s the very definition of faith.

[/quote]

The difference, of course, being that you don’t have to take the scientists’ word for it. You can always go and look at the evidence yourself, and see whether they are honestly representing the facts.

[/quote]

Possible if you’re especially gifted to be able to understand the cutting edge of every branch of science. What about the rest of us idiots?

455

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith

[/quote]

LOL
[/quote]

Groan.[/quote]

Everyone has faith, in something. You know this lol. [/quote]

No, I was groaning at Perlenbacher’s inadvertent self-contradiction, and Push picking up the fumble and gaining a yard. I mean, the goalposts are hundreds of miles apart, but it was still a yard.[/quote]

A yard, huh? LOL

I deserve more than a yard.

Shit, I get a first down every time I run the ball on you. Or pass. I even get first downs when I throw interceptions because then I tackle the fucker so hard he fumbles and I regain the ball.[/quote]

Can you please tell me I have faith similar to yours in religion? I don’t, nor do i believe in anything without evidence.

This whole you have faith too its just I admit it bullshit has no basis.

Your entire world view is shaped by something for which there is no proof at all. My world view is shaped by what it is possible to know and nothing else.

I don’t have faith in the prophet of science, I look at scientific findings and if there is overwhelming evidence I believe it. Not believing in something like god is not having faith that I know there is no god, it is simply not believing because there is no proof for it.

456

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
I would like to see a single fossil,or anything else(other than the bible) that shows people lived 600 years or more.[/quote]

Funny isn’t it how the people who demand sources require non for their entire belief system.[/quote]

Yes,lol,just believe it because the Bible says so…Then,figure out strategies to defend what tbe Bible says. That’s biased thinking and foolish

457

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote: It couldn’t hold a fraction of the animals on this earth plus necessities.

[/quote]

Didn’t have to.

I already touched on this.[/quote]

I must have missed it.

I’m usually on your side Push, but not this time. The only way Noah could of saved all the animals he had to save would be if the number of animals was extremely small.

Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the arkâ??you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

Chapter seven makes it even worse:

1 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

What am I missing here?

458

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith, they believe what can be proved and not things that require belief without faith.

Comparing that to religion if moronic.[/quote]

Yet, when the science contradicts your belief you reject it, is particularly hilarious. Then you claim no faith. The conflict is blaring.

And since you seem to be the only one comparing religion to science, you are calling yourself a moron.

Life requires faith, you don’t know anything. You think you do, but your just trusting a bunch of people who are scientists aren’t lying to you. You’re not working the science, you’re not working the equations, you’re not interpreting results. You’re trusting people are telling you the truth. That’s the very definition of faith.

[/quote]

This is so silly.

I am trusting a bunch of scientists? No, you can look at scientific data and check the validity of the claim, or you can look at an invention and see it working, you can do neither for the insane religious claims.

459

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
According to the Bible,Adam was not alive until God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,and man became a living soul”. So,it appears that is the requirement for life straight from the scriptures[/quote]

Fun fact:

Both of the words for “soul” in the Hebrew Bible, nepesh and ruach (which correspond to the words psyche and pneuma in the Greek New Testament), both mean “breath”.

So yes, if we are to take the Bible literally, unless you breathe, you don’t have a soul.[/quote]

Thank you. Someone actually agreed with me and acknowledged a valid argument. what better source for a Christian to refer to than Gods own word? Now,I can arise and go hence…

460

Funny how no one elses boats or arks worked, only Noah’s.