[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]cryogen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
No you miss my point , that fetus is not a child [/quote]
No a sperm is a child. I name all of mine.[/quote]
Your photo album must take up entire rooms of your house then…[/quote]
When your sperm is as pretty as mine, you make room.[/quote]
we agree 
[/quote]
So Pitt you have seen Pat’s sperm? Is there something you are not telling us? lol
[/quote]
I’d have to give him a facial and that just wouldn’t be pretty, but it would be an up close view…[/quote]
you so called conservatives are surprising me . Dmad is constantly inquiring on my sexual orientation and pat has homo erotic fantasies about me . I will tell you both so I no longer tease your dicks . I am straight , sorry guys
[/quote]
Damn…
The only reason your surprised is because of your own bias. “Conservatives” are just people. And we might by some miracle have a sense of humor too.
I am a deadhead for crying out loud, having conservative beliefs are based on reflection, examination of logic and facts. I am against abortion, for instance, because the logic and reason leads me to no other conclusion that a human life, the species of homosapian is created as new, unique and complete human being at the point of conception. There is NO evidence contrary to this. There is no logic that can be derived that would entail the new creature is anything other than a complete, unique, automous homosapien, unique from the host and the donor.
Since that is the case and I believe that killing human beings is morally wrong, I have no choice but to be against abortion. It’s where the evidence leads and that’s what I am going to follow.[/quote]
I think the definition of conservative is a whole new threads . I will say I think I am more conservative than the majority on this site . Conserving one’s money or environment or assets is what (I) believe conservative is all about . Not whether you choose to do away with some cells that could become a person
[/quote]
The cells are already a person. You have failed to prove differently. You’ve brought nothing, no evidence to the contrary.[/quote]
They are definitely not a person. Fundamentally, just because you claim it to be, doesn’t make it true, and nor does it force the burden of proof away from your position. There is a significant amount of evidence to the contrary, but it seems that your idiotic beliefs mean that you’ve already decided the outcome, and you’re trying to make the evidence fit, and cherry picking only the evidence that suits your conclusion.
Calling an embryo autonomous is so stupid it is surprising that you’re able to find the on button on your computer.
Lets not forget that your ability to apply logic and reason is clearly flawed due to your farcical beliefs in sky fairies and afterlives.[/quote]
I haven’t seen anyone massacre logic and reason more than yourself. My ‘beliefs’ are backed by science, logic and reason. What you got? Nothing? Thought so.
Provide a shred of evidence for what you are saying. You won’t find any because it doesn’t exist. Don’t use words you don’t understand the meaning of.
Here’s a scientific perspective. No I don’t expect you to understand it.
http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf
[/quote]
ROFL, You can’t claim that sky fairies exist and that you have justified your beliefs with science logic and reason. The whole reason the “faith” card needs to be played is because the beliefs are fundamentally irrational and illogical.
A white paper like the one in that link is not scientific, at least as far as the method is concerned. In isolation, the premise can be seen to be attractive and yet it fundamentally ignores the most important aspects of the process. Yes it uses evidence to make an argument, yet just because an exercise is a well written chicken and the egg prevarication, does not mean that when looking at the evidence all scientists must arrive at the same judgement. That’s just not the way the scientific method works, and shows a significant misunderstanding of just what scientists do with the scientific method.
That implantation of the embryo is also necessary for life can’t be argued, as well the provision of energetic requirements for the growth of this cluster of dividing cells. What this paper manages to do is to muddy the waters so that intellectual incompetents such as yourself, Pat, are able to understand a line or two and think that this is sufficient basis to impose your own judgements about what is morally acceptable or not onto other individuals who don’t share your farcical ideology.
Trying to make clearly delineated single point of “the beginning of life”, where the evidence to support this position is simply making a definition of what it is does not advance the argument. What it does is ask the fundamentally incorrect question. The important question is at what point does independent life begin.
Until that time, while the embryo may have the potential for life in the future, it is not really anything other than a tumour in the body of the mother.
This is generally the problem with ethicists and their papers. They rumenate occasionally over interesting questions, but primarily they’re interested in tangential soft questions.