Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is it the people most adamant about outlawing abortion are also the most adamant about cutting social services to help the little sprogs when they finally drop out of the womb?

I guess jesus only casts his magical blessings for those under a year old. Then his followers become ardent social darwinists.[/quote]

Even if you weren’t grossly misrepresenting the pro-life position, this would still be an idiotic post.

Being born to poor parents is not justification for murdering people.

What the fuck is wrong with people that don’t understand this? Why is it every pro-choice zealot that brings this shit up thinks that being poor is reason enough to slaughter people?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is it the people most adamant about outlawing abortion are also the most adamant about cutting social services to help the little sprogs when they finally drop out of the womb?

I guess jesus only casts his magical blessings for those under a year old. Then his followers become ardent social darwinists.[/quote]

Even if you weren’t grossly misrepresenting the pro-life position, this would still be an idiotic post.

Being born to poor parents is not justification for murdering people.

What the fuck is wrong with people that don’t understand this? Why is it every pro-choice zealot that brings this shit up thinks that being poor is reason enough to slaughter people?[/quote]

There is a reason a fetus can not decide or ask to live, because it lacks the development and thus ability, it lacks consciousness, it requires its mother to survive. This firmly places the decision on the only conscious “person”, the host, whom the organism is dependent on for life.

There is a reason the scientific community is overwhelmingly pro choice, there is also a reason the religious right are anti scientific.

Also any sentence with pro choice in it followed up by zealot is requiring some pretty large mental gymnastics. A zealot would be someone who believes in moral absolutes.

The scientific community would instead infer that consciousness requires a brain and good and evil is relative. Removing cells that have not gained consciousness from the host those cells need to continue existing is as much murder as wanking into a cleanex is.

If that is your moral stance, one which the pope shares then fine, but to try and enforce that belief system through state power is about as theocratic as you can get. Why does your subjective moral position that is at odds with the scientific community’s stance on the issue deserve to be enforced on others?

Now I am sure you will respond with more rude and condescending replies, but if you actually have a real reason I would be interested to hear it.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is it the people most adamant about outlawing abortion are also the most adamant about cutting social services to help the little sprogs when they finally drop out of the womb?

I guess jesus only casts his magical blessings for those under a year old. Then his followers become ardent social darwinists.[/quote]

Even if you weren’t grossly misrepresenting the pro-life position, this would still be an idiotic post.

Being born to poor parents is not justification for murdering people.

What the fuck is wrong with people that don’t understand this? Why is it every pro-choice zealot that brings this shit up thinks that being poor is reason enough to slaughter people?[/quote]

There is a reason a fetus can not decide or ask to live, because it lacks the development and thus ability, it lacks consciousness, it requires its mother to survive. This firmly places the decision on the only conscious “person”, the host, whom the organism is dependent on for life.

There is a reason the scientific community is overwhelmingly pro choice, there is also a reason the religious right are anti scientific.

Also any sentence with pro choice in it followed up by zealot is requiring some pretty large mental gymnastics. A zealot would be someone who believes in moral absolutes.

The scientific community would instead infer that consciousness requires a brain and good and evil is relative. Removing cells that have not gained consciousness from the host those cells need to continue existing is as much murder as wanking into a cleanex is.

If that is your moral stance, one which the pope shares then fine, but to try and enforce that belief system through state power is about as theocratic as you can get. Why does your subjective moral position that is at odds with the scientific community’s stance on the issue deserve to be enforced on others?

Now I am sure you will respond with more rude and condescending replies, but if you actually have a real reason I would be interested to hear it.

[/quote]

The scientific community? Are you referring to embryologists who are the scientists who study human development?
Please present a scientific document by an embryologist who considers a fetus something other than a human being.

It’s funny how people who tout science get very unscientific about this topic. Because science does not support their position.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

There is a reason a fetus can not decide or ask to live, because it lacks the development and thus ability, it lacks consciousness, it requires its mother to survive. This firmly places the decision on the only conscious “person”, the host, whom the organism is dependent on for life.[/quote]

I know teenagers that would die if not for the parents… This bullshit holds zero water.

If you were consistent you’d have to advocate for parents that shake their infants to death because they cry a lot. Do you? An infant wouldn’t survive without a parent.

Source for either of these?

So it bothers you to be labeled a zealot?

From google: “a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.”

I’d say, pro-choice people, are in fact that. Nothing mentioned about “morals”. So, unless you admit to making up definitions out of thin air (which folds your “I’m so super science” line of rhetoric), I think we can conclude that zealot fits here just fine.

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest you’re full of utter shit here and playing semantics.

Science knows and states life begins at conception, and that it is a human life in the womb. The rest of the conversation is semantics used to justify an action.

Abortion is either ending a human life through artificial terms or it isn’t. Science will prove, over and over, the former correct. The only reason you bring in consciousness is to try and pretend you and your “Scientist” mind don’t really understand you’re advocating the killing of babies.

Funny… I dont’ remember mentioning any laws being written. Care to jump to any more conclusions? That’s twice now you’ve purposely misrepresented the people’s whom you disagree with position. The first time my position specifically. Is there a reason you need to do this?

This is… utter bullshit.

[quote]Now I am sure you will respond with more rude and condescending replies, but if you actually have a real reason I would be interested to hear it.

[/quote]

lmao… So you can start off with it, but don’t want it in return?

rrriiiigghhhhhttt…

[quote]pat wrote:

Please present a scientific document by an embryologist who considers a fetus something other than a human being.

.[/quote]

Would also like to read this.

I’ve always wondered if it was magic fairy dust rather than life, that had a tree, suddenly turn into a person after some arbitrary moment of time in the womb.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is it the people most adamant about outlawing abortion are also the most adamant about cutting social services to help the little sprogs when they finally drop out of the womb?

I guess jesus only casts his magical blessings for those under a year old. Then his followers become ardent social darwinists.[/quote]

Perhaps you’d like to take a swing at making an argument that isn’t a raging straw man?[/quote]

How is what I said an informal fallacy? Almost all pro life people are right wing, they also happen to be mainly religious. These same people clearly overwhelmingly vote for people who are for scalling back or removing social services.

You don’t think this is true?[/quote]

It is an informal fallacy because it doesn’t have shit to do with the topic whether it’s true or not true. It’s just a bunch of random daggers thrown at people you don’t like. It doesn’t back up your position or argument.
Being pro-life or right wing does not mean that the thing you are killing in an abortion is not a human being.
To support your position you have to prove one of two things. Either, killing innocent human beings is a-ok. Or that the thing you are killing is not a human being. Not based on some arbitrary definition of what a human is that you make up, but based on reality and science.
Provide a scientific proof that the embryonic or fetal phase of human life renders that life, not human.

[quote]pat wrote:

Provide a scientific proof that the embryonic or fetal phase of human life renders that life, not human.[/quote]

But… Pat… You believe in God and are pro-life… According to this thread your anti science…

:wink:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

There is a reason a fetus can not decide or ask to live, because it lacks the development and thus ability, it lacks consciousness, it requires its mother to survive. This firmly places the decision on the only conscious “person”, the host, whom the organism is dependent on for life.[/quote]

I know teenagers that would die if not for the parents… This bullshit holds zero water.

If you were consistent you’d have to advocate for parents that shake their infants to death because they cry a lot. Do you? An infant wouldn’t survive without a parent.

Source for either of these?

So it bothers you to be labeled a zealot?

From google: “a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.”

I’d say, pro-choice people, are in fact that. Nothing mentioned about “morals”. So, unless you admit to making up definitions out of thin air (which folds your “I’m so super science” line of rhetoric), I think we can conclude that zealot fits here just fine.

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest you’re full of utter shit here and playing semantics.

Science knows and states life begins at conception, and that it is a human life in the womb. The rest of the conversation is semantics used to justify an action.

Abortion is either ending a human life through artificial terms or it isn’t. Science will prove, over and over, the former correct. The only reason you bring in consciousness is to try and pretend you and your “Scientist” mind don’t really understand you’re advocating the killing of babies.

Funny… I dont’ remember mentioning any laws being written. Care to jump to any more conclusions? That’s twice now you’ve purposely misrepresented the people’s whom you disagree with position. The first time my position specifically. Is there a reason you need to do this?

This is… utter bullshit.

[quote]Now I am sure you will respond with more rude and condescending replies, but if you actually have a real reason I would be interested to hear it.

[/quote]

lmao… So you can start off with it, but don’t want it in return?

rrriiiigghhhhhttt… [/quote]

This is where it becomes silly and assenine.

Being pro choice, as opposed to one option only is zealous? As opposed to pro life, which has less options, again, this is just the kind of nonsensical bafoonery that we all enjoy seeing Hitch and Dawkins and Harris ridicule.

Your assertion that removing cells that lack consciousness from a host whose body is nescessary for the cells to continue living is the same as shaking a conscious child who can survive outside the womb is so silly.

As for the life starts at conception line, well no clearly it does not, sperm are not travelling to an egg while dead. Life is life, the ethical debate is about when personhood starts. This is a social construct and there is no answer, most rational people conclude personhood starts when offspring can have autonomy over their body, which is to say no longer require a parasitical tie to host and when it gains consciousness.

Again you are chasing your tail around because you are not even aware of the basic reality to what constitutes life.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is it the people most adamant about outlawing abortion are also the most adamant about cutting social services to help the little sprogs when they finally drop out of the womb?

I guess jesus only casts his magical blessings for those under a year old. Then his followers become ardent social darwinists.[/quote]

Even if you weren’t grossly misrepresenting the pro-life position, this would still be an idiotic post.

Being born to poor parents is not justification for murdering people.

What the fuck is wrong with people that don’t understand this? Why is it every pro-choice zealot that brings this shit up thinks that being poor is reason enough to slaughter people?[/quote]

You seem like a nice kid Perlenbacher15, from the Wendler thread anyway, but you’re way off your rocker here.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
There is a reason a fetus can not decide or ask to live, because it lacks the development and thus ability, it lacks consciousness, it requires its mother to survive. [/quote]

So does a 1 year old.

[quote]
This firmly places the decision on the only conscious “person”, the host, whom the organism is dependent on for life. [/quote]

Same goes for a 1 year old.

[quote]
There is a reason the scientific community is overwhelmingly pro choice, there is also a reason the religious right are anti scientific. [/quote]

Lol…

[quote]
Also any sentence with pro choice in it followed up by zealot is requiring some pretty large mental gymnastics. A zealot would be someone who believes in moral absolutes.

The scientific community would instead infer that consciousness requires a brain and good and evil is relative. Removing cells that have not gained consciousness from the host those cells need to continue existing is as much murder as wanking into a cleanex is. [/quote]

How many times does this garbage argument have to come up before we can move on. Sperm cells and a fetus are two entirely different things. Basic biology man, basic biology…

Let’s also drop the argument that abortion is all about consciousness, it is not. It’s about convenience.

For that matter, prove when consciousness begins (please use science). “Consciousness requires a brain,” does a fetus not have a brain? Please explain the double standard of why a mother can abort her baby, but if she was instead murdered the murderer could be charged with double homicide?

[quote]
If that is your moral stance, one which the pope shares then fine, but to try and enforce that belief system through state power is about as theocratic as you can get. Why does your subjective moral position that is at odds with the scientific community’s stance on the issue deserve to be enforced on others? [/quote]

Very few people I’ve met actually care what the Pope thinks. This is not the 11th century. Conversely, people like laws. Some favorites among family and friends are the ones about murder. Shit is crazy, I know.

Re: Social services, the two topics are entirely different and I doubt very many people want to cut social programs that directly benefit children. It’s the leeches that could earn their own way that piss most of us science haters off.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You never actually found information proving my data incorrect. [/quote]

I never actually looked.

I was too busy trying to find a source that corroborated the claim you made. No luck there. Post the link. If it’s from operationrescue.org or prolifeaction.org or somewhere similar, at least it will be out in the open, and people can make their own decisions. If someone were to make the claim that 75% of all women who had abortions in the United States last year are practicing Roman Catholics, you would want to know the source, right? And if you then saw that this statistic came from operationinfanticide.org or killbabiesforsatan.org, you would be skeptical. And rightly so.

No, they will claim that the source is biased, and that the evidence is therefore suspect.

Whenever you transliterate your mocking laughter with a ‘j’ I always envision a Rastafarian calling the name of his god, for some reason.

I promise I will not forget.

Of course. You would act the same in their position, I can assure you.

Surely such an earth-shattering statistic would be easy for you to find again. I mean, a study suggesting that 97% of all rape victims who abort their pregnancies end up dying shortly thereafter, whereas those rape victims who DON’T abort their pregnancies survive and thrive… that has got to be front and centre in every medical journal around.

All I was able to find was this, which is the study that came up again and again in searches related to rape-related pregnancy.

Holmes, MM; Resnick, HS; Kilpatrick, DG; Best, CL (1996). “Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women”. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 175 (2): 320-324

The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.

This was from 1996, or “about a decade ago”, so it fits in with the time frame of your supposed study.

You are essentially claiming that of the 32,101 women and girls who become pregnant as a result of rape each year, 15,568 of them will die within a few years if they elect to end their pregnancies, whereas the 11,849 women and girls who decide to carry their rapists’ offspring to term will live long and prosper.

Forgive me if I do not accept this at face value. I do not mean to imply that you are full of shit, only that I believe that either your statistics are incorrect, or else you are recollecting them mistakenly. It has been ten years, after all, to say nothing of your aforementioned brain injury. No offence intended, but you did say that your memory was affected.

My friend Aragorn has saved me the trouble of responding here.

As long as abortion is legal it cannot technically be “murder”.

Which is why you might profit from speaking to some people who are on the opposite side of the issue, face to face, in a non-confrontational manner. Find out some of the reasons they might support a position that to you is untenable. You might find that the reason “in your mind” is not the same reason as in theirs.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is it the people most adamant about outlawing abortion are also the most adamant about cutting social services to help the little sprogs when they finally drop out of the womb?

I guess jesus only casts his magical blessings for those under a year old. Then his followers become ardent social darwinists.[/quote]

Even if you weren’t grossly misrepresenting the pro-life position, this would still be an idiotic post.

Being born to poor parents is not justification for murdering people.

What the fuck is wrong with people that don’t understand this? Why is it every pro-choice zealot that brings this shit up thinks that being poor is reason enough to slaughter people?[/quote]

You seem like a nice kid Perlenbacher15, from the Wendler thread anyway, but you’re way off your rocker here.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
There is a reason a fetus can not decide or ask to live, because it lacks the development and thus ability, it lacks consciousness, it requires its mother to survive. [/quote]

So does a 1 year old.

[quote]
This firmly places the decision on the only conscious “person”, the host, whom the organism is dependent on for life. [/quote]

Same goes for a 1 year old.

[quote]
There is a reason the scientific community is overwhelmingly pro choice, there is also a reason the religious right are anti scientific. [/quote]

Lol…

[quote]
Also any sentence with pro choice in it followed up by zealot is requiring some pretty large mental gymnastics. A zealot would be someone who believes in moral absolutes.

The scientific community would instead infer that consciousness requires a brain and good and evil is relative. Removing cells that have not gained consciousness from the host those cells need to continue existing is as much murder as wanking into a cleanex is. [/quote]

How many times does this garbage argument have to come up before we can move on. Sperm cells and a fetus are two entirely different things. Basic biology man, basic biology…

Let’s also drop the argument that abortion is all about consciousness, it is not. It’s about convenience.

For that matter, prove when consciousness begins (please use science). “Consciousness requires a brain,” does a fetus not have a brain? Please explain the double standard of why a mother can abort her baby, but if she was instead murdered the murderer could be charged with double homicide?

[quote]
If that is your moral stance, one which the pope shares then fine, but to try and enforce that belief system through state power is about as theocratic as you can get. Why does your subjective moral position that is at odds with the scientific community’s stance on the issue deserve to be enforced on others? [/quote]

Very few people I’ve met actually care what the Pope thinks. This is not the 11th century. Conversely, people like laws. Some favorites among family and friends are the ones about murder. Shit is crazy, I know.

Re: Social services, the two topics are entirely different and I doubt very many people want to cut social programs that directly benefit children. It’s the leeches that could earn their own way that piss most of us science haters off.[/quote]

To be fair this discussion is not really an issue for me, for many it seems to be a huge thing in their life and a very personal topic, I bear no ill will towards anyone on here but I simply don’t agree.

I also see that the religious right’s view on this is completely at odds with scientific consensus and societal laws. Why does every prominent legitimate scientific figure not agree with the basic tennets of the pro life argument?

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

Being pro choice, as opposed to one option only is zealous? As opposed to pro life, which has less options,[/quote]

Pro-life people can be zealots too.

I’d rather be a zealot that cares about people than one that vacuums them out.

Translation: I can’t rationalize my justification for abortion in these terms so anything you say is irrational.

lmao

Link to peer reviewed study that shows that a unique human life begins at any other time than conception?

Most rational people? Didn’t you just bitch about “civil discourse”?

So, in your world view, because someone doesn’t hold the same opinion as you they are irrational?

lmao again.

ahhh, the old “babies are parasites” fallacy.

You’re new here. This flop of an idea has been tossed around before.

[quote]Again you are chasing your tail around because you are not even aware of the basic reality to what constitutes life.
[/quote]

lmao.

Yeah, that’s it.

I just want to point out that the church claims that contraception and abortion are morally the same.

killing the sperm and thus its chance to reach an egg is just as logically follows the pro life arguement that if you don’t abort a fetus it becomes a person. Well if you don’t stop the sperm reaching the egg you don’t stop the fetus developing and you don’t stop the birth of a child. It is the logical extension of the other.

Here is some clarification on the matter:

In his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Paul VI gave an exact account of the nature of contraceptive actions. A contraceptive act is had in any act of coition which is intended precisely to act against the procreative good, to prevent it from being realized.Thus, there are various ways in which intercourse can be contraceptive: through the use of mechanical devices (such as condoms or diaphragms), by the use of withdrawal or spermicides, by the use of anovulant pills, by surgical sterilization, and the like. Contraception is always part of a dual act, ?contraceptive intercourse.? In this dual act of contraceptive intercourse, one chooses to engage in sexual intercourse. While choosing to have intercourse, which is known to be essentially related to the procreation of new human life, and precisely because one does not want the act of intercourse to flower the fruitfulness which it can have, one performs the contraceptive act. This act is aimed precisely against the procreative good. The coming-to-be of a new human life (which is in itself a great good, though one may perhaps very reasonably desire not to realize it here and now) is treated as an evil, something to be acted against. The precise purpose of the contraceptive act, as we shall more fully show below, is to act directly against the great human good of procreation ? to treat it as if here and now it was an evil, not a good.
I will exit this thread now because I am only on the forum for workout advise and to keep a log, I merely popped in this thread and gave an opinion but some people are arguing so emotionally it is clearly not going to be worth trying to meaningfully engage with people who have unwavering stances based on faith.

I respect peoples right to have faith and have whatever belief they want and as abortion is legal and I support it being legal, arguing with people of faith on a forum who disagree with that seems rather senseless.

I will however leave this here, what I think is a good summation of most peoples stances on the topic.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Provide a scientific proof that the embryonic or fetal phase of human life renders that life, not human.[/quote]

But… Pat… You believe in God and are pro-life… According to this thread your anti science…

;)[/quote]

Yup, the same cliches always get repeated. We God believers are by default dumb flat-earthers.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
I also see that the religious right’s view on this is completely at odds with scientific consensus and societal laws. Why does every prominent legitimate scientific figure not agree with the basic tennets of the pro life argument?[/quote]

You’re gonna have to help me out here because in my experience that is not true.

My questions would be:

  1. What are the basic tenets of the pro life argument?
  2. How is the “religious right’s view” at odds with “scientific consensus?”
  3. What exactly is “scientific consensus?”
  4. Who are these prominent scientific figures?
  5. Why are they considered legitimate?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Provide a scientific proof that the embryonic or fetal phase of human life renders that life, not human.[/quote]

But… Pat… You believe in God and are pro-life… According to this thread your anti science…

;)[/quote]

Yup, the same cliches always get repeated. We God believers are by default dumb flat-earthers.[/quote]

Biblical flat Earth claims must be addressed because many biblical literalists claim the Bible disproves evolution and other scientific theories prima facie. Since there is no real debate about the shape of the Earth, these passages call biblical literalism into question.
In numerous passages, the Bible claims that the earth is flat and/or rectangular. Whether or not the Bible “really” says this is often debated â?? but if the Bible was written by people who lived in societies who were unaware that the Earth is a more-or-less spherical object which orbits the Sun then we would expect this ignorance to be reflected in their writings.

Flat Earth claims
"Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king â??saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earthâ?¦ reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.â?? Only with a flat Earth could a tall tree be visible from “the Earth’s farthest bounds,” â?? this is impossible on a spherical earth.

Theological rebuttal: The strength of Daniel 4:10-11 as an argument for a flat Earth is considerably reduced by the fact that this part of the Book of Daniel recounts a dream experienced by the Persian king during a fit of madness. Thus, it does not necessarily refer to an actually existing tree or make any statements about real cosmology. This fact would seem to indicate that biblical literalists do not even know how to read the Bible properly. It also ignores that the New Testament claims that the Devil showed Jesus the entire world from the top of a mountain, which would not be possible on a spherical Earth:

Matthew 4:8: “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world”

Luke 4:5: “And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.”

Theological rebuttal again: The strength of using Matthew and Luke as flat Earth claims is reduced by the fact that “Kingdom” is a human construct. If you classify all the places on Earth you can’t see from that particular location as “Not Kingdoms” such as barbaric tribes and non-monarchies, It can be fitted within that description. However, How the devil knows those places are not ruled by Kings (Again, the concept of “King” is also a human concept) is not exactly clear.

Isaiah 40:22: “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.”

Indeed, this quote is used to prove that Bible claims that the Earth is spherical. Some scholars point out that Isaiah never uses the Modern Hebrew word for sphere Kadur anywhere. It is not clear whether this is relevant, seeing as the interpretation of the word Kadur in the bible is disputed ‘Four Corners’ Flat Earth claims

Isaiah 11:12 “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”

Revelation 7:1 “And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.”

As with the Daniel quote, this cannot be taken literally; the events described in Revelation are a series of visions, rather than an accurate description of the world. Another interpretation of this verse is that four corners of the earth don’t refer to literal four corners but to cardinal directions, which is further supported by the description of the four winds which are commonly referenced by their cardinal direction.

It is obvious, that no scholars admit whether the Bible suggested the spherical earth. But there have been Christians and Muslims who still believe that Earth is actually flat, like Wilbur Glenn Voliva, who even offered $5000 as a prize for anyone who can prove that earth is not Flat. Although his predictions about Earth ending in 1923, 1927, 1930, and 1935 failed too.

Teaching about spherical Earth was banned in the schools of Zion, Illinois, at that time.
Mohammed Yusuf, founder of terrorist group Boko Haram stated that Theory of Evolution as well as spherical Earth teachings should be rejected because they are against Islam.
In a 2007’s TV debate, an Iraqi Astronomer, Fadhel Al-Said tried hard to push the ideas that the Earth is flat and Qur’anic verses also supports that the Sun (also flat) is much smaller than Earth and revolves around it.

Former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, mentioned flat-earthers in passing (though he was actually speaking against mandatory teaching of creation science):
â??â??There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy. There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Your assertion that removing cells that lack consciousness from a host whose body is nescessary for the cells to continue living is the same as shaking a conscious child who can survive outside the womb is so silly. [/quote]

A 1 year old can not survive outside the womb without a, “host,” period.

How is that silly? Why does the location of a person and or a very small variation in time (months) make such a paramount difference in your opinion?

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
The scientific community would instead infer that consciousness requires a brain and good and evil is relative. Removing cells that have not gained consciousness from the host those cells need to continue existing is as much murder as wanking into a cleanex is.
[/quote]

You are mixing science with ethics in a way that isn’t going to help your case. You are correct that the actual ethical question is when to recognize legal “personhood,” but you are going to get your ass handed to you if you confuse that with when science identifies an organism as a “human,” for example. When “life begins” doesn’t answer the question either. Science does not answer ethical questions in this debate in the way you want it to and you might consider that your arguments need refining and not simply write these guys off as crazy “zealots.” If you do simply write them off, you are doing both sides of the debate a disservice.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
I also see that the religious right’s view on this is completely at odds with scientific consensus and societal laws. Why does every prominent legitimate scientific figure not agree with the basic tennets of the pro life argument?[/quote]

You’re gonna have to help me out here because in my experience that is not true.

My questions would be:

  1. What are the basic tenets of the pro life argument?
  2. How is the “religious right’s view” at odds with “scientific consensus?”
  3. What exactly is “scientific consensus?”
  4. Who are these prominent scientific figures?
  5. Why are they considered legitimate?
    [/quote]

ou have been really helpful and nice to me on the forum so I really don’t want to enter into a discussion on religion or politics with you because it only ever ends with people getting upset.

I will just say I respectfully disagree and gently close the door behind me.

Since when is a human not a person?