What a heart wrenching gut wrenching story that is.
Pretty powerful, when the issue at hand is illustrated by such an endearing person.
I saw this a few days ago and was wondering when I would see it here. That state rep sure did snooker them but they needed a lesson. Unfortunately, it probably won't help but this is one way to open a lot of people's eyes.
Wow, what a story. I wonder if it will cause the abortion crowd to stop and consider some of the very real adverse consequences to their heedless advocacy.
I loved the story. Unfortunately, though, it won't change the minds of the pro-abortionists, as they will still seek to de-humanize unborn babies, preferring to use inane euphemisms such as "tissue mass" as if the unborn baby was a tumor.
I think abortion at 7mos is wrong (with few exceptions). I don't think it is at 1 mos. So, I guess I'd say that I understand how wrong some abortions are.
She was the same child at one month. But since abortions are not performed before 6 weeks, that point is moot.
At 6 weeks however, there are brain waves and a heartbeat.
That says child to me. It just does.
andy,
I am curious at what point abortion becomes wrong to you? What month or week and why that particular point?
And you don't have to be relgious to understand how wrong abortion is.
Indeed, and many are beginning to understand this. Abortion is killing a human being, usually for personal convenience, which is an unthinkable crime in a nation that considers LIFE one of the most fundamental rights.
CT, that's exactly how I feel and I'm not religious. In fact, I read a story the other day about a "date rape baby" who was given up for adoption and recently reunited with her birth mother. The birth mother basically said, "it's not the child's fault she was conceived in such a callous way." (I emailed this story to RWS, btw.)
You did? did I reply? Sometimes I forget or e-mails get lost in the deluge of Cotillion mail mixed in with my mail. Things go to junk mail sometimes that shouldn't too.
Usually the Left loves these human tear jerker stories so they can use them to demand more govt spending on one thing or another. And if there's an actual human being present to make it more dramatic, then all the better. Unless of course it's a tear jerker story that makes their #1 issue (abortion) look bad. Then it's time to literally bring down that gavel, and switch subjects. I just hope some Planned Parenthood people present to feel a little (if possible) shame.
As I've said here numerous times before, I would draw the line somewhere around 23-24 weeks, if specificity were possible, but to err on the side of safety probably closer to 20 weeks.
I base it on when the brain begins to exhibit those features and constructs that will give it distinctly human capabilities (although with the most recent research into primate brains, that "distinctly" may need to be revisited); in other words, when something beyond the "lizard brain" is formed.
Now, don't get me wrong, with two kids of my own, I fully understand the emotional attachment involved from my own experience, but that's millions of years of evolution at work and not a reason-based evaluation of the morality behind it. I would have a hard time recommending an abortion, but I'm not out to stop others until it becomes "murder." (And, obviously, we disagree on that point).
Hmmm, given that wingnut Coulter complained about the Left bringing out victims that can't be questioned, shall we assume that you disagree with Ms. Coulter on the appropriateness of such a tactic?
Not sure what you are talking about.
Btw, I have personly known a child born at 21 weeks who is a beautiful little boy now.
Also, here is one of those pesky "things" displaying a distinctly human capability of grabbing a Doctor's finger at 21 weeks during a operation.
http://www.policyofliberty.net/
g...lingsFinger.jpg
Seriously andy, you just couldn't be more wrong on this one.
my husband and i are cheering this news item published by rightwingsparkle.
the baby murderers of the left wing and democratic party are contradicted by science.
since crick and watson discovered dna in 1953 [20 years before the supreme court allowed baby murder in roe v wade] we now have the gene mapping for all the 23 pairs of chromosones found in human beings. and guess what you idiot democrats, the gene mapping of an embryo is the same as for the gene mapping for an adult human being. SO THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THE EMBRYO BEING HUMAN.
also science contradicts the idiot democrats because it reveals that within the first 24 hours after fertilization, cell division occurs multiple number of times, AN INDICATION THERE IS NO QUESTION WHEN LIFE BEGINS BECAUSE WHATEVER LIVES [PLANTS ANIMALS AND HUMANS] UNDERGOES CELL DIVISION UNLIKE what once was alive in the past and is now dead or inert matter like sodium chloride, or steel etc.
RWS, Yes, I emailed it late last week but no worries about not replying. If you want the link, you can find it at Moxie's blog (http://moxie.nu/blog.php) via her June 14 entry.
Andy, I wouldn't call this girl a victim. She would have been a victim if aborted.
I base it on when the brain begins to exhibit those features and constructs that will give it distinctly human capabilities (although with the most recent research into primate brains, that "distinctly" may need to be revisited); in other words, when something beyond the "lizard brain" is formed.
So you believe that what makes someone human is their capacity to think above a certain level of complexity? So it's ok to kill someone who is stupid enough, in your moral system, then?
Btw, I have personly known a child born at 21 weeks who is a beautiful little boy now.
Which, while nice, is certainly irrelevant. The technology exists to allow development to continue to the point at which I believe rights are evident. This, obviously, has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus at 21 weeks, in and of itself, has rights.
Also, here is one of those pesky "things" displaying a distinctly human capability of grabbing a Doctor's finger at 21 weeks during a operation.
Which proves what exactly? Grabbing is a reflex action, particularly in the fetus. Don't believe me? Push your fingers against the underside of a baby's toes and watch it grip automagically. It's a reflex action to stimuli.
Seriously andy, you just couldn't be more wrong on this one.
Of course I could. I could say that abortion up to the point of delivery at full-term is a-ok. The difference here is that, even though I disagree, I can see from where your beliefs arise; you refuse to even try to do the same, invoking reflex and irrelevant developmental anecdotes.
red state -
First piece of advice: whatever 'shrooms you're ingesting, stop it.
and guess what you idiot democrats, the gene mapping of an embryo is the same as for the gene mapping for an adult human being. SO THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THE EMBRYO BEING HUMAN.
No one says the embryo or the fetus is not human. The question is one of rights. Do try to keep up, ok?
Every skin cell you shed is human. A single liver cell of yours is human. The intestinal tissue you slough off with each crap is human by virtue of its DNA.
This, of course, is irrelevant to the question unless you happen to be a bit slow on the uptake.
AN INDICATION THERE IS NO QUESTION WHEN LIFE BEGINS BECAUSE WHATEVER LIVES [PLANTS ANIMALS AND HUMANS] UNDERGOES CELL DIVISION
Again, what is it with the strawman arguments? I don't know of anyone, even the most staunch abortion supporters, that would argue that the embryo or fetus is not alive.
Once more, this is a question of rights. With every comment you leave, I grow more convinced that you're a far left kook hellbent on making right-wingers look insane.
So you believe that what makes someone human is their capacity to think above a certain level of complexity? So it's ok to kill someone who is stupid enough, in your moral system, then?
Define "stupid enough."
When you have an individual who has been reduced to the "lizard brain" (e.g. Terri Schiavo), then - yes - I consider the individual to be non-existent as an independent agent aware of their existence.
Such a state, of course, is nothing like mental retardaton or the like, so you're not going to be able to paint me as "he hates retards!" guy. So sorry.
P.S. If you want to know about the grip reflex, a Google for "fetus grip reflex" will show that this is usually in place by 23-24 weeks, so a 21 week old gripping when offered a finger is not unusual.
andy
your claim to be a logician is doubtful.
if you did have true human compassion then you know that the following is perfectly logical and the conclusions is a grim view of other humans.
a low population growth is benificial to a nation [major premise for your information andy]
famine lowers the population growth of a nation [minor premise for your information andy]
therefore famine is benificial for a nation [conclusion for your information andy]
andy since you don't want to have compassion with other human beings, you are certainly have characteristics of the gestapo type people. and let everyone who reads this website note this also about andy, the third reich tried to define who was human also, just like the supreme court that made the dred scott decision [appointees of democrats] tried to define negro people as non human.
and andy you are wrong - i know that part of the debate is over when life begins.
gestapo andy your logic is full of the fallacy of non-sequitur [for your info gestapo andy - non sequitur means the conclusion doesn't follow from the argument. gestapo andy it isn't about rights but what is moral.
also gestapo andy - i am a right winger because left wingers does not depart from faith in abortion.
one final thing gestapo andy - your such a pathetic example of a human my 2 y o daughter already exceeds you in her compassion for other people.
red state, calling him gestapo andy is clearly out of line. I understand abortion topics can be emotional but equating someone who disagrees with you as a Nazi is silly and doesn't do much to advance your beliefs.
Andy,
I think you were right about red state voter. Wow !
Shhh, never tell Andy he's right about anything. You'll never hear the end of it.
gestapo andy
in your claim i made strawman argument when you criticized me by saying that most staunch abortion supporter argues over when life begins.
google search using the search term
'abortion arguments over when life begins' has 3,640,000 results. it sounds like you are the strawman gestapo andy.
also about your comments on TERRI SCHIAVO
michael schiavo can't claim she had heart problems because the medics after they arrived did not find on an ekg the indicators of a heart attack which are pronounced Q waves, the S-T waves are elevated and the T waves are inverted. the evidence of a heart attack never disappear on an ekg after a heart attack is over.
also michael schiavo did make claims that TERRI SCHIAVO was bulimic in court documents. however TERRI'S PHYSICIAN has noted TERRI went in 4 times a year for checkups and there was no wild weight fluctuations. also TERRI'S dental records show no tooth decay from gastric acids from frequent vomitting. in addition the only electorlytes TERRI SCHIAVO was deficent in was potassiuim, the other electrolytes were normal.
in addition michael schiavo's lawyer made campaign contributions to the judge who ordered TERRI to be starved.
in addition michael schiavo claimed when he woke up to find TERRI on the floor, he said his thoughts were that something happened to TERRI, when the schiavo's possessed cats just like the detective does. the detective mentioned if he heard a noise in the middle of the night he would think the cats were playing which is unlike michael schiavo.
in addition michael schiavo never explained the 40 or 50 minutes before he summoned the medics.
so gestapo andy, you also strike out on your pathetic use of TERRI SCHIAVO to try to score political points. but personally i am praying that michael schiavo's current wife turns him just like scott peterson's girl friend turned him in.
Blake,
I just call 'em like I see 'em, and in this case, Andy was spot on.
JD, I certainly don't disagree. And red state voter's latest rant is a doozy.
Blake
about using the phrase gestapo:
medical doctors performed sadistical experiments on people for the third reich, and they tried to claim they were just doing what was of logical necessity. the third reich also defined who was human.
i detect such characteristics in the person whom i attached the character string 'gestapo' to. because example burning the embryo by saline solution, or the d & c method of amputation to abort are of a sadistical nature. and partial birth abortions where you shove scissors in the brain. the person i apply the charachter string 'gestapo' has make statements of a malignant conscience just like at auschwitz, the guard just pointed if you were to go to the left or to the right with a blank stare. the person i applied the character string 'gestapo' to has made
such statements about human beings as lizard brains. [this is just one example on line 4 of the 1014PM submission on 6/21/06 that andy has made]
my 2 y o daughter is being properly trained in compassion for other human beings and she already exceeds andy's level. methinks with andy's comments about lizard brains and crap when discussing human beings makes me sure he is the type of selfish person who views others as manure making machines.
and further more andy when you said of me try to keep up on line 5 at the writing at time 1009 PM SHOWS YOU ARE ILLOGICAL ANDY BECAUSE THAT LOGICAL ERROR IS CALLED ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM [being abusive] Furthermore as i pointed out ANDY LIED BECAUSE THE INTERNET SHOWED 3640000 RESULTS DISCUSSING WHEN LIFE BEGINS.
red state voter, I'm not here to defend Andy because he is quite capable of doing that himself. However, while his use of the term "lizard brain" may be offensive to some, his use of quotes indicated to me it was his way of stating Schiavo's vegetative state (of which there isn't much rational dispute).
Everything you mentioned about the "gestapo" is indeed grotesque but again equating Andy with them is ridiculous.
Btw, I don't believe gestapo is an accurate term to describe the people involved in the awful experiments. The gestapo was "the German internal security police as organized under the Nazi regime, known for its terrorist methods directed against those suspected of treason or questionable loyalty." Your meaning is clear though.
At what point does a seed stop being a seed, and become a plant?
Can you realistically say that it's really only a seed until it pokes it's leave up through the dirt? Despite all the things that happen underground after the seed case first splits open?
If you dig it up too early, did you kill a plant...or a seed?
hello Blake
i think i agree that gestapo is not appropiate, because human beings are among other things are to relieve the afflicted.
now the use of sanatized lanquage, an example from the third reichs term the final solution and the phrase useless eaters, is comparable in andy's case using sanitized lanquage as the following catalog among these comments illustrates
line 3 and 4 at 1005PM on 6/21/06
andy wrote 'obviously has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus at 21 weeks'
line 5 at 1005PM on 6/21/06 andy wrote 'pesky things displaying a distinct human capability'
line 13 at 1005 PM on 6/21/06 andy wrote 'irrelevant development antedotes'
line 1 at 1014PM on 6/21/06 andy wrote 'fetus grip reflex'
now i think i have done enough to establish that like the third reich andy uses sanitized language to excuse murder.
my agreement is that the term gestapo should be discarded for a better term 'malignant personality'
Oh boy, this is going to be fun... my reply once I make my commute.
yawn
yawn
Just waking up? Glad you could join us.
gestapo andy
crazy red state voter that doesn't know where the caps key is...
in your claim i made strawman argument when you criticized me by saying that most staunch abortion supporter argues over when life begins.
To be completely honest, that sentence was so incoherent I'm not even sure what it is I'm addressing here.
I'm guessing you don't think it's a strawman to argue about when life begins. I say it is, because I know of no one who would argue that a sperm cell, a blastula, an embryo, or a fetus are not alive.
It's not a question of "is this alive?" but one of "do rights exist?" Thus, for you to bring up the "it's alive!" argument, when no one else seems to be arguing against such a point, is why it is a strawman.
Look, I think it's great that you read on some forum about logical fallacies, memorized the names of a few, and enjoy throwing them out there. However, logic is a weapon of sorts, and - just like with guns - if you don't know to use it, at best you look foolish and at worst someone (e.g. your argument) gets hurt.
also about your comments on TERRI SCHIAVO
All I said is that she had been reduced to a "lizard brain." This, of course, has absolutely no bearing how she got in that condition, just that that's how it was.
Why you insist on going off on these weird tangents as if you're actually arguing a point is beyond me. (Well, it's not really; I think you're nuts).
I know this is yet another intractible abortion thread, but since there was no open thread, I wondered if you would be interested in commenting on this story. Looks like embryonic stem cells are going to have real-life applications soon. Now we'll see who has the stomach to tell these people that we won't help them get better, even though we can do so just by using fetuses that would otherwise be discarded.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,200342,00.html
your claim to be a logician is doubtful.
I never claimed to be a logician, just someone who understands the essentials of logic.
a low population growth is benificial to a nation [major premise for your information andy]
Um, no. My argument is that a fetus does not have rights as a human being until a certain point in development. This has nothing to do with that.
famine lowers the population growth of a nation [minor premise for your information andy]
Um, no. My argument is that a fetus does not have rights as a human being until a certain point in development. This has nothing to do with that.
therefore famine is benificial for a nation [conclusion for your information andy]
(puts on broken record)
Um, no. My argument is that a fetus does not have rights as a human being until a certain point in development. This has nothing to do with that.
andy since you don't want to have compassion with other human beings, you are certainly have characteristics of the gestapo type people.
Um, no. My argument is that a fetus does not have rights as a human being until a certain point in development. This has nothing to do with that.
and let everyone who reads this website note this also about andy, the third reich tried to define who was human also, just like the supreme court that made the dred scott decision [appointees of democrats] tried to define negro people as non human.
Which, of course, is irrelevant to the point I am arguing. The Nazis also wanted an atomic bomb but that doesn't mean the Manhattan Project was evil.
gestapo andy your logic is full of the fallacy of non-sequitur [for your info gestapo andy - non sequitur means the conclusion doesn't follow from the argument.
Wow, so you've learned two logical fallacies! Now, if only you knew how to actually argue they might be of some use to you. As it is, might I suggest you return them for a refund?
gestapo andy it isn't about rights but what is moral.
Never said it wasn't, crazy person. However, the determination of status with rights is essential in determining the morality of the act in question.
You're really not very good at this "thinking" thing, are you?
i am a right winger because left wingers does not depart from faith in abortion.
Fair enough. So, riddle me this, why are you so nuts?
your such a pathetic example of a human my 2 y o daughter already exceeds you in her compassion for other people.
I guess I should resign from my position at a non-profit organization, stop donating thousands to charity every year, and no more volunteering to help others. 
*sniff*
wow, I thought red state voter was a guy. I am just never right about this stuff. I thought citizenkan was guy too.
andy is just wrong. He will never admit and I don't expect him to. It does send chills down my spine when one equates the level of intelligence of a human with his or her humanity. So it is easy to see how others can be very upset about that.
you know andy, this isn't about "fun." You may see it that way as you somehow try to prove your intellectual superiority. ( a very leftwing characteristic btw ) but life has a way of bringing us all to a point where we need the help of others. Maybe it won't happen with you until you are old, but I hope to God, for you, that when that happens the person you have making decisions for you doesn't have the same lack of understanding of what being a human means that you do.
yeah what is it about girls that gets them so worked up?
RWS plays her trump card - shock and awe!:
andy is just wrong.
Well, that's certainly a cogent argument. If you say so, it must be true. In every case I've offered my defense of my position and the most relevant response so far is "when is a seed not a seed?"
Color me unimpressed.
He will never admit and I don't expect him to.
I happily admit when someone has proven me wrong. You have yet to do so. Appealing to emotional arguments such as "look at the fetus grab the finger" when the verifiable science behind the picture is that it's an unconscious reflex isn't going to win over a person of reason.
You would do well to remember that once upon a time, I was right-wing and devout Catholic. I fully admit that for the first 18-20 years of my life, I was wrong about a number of things.
If something proves me wrong now, I'll change my beliefs on the matter. You have yet to do so.
It does send chills down my spine when one equates the level of intelligence of a human with his or her humanity.
At no time did I equate the quality of intelligence with humanity. Arguing "lizard brain" vs "higher brain functions" is not a matter of intelligence; it's a matter of thought vs no thought.
So it is easy to see how others can be very upset about that.
Sure, it's easy to be upset when you put words in the mouths of others and then cringe at the evil strawman you erected. That your assessment of my argument is completely disconnected from my actual argument seems to be of no concern to you or crazy voter. But, hey, that's what I expect from blindly allegiant idelogues.
you know andy, this isn't about "fun." You may see it that way as you somehow try to prove your intellectual superiority.
No, I just like to debate and see what comes up. Sometimes it can be pleasant, as with Blake. Sometimes it can be less than pleasant, such as when crazy voter decides to call me a Nazi.
( a very leftwing characteristic btw )
Being intellectually superior is a left-wing characteristic? Odd, then why do so many of them think socialism is workable?
but life has a way of bringing us all to a point where we need the help of others.
And this has exactly what to do with brain development?
Maybe it won't happen with you until you are old, but I hope to God, for you, that when that happens the person you have making decisions for you doesn't have the same lack of understanding of what being a human means that you do.
I hope that if those parts of my brain are destroyed that give me my identity and my humanity, with no hope of recovery, that my family will do the right thing: end my life and move on with their own. I'll already be dead to myself.
Not sure if I really want to jump back into this but here we go. As I said earlier, it's obvious abortion is an emotional topic to debate. And well, my opposition to abortion in all instances except for incest is largely based on my emotional response. I understand Andy's points because he argues strictly from a scientific or rational view, which is consistent with his atheism.
However, as the technology continues to improve, it does appear that the fetus is more viable as a human being earlier and earlier than we thought. Andy wants a specific point in time where the fetus "wakes up and begins some form of logical characteristics." My rather lame argument is just that I'd rather be on the safe side and declare viablility the moment of conception.
Um, no. My argument is that a fetus does not have rights as a human being until a certain point in development. This has nothing to do with that.
How do you quantify which human beings receive their rights? You've already admitted a fetus is a living human - why does higher brain function invalidate someone's rights?
By your logic, if one of your children was in a car accident and lost higher brain function, we could just throw him/her in an incinerator. Does that seem ethical to you? Why/why not?
Just for the record andy, no. "being intellectally superior is NOT a characteristic of the left. Trying to prove you are...is. Just as twisting someone's words is as well.
We totally disagree about the sanctity of life, that is clear. Your position is abhorrent to me.
I also don't think you were a "devout Catholic." You may have thought you were, but once someone has fully known God they are unable to say that he doesn't exist. It just isn't possible. It's like saying you use to know your Dad and now you say he never existed. So that argument doesn't work for me. You never knew God. You know that. Since you say he doesn't exist, there is no way to say that you once knew he did. You believed he did at one time. But you never knew him. And that is the saddest part of all.
My rather lame argument is just that I'd rather be on the safe side and declare viablility the moment of conception.
And while I can appreciate the sentiment in that argument, I make the same concession in saying I'd begin the ban around 20 weeks. The difference for me is that even if they could take a fetus out at 6 weeks and provide it an environment in which to develop fully, there's no moral obligation to do so. Individual parents are, of course, welcome to feel they have one.
How do you quantify which human beings receive their rights? You've already admitted a fetus is a living human - why does higher brain function invalidate someone's rights?
Rather than rehash my views on the subject for the 19889th in the blogosphere, I'll just point you to the article that guided some of my thinking on the matter:
here
By your logic, if one of your children was in a car accident and lost higher brain function, we could just throw him/her in an incinerator.
We do essentially the same thing all the time when we pull the plug on people who have been reduced to brain stem function. We let the body waste away and die.
We could, of course, achieve the same thing by throwing them in the incinerator but there's an equally strong societal taboo against such behavior due to the social contract and expectation of reciprocation.
Just as twisting someone's words is as well.
I was actually taking the opportunity to make fun of liberals who like socialism.
But, it's nice to see that you believe that red state was acting like a left-winger when she consistently insisted on twisting my words and putting words in my mouth.
We totally disagree about the sanctity of life, that is clear. Your position is abhorrent to me.
That's fine; free country.
And, no, we don't disagree about the sanctity of life. I'm sure we both eat beef and corn, both of which were very much alive.
We don't even disagree about the importance of the right to human life; we just disagree about when that right becomes applicable in development.
To my far right are the anti-abortion fundies and to my left are the abortion-above-all liberal kooks. I've opted for a reason-based position that is supported by the facts and not emotion or something in a 2000 year old book of myths.
I also don't think you were a "devout Catholic." You may have thought you were, but once someone has fully known God they are unable to say that he doesn't exist.
Absolute nonsense. Substitue the word "Allah" for "God" and imagine a Muslim saying to it a former Muslim. The Muslim believes just as fervently in his god, but his assessment of the other is just as meaningless as yours.
P.S. There are no true Scotsmen either.
I swear, this blog is going to be the "Carnival of the Logical Fallacies" before all is said and done.
Andy,
It's hard to believe anyone could say what you just said:
"The difference for me is that even if they could take a fetus out at 6 weeks and provide it an environment in which to develop fully, there's no moral obligation to do so."
Even if you don't think the fetus has developed enough to be guaranteed basic human rights, your precious science doesn't really have a specific point in time where the fetus becomes a fully logical being. You can't simply say "around 20 weeks" and expect me to take that seriously. Why not 18 or 19?
That and your comparision of human life to eating beef or corn smacks of the type of moral equivalence I want no part of.
Even if you don't think the fetus has developed enough to be guaranteed basic human rights, your precious science doesn't really have a specific point in time where the fetus becomes a fully logical being.
If I said there is a moral obligation, then that would run directly counter to my stance that the actual killing of the fetus is wrong at that point.
The best one could hope to offer philisophically in support of a moral obligation is to get into utility theory, but then we'd be arguing what constitutes "the greatest good."
You can't simply say "around 20 weeks" and expect me to take that seriously. Why not 18 or 19?
Actually, I'd say the development is well underway at 23-24 weeks, so saying 20 is to ensure we're not at that point of development in the population of fetuses in question. I'm even being slightly more stringent than the Sagan position in which the actual adult-like brain waves are not detected until 30 weeks, and never (yet) prior to 24-26.
That and your comparision of human life to eating beef or corn smacks of the type of moral equivalence I want no part of.
Then you completely missed what I wrote. The entire point of that section was to point out that we are arguing the sanctity of human life and not the sanctity of life itself. We evaluate humans in a completely different manner than non-human life. At no time and in no way did I compare human life to cows or corn, so I would appreciate not having still more words put in my mouth.
Yes you can subsitute Allah for God but it would make no difference in the argument. There are many Muslims who have a relationship with God/Allah. They know him as I do. You, however, never did. Which was my point.
There are many Muslims who have a relationship with God/Allah. They know him as I do. You, however, never did. Which was my point.
I suspect a great many of them would say you don't know their God in the least, what with the way you walk around with your head uncovered.
Your point, alas, remains quite invalid.
Andy, Thanks for the response and clarifying about human life vs. just life. I just automatically assumed by life you were referring to human life. Apologies.
I can't actually refute your position because you argue strictly from a when "actual adult-like brain waves" are detected. Since that's your base point, I can't turn around and accurately say, "Not true! It's at the moment of conception."
Ack, I think I'm done with this because it's rendering me incoherent right now. Time to hit the pool and burn myself. You're free to have the last word.
Ack, I think I'm done with this because it's rendering me incoherent right now. Time to hit the pool and burn myself. You're free to have the last word.
Yeah, me too. I think it's time to bail on work and go hit happy hour in a few minutes.
My main problem is that, in this argument, when dealing with RWS or red state crazy person, I can fully understand how they come to the conclusions they do based on upon their premises. I completely understand how a belief in, for example, "the soul" would drive an absolutist pro-life agenda.
I just happen to think the premise is silly. So, I offer up my own premise. Instead of demonstrating why my premise is incorrect, they instead attack the logic that follows from it, even though it's (from what I can see) airtight, waterproof, and hunky-dory. That's not going to lead to a victory.
You, on the other hand, seem to also appreciate that we're coming at the issue from different premises which both lead to (if the premises are true) logical conclusions.
We do essentially the same thing all the time when we pull the plug on people who have been reduced to brain stem function. We let the body waste away and die.
We remove life support from terminally ill patients, we do not, however, drown cognitively disabled patients in saline, or cut them up and suck them up with a vacuum cleaner.
There is a distinct difference between a terminally ill, brain-damaged person who cannot be saved, and a fetus.
As a longtime hospice worker, I'm disgusted by the twisted medical ethics by which you've framed your argument.
Also, cognitively disabled people have rights, even if their primary decision makers decide to let them go.
With abortion, a teenaged girl with a messed up life and bad decision making skills can have her baby mutilated to the death with little or no input from counselors, the government, human rights advocates, or even the baby's next closest family member, the father.
Oh well, I need to make one more point regarding my opposition to abortion. There will likely come a time when doctors will be able to genetically determine the future health concerns of a fetus. What if parents are told their child is definitely going to be born with a disability (minor or otherwise). With abortion being legal and a parents desire to have a "perfect" child, I'm afraid there are going too many people willing to simply abort and try again for that perfect baby.
On a purely personal note, despite my hearing loss, my parents definitely would have had me anyway but I shudder to think others might find it too inconvenient to deal with.
This scenario is morally offensive but with permissive abortion, it would be impossible to legislate what type of disabilities are acceptable or not for termination.
Sorry for backing out of the "free to have the last word" deal, andy. 
Supposedly the Dems are going to try to shift the debate to a ground that will attract more moderates. Their now position will be that abortion should be legal but minimized through education and encouraging better life choices. That's likely to be an attractive middle ground for a lot of voters - perhaps the only middle ground, as we can see from the discussion here. The Republicans had better beat them to it or come up with a better plan that appeals to the spectrum of voter conerns on this issue.
gestaop andy
on 922Am 6/22 you made the following stupid claims
line 1 i rather be crazy than promote murder like you do
line 6 and 7 'no one would argue .. that an embryo, fetus is alive'
everyone reading this has the abiltiy to google serarch and see if im not truthful there are 3,640,000 results for the search term i specified CONSEQUENTLY GESTAPO ANDY YOU LIED BECAUSE 3,640,000 RESULTS DOES INDICATE THERE IS A CONTROVERSY OVER WHEN LIFE BEGINS.
line 8-9
its not about rights, its about what is moral.
line 17
weird tangents - you are the one who used sanatize languqe to disquise murder which was a third reich tactis and you like dred scott decision and the nazi's is using the tactic of trying to decide who is human.
There is a distinct difference between a terminally ill, brain-damaged person who cannot be saved, and a fetus.
Which is what? Tell me about it. Quantify it for me. Assertions without support are about as convincing to me as a Michael Moore film.
Sorry, the last comment was from me. Different computer.
Also, cognitively disabled people have rights, even if their primary decision makers decide to let them go.
Cognitively disabled is not the same as cognitively incapable. Further, you've basically said they have rights but the rights don't matter because they can be let go... do try for at least a measure of consistency.
With abortion, a teenaged girl with a messed up life and bad decision making skills can have her baby mutilated to the death with little or no input from counselors, the government, human rights advocates, or even the baby's next closest family member, the father.
Which, as with so much that has come before, has ZERO to do with the argument at hand.
Is there something about right- and left-wing zealots that they can't argue issues but insist on going off on tangents?
This scenario is morally offensive but with permissive abortion, it would be impossible to legislate what type of disabilities are acceptable or not for termination.
I agree (on the impossibility). I speak as someone with a birth defect of being blind in one eye, not sure if it was genetic or something developmental. So, you and I can speak from a similar stance.
We may find it distasteful (and to some degree I do), but that doesn't make it wrong for everyone or something that should be legislated against.
crazy voter in the loony bin
line 1 i rather be crazy than promote murder like you do
Well, I don't promote murder, but you've got the crazy down pat!
line 6 and 7 'no one would argue .. that an embryo, fetus is alive'
That's not at all what I said. I said quite clearly:
"I know of no one who would argue that a sperm cell, a blastula, an embryo, or a fetus are not alive. "
If you're going to argue with me, at least be honest - or less completely stupid - about it.
its not about rights, its about what is moral.
Um, no, I have repeatedly said:
"The question is one of rights. Do try to keep up, ok?"
You, dummy, are the one who said in your comment that it isn't about rights but about morality.
YOU CAN'T EVEN KEEP YOUR OWN THOUGHTS STRAIGHT!
weird tangents
Pay attention, oh dim one: argue against my points, not against previous abuses of philosophies.
I grow more convinced that your sole purpose in life is to make right-wingers look as stupid as possible.
gestapo andy
at 931 AM on 6/22/06 your comment about you donating to charity on the last line - guess what your not the only one who donates to charity.
and all the statements about me being crazy, your a psychopath who thinks logic should be elevated above the lives of other people. since you fail to notice, people know logic is for making sense out of the world, not as a method to destroy the lives of others.
i will teach my 2 y.o. that people like you are malignant, and to stay away from people like you, and she will learn the only proper use for logic is to make sense of the world. she already has surpassed you gestapo andy and puts you to shame since she is at such a younger age than you are in that she has a happy personality so i am sure in her future she will no have such a low regard for other people like you do.
Your point, alas, remains quite invalid.
As "someone" here says. Well, that's certainly a cogent argument.
gestapo andy
you do promote murder, called roe v wade.
Andy, Tell me which eye is it? I'd like to know so if we ever meet, I'll know which side to sucker punch you from.
Then again, you have an advantage of being able to easily sneak up on me.
yes everyone
gestapo andy is right - just because on his say so i am crazy and stupid. just because he who has never met me says so - just take his word for it.
gestapo andy your opinion about me is meaningless, because the people who matters the most to me is GOD and my husband and my 2 y.o. daughter.
my family soon is going out to a restraunt to celebrate how stupid i am. and in the party for being certified by gestapo andy himself that i am stupid, i will let my husband and daughter know it is more valuable to me to love them than to be logical. i think where i started going stupid was when i had the baby, it required me to give large amounts of time to child care that i no longer have much time to read or solve problems.
So, Andy, your position is that intelligence defines humanity then, is it?
By what basis do you define humanity in this way? What I mean is, why is this the way you define humanity, what makes over x intelligence human to you? Is there nothing else about humans that makes us distinctive other than intellectual capacity?
Think of it this way: let's say a human is no smarter than a cat. Is it ok to end their life now? Beause they are no smarter than a cat - you say they have to be even stupider. What is it about a human other than their intelligence that keeps you from ending their life at catlike intelligence?
Killing human beings for convenience is wrong, horrible, and reprehensible. That anyone would even attempt to defend it is ghastly. That someone would try to define babies as not human so they can be killed is even more horrific, and reminds me of other times in history when people were redefined as not quite human in order to justify maltreatment and murder.
As "someone" here says. Well, that's certainly a cogent argument.
The argument was in the paragraph prior. Please, RWS, you're smarter than crazy voter.
your comment about you donating to charity on the last line - guess what your not the only one who donates to charity.
Point: I never said I was the only one. It was a response to your child knowing more about human compassion than I do. My actions speak greatly about my sense of compassion; I just reserve mine for humans in need rather than blastulas. So sue me.
and all the statements about me being crazy, your a psychopath who thinks logic should be elevated above the lives of other people.
Nope, never said that either. I said that logic can help determine when personhood becomes an issue, which means that elevating logic above the lives of people is a nonsense statement.
Again. you're really, really not very good at this argumentation thing. It's painful. Hell, I could argue the uber-Christian, pro-life position more convincingly than you could, and with only 1/4 the crazy.
since you fail to notice, people know logic is for making sense out of the world, not as a method to destroy the lives of others.
Uh...making sense of the world allows us to make judgments about our own interactions within it. They're not separate, except maybe in Crazy World.
i will teach my 2 y.o. that people like you are malignant, and to stay away from people like you,
And Jesus said "That which you do unto the least of my people, you do unto me."
Sigh... turning your back on the unsaved. I don't think Jesus would approve.
and she will learn the only proper use for logic is to make sense of the world.
Well, so long as you don't teach her your version of logic for argumentation... you misrepresent my position, you mistake your words for mine, and then you go off on tangents unrelated to the discussion.
Did you even take debate in school? If you did, did your team lose?
Look, no offense, but you're either highly irrational and untrained in logical thought or butt-nuts-crazy. Which is it?
Blake -
Andy, Tell me which eye is it? I'd like to know so if we ever meet, I'll know which side to sucker punch you from.
Left eye.
Unfortunately, the peripheral vision is fine - it's the straight ahead vision that's gone (but the right eye compensates).
ADVANTAGE ANDY! 
So, Andy, your position is that intelligence defines humanity then, is it?
No, please start from the beginning of the thread and then get back to me.
Further, please read the link I included way, way back for more insight.
I'm not going to argue the same thing over and over with those who are either unwilling or unable to keep up.
Andy, you suck.
Andy, you suck.
Bring it on! BRING IT ON!
Just don't forget that I might have my Gestapo buddies with me.
Ah, grow up and stop bothering me. Get a life, dude. Make another post about me on your blog or something.
Andy... you can either deal with the question I asked or you can ignore them. It's up to you - but everyone here is watching and sees what you do.
Ah, grow up and stop bothering me. Get a life, dude. Make another post about me on your blog or something.
Errr... I was joking.
Christopher -
Dealt with in my previous answer. Read everything I've written and then click through to read the Sagan link. That will answer your questions.
If you'd like me to save you the incredible trouble of clicking and reading, I'll cut and paste it here for you. Seems a bit overkill though.
Andy, I know you were. As was I. I've got a real dry sense of humor that sometimes doesn't translate well on a monitor. And I'm not too keen on using smiley faces that often to distinguish between joking and serious.
just because on his say so i am crazy and stupid. just because he who has never met me says so - just take his word for it.
Your ranting, your misuse of logical fallacy, your continued insistence upon arguing irelevancies, all indicate that you're a bit off of center in the mental arena.
If you don't want to look crazy, stop writing like a crazy person.
gestapo andy your opinion about me is meaningless, because the people who matters the most to me is GOD and my husband and my 2 y.o. daughter.
I actually just got off the phone with them and they told me that they too think you're kind of creepy. Just letting you know. Might want to ask hubby about it. Shrug.
my family soon is going out to a restraunt to celebrate how stupid i am.
Seems an odd thing to celebrate, but I hope you have a good time!
Andy, I know you were. As was I.
Ah, ok, my bad. I wasn't sure and thought maybe the Gestapo comment had crossed some line when I was just mocking crazy voter. Sorry about that.
All ok then.
Just to be clear, you don't have Gestapo buddies?
No, dude, they're all Mossad.
Which, as with so much that has come before, has ZERO to do with the argument at hand.
Is there something about right- and left-wing zealots that they can't argue issues but insist on going off on tangents?
I can't help the fact that Andy has little reading comprehension. My statement was clear - we can end life support for the terminally ill, cognitively disabled after some measure of counseling, the signatures of several doctors, and the okay of all important family members.
A baby's life can be ended violently, with no second opinion beyond that of the mother, often teenagers with little conception of their options or decision making ability.
Beyond that, Andy asked me to explain the difference between a viable fetus and a terminally ill brain damaged person. I should think the difference is glaringly obvious.
Andy, if you see this message (I know it's late) - your arguments are based on little more than personal insult, and, when you can't answer a tough question, obfuscation. You have an overblown opinion of your own logical prowess.
gestapo andy
1100PM date 6/33
line 3-5:you are the one who brought up the fact you donate to charity not me. so it has nothing to do with baby murder.
regardless the embryo is HUMAN! using sanitized lanquage to try to disquise the fact it is human as i pointed out that you do does not alter the fact you promote baby murder.
line 22-24 you claim i misrepresent you.
the fact is you are the one doing the misrepresentation. because i mentioned that you lied because their are those who claim no one knows when life begins and i pointed out the fact that google search reveals 3640000 results - and you never adddressed the fact that there are 3640000 search engine results concerning when life begins but instead you attacked me with terms like crazy. calling me crazy has does not alter the fact that there are 3640000 results on google dealing with when life begins. so who is the crazy one?
in high school geometry everyone learned that for each statement you make you have to provide a reason for the statement. you do not do that gestapo andy - you just make statements without giving a reason.
your just good at attempted character assassination.
gestapo andy
you claim no one disputes when life begins. now let naral prove you wrong
quote from the naral literature:
title = choice
authors = polly rubinstein and miriam williams of the westchester new york coalition for leqal abortion and printed by naral foundation washington dc
and i quote 'the prochoice position is personhood is a religious belief not a provable biological fact'
furthermore embryo, infant, child, adolescent, adult all are references to human beings just like sunday, monday, tuesday .. saturday all are references to 24 hour periods called days.
gestapo andy - people see through you, your using the word blastulas doesn't hide the fact you are advocating murdering human beings. and you haven't covered up the fact that like the third reich before roe v wade, thought it had the right to declare political enemies of the nazi's useless eaters and were sadistical murderers, you also advocate the sadistical - because the way the babys are murdered is gruesome.
and just because you used the quote from JESUS - you a fish out of water because it also says in the Bible, in the Psalms it addresses GOD as the one who formed me inside my mothers body. [Psalm 139] so your attempt to use the Bible to justify yourself is lame.
gestapo andy
furthermore if there is no contoversey over life begining at conception then why did in 1981 a US Senate Judiciary Subcommitte hold hearings over when did life begin.
witnesses before the US Senate includeded:
Dr. Alfred Bongioanni of University of Pennsylvania Medical School
Dr Jerome LeJune of the University of Descartes in Paris
Dr Hymie Gordon of the Mayo Clinic
Professor Micheline Matthews-Ross of Harvard University Medical School
Dr Watson Bowes of University of Colorado Medical School
Andy, if you see this message (I know it's late) - your arguments are based on little more than personal insult, and, when you can't answer a tough question, obfuscation. You have an overblown opinion of your own logical prowess.
As with so much of the argumentation of those to my left and right, this is - again - absolute nonsense. I have provided substantial support for my premise and even provided a link to a 4-part philosophical exploration of the topic that has helped to guide some of my thinking on the matter.
Do I throw in a few insults? Sure, when people don't argue the issue and instead introduce irrelevancies (e.g. every comment made my red state crazy).
you are the one who brought up the fact you donate to charity not me.
As a direct response to you insinuating that I have no compassion. The evidence proves you, as always, wrong.
regardless the embryo is HUMAN! using sanitized lanquage to try to disquise the fact it is human as i pointed out that you do does not alter the fact you promote baby murder.
I have never said the embryo is not human. Obviously by virtue of its DNA it is human, as is every skin cell you shed during the day. This is about when rights are conferred, not the state of being genetically human.
you claim i misrepresent you.
the fact is you are the one doing the misrepresentation.
Not in the least.
because i mentioned that you lied because their are those who claim no one knows when life begins and i pointed out the fact that google search reveals 3640000 results -
And a search for the moon being green cheese returns 5 million + pages, therefore the moon is green cheese. Your logic is astounding.
you just make statements without giving a reason.
I've had to say this a lot, but "absolute nonsense." That your reading comprehension is so poor as to make my dog look smart is an obstacle with which you'll have to deal.
your just good at attempted character assassination.
That's the first true thing you've said.
you claim no one disputes when life begins. now let naral prove you wrong
I can hardly wait!
and i quote 'the prochoice position is personhood is a religious belief not a provable biological fact'
OK... this says nothing about claiming that the fetus is not alive, but that the fetus is not a person.
Once again, your logic astounds me.
furthermore embryo, infant, child, adolescent, adult all are references to human beings just like sunday, monday, tuesday .. saturday all are references to 24 hour periods called days.
Argument from analogy. There is no similarity between days and biological organisms, thus this argument adds precisely zero to your side.
gestapo andy - people see through you, your using the word blastulas doesn't hide the fact you are advocating murdering human beings.
That is your opinion, and one which you have been wholly unable to support, instead taking the typical ideologue tactic of trying to knock down the other guy as if that would make your side automatically right.
and you haven't covered up the fact that like the third reich before roe v wade, thought it had the right to declare political enemies of the nazi's useless eaters and were sadistical murderers
What the Nazis did has no bearing on my argument; please stay on topic.
you also advocate the sadistical - because the way the babys are murdered is gruesome.
In some cases, I would agree it's gruesome and should be banned. If you had actually read my argument and links, you would know this, but you insist on continuing to spout off like a loon.
aso your attempt to use the Bible to justify yourself is lame.
I did not use the Bible to justify myself. I used it to point out something about you.
Again, do try to keep up. Are you posting from a summer camp for the learning challenged? Do they let you boys and girls get on the computer a couple times a day or something?
furthermore if there is no contoversey over life begining at conception then why did in 1981 a US Senate Judiciary Subcommitte hold hearings over when did life begin.
They didn't. They held hearings over when human life begins - that is, when should we consider the fetus a human being with rights.
Which, of course, is exactly the discussion I'm trying to have and which you insist on distorting with your crazy talk.
(I'm gonna hate myself in the morning.)
andy, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe you're positing that a fetus is human from the point of conception, but does not have human rights until its brain has reached a certain level of development, right? And if I'm corrrect in that belief, then I've got to ask you something.
Why should brain development be the determining factor, or a factor at all? If you believe it's not immoral to abort at 18 or 19 weeks, then why should it be immoral to abort at 20 or 24 weeks? For that matter, since even a full term baby with no birth defects cannot survive without someone to feed and care for it, why not let the mother deliver, look the baby over (you know, kick the tires, check under the hood, yadda, yadda, yadda), then decide if she wants to keep it.
Fatman,
Yes, you will hate yourself. Andy is probably just going to refer you to his other postings on this thread and I don't blame him. He's answered various forms of that question several times.
(Hit the @#*! publish button instead of preview.)
And I must add that there is (to me, anyway) a considerable difference between ending the life of someone with a terminal condition or who's in a persistent vegetative state and aborting a baby whose only handicap is that its "parents" were too stupid or too lazy to use birth control.
Why should brain development be the determining factor, or a factor at all?
Because, as the linked article also argues, our capacity for complex thought is what (from what we currently know) separates us from all other animals. You should check out the article and give it a read; even if you still disagree, you'll have a better understand of from where I'm coming.
and aborting a baby whose only handicap is that its "parents" were too stupid or too lazy to use birth control.
Of course, those are not the only reasons for abortion.
I'll digress for a moment, but I also don't get the reasoning behind pro-life people who permit abortion in cases of rape or incest. If the right-to-life is the ultimate right inherent to a human, it should trump all other considerations.
But that's another topic for another day...
(and, yeah, Blake was more or less correct about my response)
In the spirit of reconciliation and brotherhood, I would like to propose something to bring us all together.
Can we all agree that "red state voter" is just a little bit kooky? Huh, can we?
No you CANNOT. I love my 2 y.o. and husband and by the GOD OF EZEKIAL AND HANNAH you can't say that!
Andy, I wouldn't even permit abortions in the case of rape but incest is a different story. For the most part, you're dealing with a child and the results are obvious to all. You're right though in that it is a contradiction with the right-to-life meme and I can't offer a suitable explanation to satisfy you. Maybe someone else can though.
Yes, rsv is a bit kooky...passionate but a little out there.
Dealt with in my previous answer. Read everything I've written and then click through to read the Sagan link. That will answer your questions.
OK apparently you don't care to deal with what I said, because your original post didn't do any such thing. My guess is you don't read what is posted by people very carefully, you skim some of the beginning them presume the rest by fitting them into a certain catagory, no matter how many times you have to hammer with the plastic mallet to get it through that hole.
In any rate, lacking a clear, scientific or moral method of determining exactly when "human" life begins (an odd position to take in any case, what is it before it's human? Raccoon?) then the obvious, clear choice is to not kill an unborn baby at any point except in an emergency.
Christopher - as I said, if you read the linked article, the questions about what makes us similar and dissimilar to other animals is addressed. I'm not dodging anything.
Further, while I agree we cannot define an exact moment for every human at which they become a human being with rights (that is, we all develop differently in the womb), one can err far enough on the side of safety (e.g. 20 weeks) to ensure a secure margin of safety. There's no need to go all the way back to conception.
I suspect we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
If you can't tell, then the side of error must always be on the side of caution. Always. To do otherwise is unthinkable, when dealing with a helpless baby. To even consider a different option is ghastly and inhuman.
If you can't tell, then the side of error must always be on the side of caution.
I agree. And given that no 20 week old is going to have the characteristics with which I am concerned, there's the margin of safety.
gestapo andy
you are wrong again. the senate commitee in 1981 DID DISCUSS WHEN LIFE BEGAN.
as i pointed out, that your aptitude that humans are dispensable because you made statements such as 'pesky things displaying a distinct human capabiltiy' and 'irrelevant development antidotes' is a good indication of a malignant mind. but then malignant minds think so much of themselves.
in case you haven't figure it out gestapo andy, people would find you someone to be concerned about if they have the misfortune of your aquaintance, because they see your disregard for human life and in the back of their minds they will remember this for a simple reason they would not want to have the experience of being your victim.
and all the personal attacks on me, GOD will vindicate me because as it says in Psalm 119,' they have mocked me but i have not strayed from your law.'
the facts remain you advocate baby murder.
you are wrong again. the senate commitee in 1981 DID DISCUSS WHEN LIFE BEGAN.
Only in the sense of when did a human life begin, not whether or not the fetus itself was alive, which is as obvious to anyone as the fact that plants are alive.
So, again, they were discussing the same thing I am.
as i pointed out, that your aptitude that humans are dispensable because you made statements such as 'pesky things displaying a distinct human capabiltiy' and 'irrelevant development antidotes' is a good indication of a malignant mind.
Then I guess you're saying RWS has a malignant mind, because the "pesky things" line came from her comment on 6/21 at 6:59pm.
How am I to take you seriously when you don't even know who said what?
but then malignant minds think so much of themselves.
Are you related to alessandra? You two have very similar psychoses...
in case you haven't figure it out gestapo andy, people would find you someone to be concerned about if they have the misfortune of your aquaintance,
Odd, I seem to have a number of people who like me and enjoy my company. Looks like you're once again full of poop.
because they see your disregard for human life
Nope, I have much regard for human life, thank you. As I've said, I work for a non-profit that spends significant funds helping the underprivileged, I donate thousands to charities to help others, and I'm the guy who stops to help at accidents while all the "good people" drive on by. So, your comment about my disregard for human life is - again - poop.
You, crazy voter, have poop coming out of your ears.
and all the personal attacks on me, GOD will vindicate me because as it says in Psalm 119,' they have mocked me but i have not strayed from your law.'
God doesn't exist. But thanks for playing.
the facts remain you advocate baby murder.
No, the fact remains you're a whack-job.
gestapo andy
your claim that rights can be granted and is not automatic to an embryo
you do not qualify to make such a decision if life was such that humans could make such determination because your statements such as 'pesky things displaying distinct human capability' provides reason to know you have a malignant attitude about people, thus the use of the term gestapo.
you just think by making long essays hides the facts that you advocate baby murder and made statements for all to see such as 'pesky things displaying distinct human capabilty' as you did at the date and time of 1005PM on 6/21/06.
Heh heh, Andy said poop. heh heh
gestapo andy
your reference about RightWingSparkle using the phrase pesky... was because she was pointing out the absurdity of baby murderers because the child deserves love. but at 1005PM on 6/21 you quoted it and added the question 'what does that prove' shows your the one who has disregard for human life.
again only partial quoting me you fail to mention that i said that people will in the back of their minds do. they will notice how you disregard the lives of human beings and will not want to be your victim.
so you contribute to charity - so i also contribute to charity and also i donate time with american cancer society so you aren't doing something that is uncommon when you help change tires.
and GOD does exist because
the big bang is proven by
a/ the expansion of the universe
b/ the back ground hiss descovered by bell labs in 1964
c/ the amount of helium present in the universe
because of big bang the universe had a beginning
also since darwin researchers use fruit flys since the beginning of the 20th century [because they take only 2 weeks between generations] as a means to demonstrate evolution only demonstrated you get only fruit flys or physically challenged fruit flys.
also the stanley miller experiments to try to create life from a prebiotic soup using electricity produced chemicals harmful to life and 2 or 3 amino acids that combined with the environment.
and then there is the fraud of the pilt down man.
so darwin is not conclusive. and there is many other problems with darwin.
WTF? "the back ground hiss descovered by bell labs in 1964" I would love to hear why this proves God exists. If God hisses, I sure as hell don't want to hear what Satan does.
blake
the back ground hiss discovered by bell labs in 1964 is the remainder of energy of the explosion when the big bang occurred.
at 1005PM on 6/21 you quoted it and added the question 'what does that prove' shows your the one who has disregard for human life.
Moving the goalposts. You said I said that line and now you're changing your entire argument. Sorry, that's not how it works.
Yet again, you're just making yourself look silly and sad.
so you contribute to charity - so i also contribute to charity and also i donate time with american cancer society so you aren't doing something that is uncommon when you help change tires.
How common something is is not the point, oh dim one. My actions demonstrate a regard for human life, your idiotic claims notwithstanding.
Do you want me to recommend some books on logic and argumentation for you to read?
because of big bang the universe had a beginning
No, the universe, in the state we know it, had a beginning; this says nothing about whether the universe existed in another form (e.g. some sort of quantum soup) nor does it rule out that our universe is part of an eternal multiverse. It does not rule out God, but it does not give evidence of a god either.
also since darwin researchers use fruit flys...
If you think fruit flies are the only source for data on evolution, then you are either woefully ignorant, very stupid, or perhaps a time traveler from the early 20th century.
I think you know how I'd vote.
also the stanley miller experiments to try to create life from a prebiotic soup using electricity produced chemicals harmful to life and 2 or 3 amino acids that combined with the environment.
No, Miller's experiments produced 13 of the 20 amino acids found in living organisms.
and then there is the fraud of the pilt down man.
What about it? As the finding of true hominid fossils accelerated in the 20 years after Piltdown, it quickly became apparent that Piltdown did not fit in with the obvious tree of development being drawn.
Yes, that's right, oh dimwitted one, the advance of evolutionary science is what demonstrated the problems with Piltdown, not a bunch of creationist yahoos.
P.S. That was 100 years ago... you might have noticed that science has progressed quite a bit since then (while, uh, your religious beliefs haven't).
so darwin is not conclusive. and there is many other problems with darwin.
You are clearly very ignorant on the subject of evolution. Why do you even attempt such a discussion?
oh i forgot to mention
the big bang proves that the universe had a beginning, and what has a beginnig has a cause.
the back ground hiss discovered by bell labs in 1964 is the remainder of energy of the explosion when the big bang occurred.
It's actually microwave background radiation, and while it IS evidence for the inflation of the universe, it certainly is not any kind of evidence for a god.
Well, maybe to the terminally dumb.
gestapo andy
there is only 2 or 3 amino acids produced in the stanley miller experiments.
its just speculation about multiple universes. thats all speculation.
at least i can admit a mistake but you did say at 1005PM on 6/21 what point does it prove concerning Right Wing Sparkles expression used in wanting to show the love that should be shown a child
you have a careless disregard for human beings
you advocate baby murder
thus the similarity between you and the gestapo
in addition you publically display anger when you mention me to hide the fact you cannot counter my statements condemning baby murder. i already know the phrase sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me - so don't be mistaken i live this fact. so the net effect is everyone see's your display of anger.
in addition every mention of your contributing to charity i will also mention how i donate to charity also and volunteer time with the american cancer society. so thus any attempt to make yourself favorable can be shown to be a common place virtue, and i will mention how you wrote that you help change tires unlike i think you said 'good people'
the most basic fact is you defend baby murder.
there is only 2 or 3 amino acids produced in the stanley miller experiments.
"Miller's experiments produced thirteen of the twenty amino acids used in life (Henahan 1996)."
Citation: Henahan, Sean. 1996. From primordial soup to the prebiotic beach: An interview with exobiology pioneer, Dr. Stanley L. Miller.
its just speculation about multiple universes. thats all speculation.
It's theoretical physics, which goes beyond speculation. The verdict isn't in, as additional technology is needed to confirm the mathematical results.
However, that does not mean that the default position of "it had a beginning" is true. It seems a common mental flaw in the religious that they think pointing out gaps in one theory makes theirs right by default. It's a painful reminder that they just don't get it.
at least i can admit a mistake but you did say at 1005PM on 6/21 what point does it prove
I've never denied asking what it proved. I denied saying the line which actually came from RWS, as you repeatedly attributed it to little old me. The mistake, my love, was YOURS.
you have a careless disregard for human beings
You are mistaken. And crazy.
you advocate baby murder
You are mistaken. And crazy.
thus the similarity between you and the gestapo
This entire discussion with you has exhibited the astounding similarities between you and a dumb rock.
in addition you publically display anger when you mention me to hide the fact you cannot counter my statements condemning baby murder.
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. Is English your second language?
i already know the phrase sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me - so don't be mistaken i live this fact.
Congratulations? Here's a cookie!
so the net effect is everyone see's your display of anger.
I'm not angry. I'm actually sitting on the sofa, watching the news, enjoying a beer, looking over at my son with love and appreciation, and laughing at just how silly you are.
in addition every mention of your contributing to charity i will also mention how i donate to charity also and volunteer time with the american cancer society.
Fantastic. I never said you weren't compassionate, just stupid. So stupid that it actually hurts.
no 20 week old will have the characteristics with which I am concerned
andy doesn't even see the chilling facts of this statement. YOU decide what charactistics are important? And the humanity of the baby be damned. Your "concern" has nothing to do with reality. Nothing. Others throughout history have "decided" when they thought human life began or ended or how. I, for one, will leave it to the one you don't know.
P.S. Are you a Jehovah's Witness perchance? I notice via Google that a lot of the ignorance you espouse seems somewhat tied to similar ignorance in the Watchtower.
andy doesn't even see the chilling facts of this statement. YOU decide what charactistics are important?
No, I offer up a philosophically and logically sound argument for determining what is imporant.
You seem to fail to appreciate that in saying I have no right to say what is important that you also have no right, so you should not even be engaged in this discussion. Your actions give the lie to your words.
I, for one, will leave it to the one you don't know.
Awesome. Rather than use your own brain you'll sacrifice it on the altar of ignorance contained in a 2000 year old book of myths.
I'm in awe.
andy,
YOu can be a smartass all you wish, but it only makes you look like..a smartass. (and that doesn't mean smart)
You can smear religion. That is your right. But in the end...if I am wrong then I will turn to dust as you will. But if you are wrong...well, it will be a painful eternity for you. And that is something I would not wish for you or anyone. So I will continue to speak the truth of the love that I know. If you come here, you will just have to listen.
Give it up, Andy. Red State Voter is clearly in the right here, as is evidenced by HER USE OF THE CAPS LOCK KEY.
since andy claimed no one disputes when life begins here are quotations from naral literature found on the web
naral wisconsin
'there is no answer to the question when life begins.
also naral wisconsin lied when they discussed abortion procedures being safe.
naral iowa
through out history theologians, philosophers and scientist have debated when life begins. there is no answer.
naral iowa about dangers of abortion procedures says legal abortin is one of the safest surgical procedures
naral new hampshire in opposing new hampshire state legislation
defining life begins at fertilization commits a singular religious belief to law
the book lime 5 destroys the fraud that abortion procedures are safe.
the stupidity to claims abortion at 1 month is okay but not at 7 months is shown because these advocates fail to answer the question how does one become a human? if it isn't human at 1 month then what is it - is it a fish, or maybe an ape?
YOu can be a smartass all you wish, but it only makes you look like..a smartass. (and that doesn't mean smart)
Actually, I'm both a smartass and quite smart. Thanks.
You can smear religion. That is your right. But in the end...if I am wrong then I will turn to dust as you will. But if you are wrong...well, it will be a painful eternity for you.
Well, that only took 100+ comments to devolve into Pascal's Wager. Congratulations!
Now, if only the Wager wasn't so flawed as to be useless as an apologetic argument... go on, Google it, we'll wait.
P.S. If you think that believing in your god to hedge my bets would please your god, then you obviously think VERY little of your god's intelligence.
And that is something I would not wish for you or anyone.
Of course, God is love, which is why he offers eternal damnation. Uh...wait.
Do you find it easy to believe such dissonant ideas?
So I will continue to speak the truth of the love that I know. If you come here, you will just have to listen.
Love it. Gives me a chance to point out how irrational it all is and maybe plant the seeds of logic in someone's mind.
Rock on, RWS. Rock on.
red state -
Quoting 20 year old statements isn't going to sell me. Sorry.
However, to be fair, if anyone thinks a fetus it not alive, they are an idiot.
As for your second comment, I've spent comment upon comment upon comment trying to put my argument in simple terms that even you could understand.
I see that even short-bus words are over your head. Maybe interpretive dance?
gestapo andy
its 2 or 3 amino acids [stephen c meyer phd] stanley miller produced only 2 or 3 amino acids.
Maybe interpretive dance?
I'd pay good money to see that.
I think Pascal's Wager would be a tap dance.
I don't know about Pascal, but it's my argument and one you cannot refute. You are either wrong or right. In the end the result be as I stated.
Of course, God is love, which is why he offers eternal damnation. Uh...wait.
uhh...no. You know for a "devout Catholic" use to be, you sure don't know much. We choose eternal damnation. It is our choice alone. God does not wish for ANYONE to be there. But alas, free will.
I don't know about Pascal, but it's my argument and one you cannot refute. You are either wrong or right. In the end the result be as I stated.
The problem, Sparkle, is that Pascal's Wager, as expressed in your comment, leads to a fundamentally unchristian view of faith. Christianity does not teach a faith based on fear, or hedging one's bets in case God might exist. Andy knows this, and he's right. It would be a poor god indeed who honored worship that merely expressed a vague concern that He might exist after all.
You got back on track when you mentioned love. Faith is a reaction to the love of God, engendered not by our own reason, but by the Holy Spirit. In other words, goofy stuff that Andy thinks is silly.
Regarding the abortion issue, Andy correctly mocks those who misrepresent his views or fail to address the issue. He does not dispute that (1) life begins at conception (it obviously does), or (2) fetal tissue is "human" (it obviously is). Andy simply sticks to the issue of discerning the point at which legal rights should attach to this living human tissue.
His view is logical. According to Andy we should distinguish between living human tissue like a wart and living human tissue like a fetus at the point when the fetus achieves more-than-lizard-like functionality. I'll give him this, his position is way more sensible than the "viability" test adopted by SCOTUS.
The rejoinder to Andy is purely religious -- the attachment of legal rights does not depend on brain function, but on the fact that the life of the fetus represents the will of God no less than that of an adult human. That pretty much ends the discussion. Andy won't get it, but he also can't rebut it.
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfuly and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139:13-16)
I don't mean to be the "above-it-all" mediator here but I think it's important to recognize where one bases their argument from in order to attempt to counter it. Andy clearly does not believe in God so trying to convince him that abortion at any stage is wrong based on religious principles is not going with work with him. I tried from a different perspective but didn't make much headway.
He has stated repeatedly that he believes human rights are incurred once the fetus develops adult-like brain development and that's when a ban on abortion should take place. His belief is that it approximately takes place around 30 weeks but is willing to extend the ban to around 21 weeks for safety considerations. While I (and most of us) don't agree with that, there has to be an element of compromise with every difficult situation. Given his atheism, and the fact most atheist are amenable to abortion on demand at any time, I think we should at least acknowledge he's willing to ban abortion at a certain time.
It's not a perfect solution according to our desires, but it sure beats abortion up until birth. Half a loaf and all that crap. Calling him gestapo Andy and a baby murderer sure isn't going to help.
And that's all I have to say about that.
congradulations andy
you admitted anyone who says a fetus is not alive is an idiot because i went back to the web and found the following dates for the naral literature i used.
naral wisconsin was dated 2003
naral iowa was mentioned the date 2005-2006 in the section of the naral website about how your senators and representatives voted
naral new hampshire was dated 2004
at a later time i will mention the fraud about legal abortions being safe.
good night
blake:
You said "(andy) has stated repeatedly that he believes human rights are incurred once the fetus develops adult-like brain development and that's when a ban on abortion should take place. His belief is that it approximately takes place around 30 weeks but is willing to extend the ban to around 21 weeks for safety considerations."
Isn't that what I said? In fact, isn't it what andy said:
"I base it on when the brain begins to exhibit those features and constructs that will give it distinctly human capabilities (although with the most recent research into primate brains, that "distinctly" may need to be revisited); in other words, when something beyond the "lizard brain" is formed."
andy:
I did read the article before I commented. What I mostly got out of it was further affirmation of my belief that Carl Sagan was the a** of the Western world.
His blathering about the fact that most religions had no prohibition against abortion and/or didn't address the issue is irrelevant (to me, at least). Most religions (to my knowledge, anyway) had no prohibition and/or didn't address the issue of slavery either. Did that make it right? As for the fact that abortion was, at various times, legal in many (if not most) cultures/nations (including the U.S.), so was slavery. Again, did that make it right?
You also said:
"I hope that if those parts of my brain are destroyed that give me my identity and my humanity, with no hope of recovery, that my family will do the right thing: end my life and move on with their own. I'll already be dead to myself."
Fine. Your choice. The key phrase, however is "with no hope of recovery." How you can equate that with taking a baby that can develop into a fully functional human being, ripping it out of its mother's womb and throwing it away like so much trash is beyond me.
To digress: I, for one, don't believe that rape or incest is a good reason to abort a baby. I won't say I've always held that view, but I did come to realize that support for those exceptions requires an intellectual contortionism that I'm not willing to attempt.
As for red state voter, she's not kooky; she's (as you suggested) a left-wing troll trying to discredit this site and conservatives in general with her long-winded rants. Or else she's just bat-s*** crazy.
as i said i will write about the fraud of legal safe abortions
the first comment is that on google search using the search term memorials to women who died from abortion.
one result is www.lifedynamics.com/Pro-life_Group/Pro-
choice_Women
at the lifedynamics website there is a hyper link to the blackmun wall which has memorials to women who died due to abortion, you just select any name and you are told briefly about the person who died because she had an abortion
Just to clarify, when I said this:
"For that matter, since even a full term baby with no birth defects cannot survive without someone to feed and care for it, why not let the mother deliver, look the baby over (you know, kick the tires, check under the hood, yadda, yadda, yadda), then decide if she wants to keep it."
I wasn't going to get into the subject of adoption. I was going here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/
but decided against opening up that can of worms. (I really do hate myself this morning.)
now from the book lime 5 an enumeration of deaths from abortions that was due to laceration to the uterus
35 y o SARAH died june 3 1975
[note SARAH left behind 4 children]
18 y o BARBARALEE died june 14 1977
21 y o GENEVA died june 18 1979
CAROL died may 13 1980
26 y o HELEN died november 3 1983
38 y o ELLEN died march 2 1985
19 y o HANNAH died december 30 1988
MARGARET died june 4 1989
28 y o SANDRA died april 27 1990
[note SANDRA had a 1 inch laceration]
21 y o ANGELICA died november 1 1991 [note ANGELICA left behind 2 children]
now from the book lime 5 deaths from abortion due to injury to the cerivix
EVELYN died march 16 1973
34 y o SHARY died january 16 1982
16 y o PATRICIA died march 3 1984
18 yo SYLVIA died december 31 1986
[SYLVIA left behind 1 child]
16 yo KATRINA
completing the list of deaths due to injury to the cervix during an abortion
16 y o KATRINA died december 6 1988
32 y o MARY ANN died july 27 1990
the following is from lime 5 list of those who died because of an abortion due to injury to the urinary track
20 y o GAIL
completing the deaths listed in lime 5 because of an abortion due to injury to the urinary track
20 y o GAIL died july 18 1979
INGAR died january 26 1990
the following are due to deaths due to imcomplete abortions
28 y o LINDA died june 1973
21 y o ELIZABETH died november 12 1977
18 y o EMILY died december 3 a983
THERESA died september 1 1989
30 y o SUE died ay 19 1992
now for enumeration of deaths lime 5 mentions for complications due to anesthesia
37 y o JANIE died march 11 1974
17 y o WILMA
continuing about abortion deaths due to anesthesia
17 y o WILMA died june 20 1974
22 y o CAROLE died july 22 1974
[CAROLE left behind 1 child]
32 y o MARINA
continuing
32 y o MARINA died august 17 1978
27 y o ROBIN died august 2 1981
[ROBIN left behind 1 child]
17 y o LANEICE died february 6 1986
13 y o DEANNA died september 5 1992
35 y o BRENDA died april 20 1987
27 y o DIANE died august 29 1987
23 y o STACY died februrary 20 1988
24 y o SUZANNE died december 1993
as i said in a previous writing that the literature from naral wisconsin and naral iowa and their claim that abortions are safe medical proceedure is fraudulent. the book lime 5 [published 1996] discusses the legal but safe issue on pages 11 thru 82 of which my enumerations came from only 26 of those pages.
question fatman
you claim at time and date 641 AM on 6/24 that i am long winded
then why up to the point you claimed that about me why does counting show that i wrote 261 lines while andy wrote 512 lines. now since 512 is greater than 261 so how can it be justified that i am long winded.
in addition i haven't totaled all the times he made derogatory remarks about me. making derogatory remarks does nothing to exlain what is said is incorrect. degrogatory remarks is just a tactic. but notice how often he tryed to ignore the fact when i said there are those who commit fraud by claiming life doesn't begin at fertilization until late yesterday and in the meantime there was a lot of slander against me.
just like the third reich declared Jews and Gypsies as non human the us supreme court has a habit of declaring who is a human and who isn't not only in the case of roe v wade but also in the dred scott decision
just like the nazi's use of terms as final solution to hide murder, so also the promotion of baby murder hide their guilt of murder by phrases like products of conception, which is also like the phrase ethnic cleansing was used to hide murder in the balkans.
these 2 facts in the similarity of the third reich and baby murder is enough to justify my use of the terms as gestapo and malignant.
at fertilization it is human, as alive as you and i and not identifying baby murder as evil is unjustifiable.
Michael,
I completely agree with you. That argument was not being made from God's point of view, but mine. I am not trying to convert andy with the argument, just make him think. It is a simple truth that if I am wrong then so what? I will have lived a wonderful life anyway. But if I am right, andy is in deep deep trouble. I just think that is something andy might consider since he has closed off his heart to God, maybe his brain will make him think about it.
red state -
Quoting a discredited creationist regarding the Miller experiments isn't going to convince a thinking person.
Also, in your laundry list of unfortunate deaths, you might notice that out of the millions of abortions performed since Roe v Wade, those are a tragic drop in the bucket. Far fewer than have died from over-the-counter pain relievers. In short, it's sad, but all surgery brings risks and the patient has to decide risk/reward.
RWS -
If the Heaven's Gate cult was right, we're both in trouble. If fundy Muslims are right, we're both in trouble. You get the point?
Your argument assumes two things: (a) the condition is either "my god" or "no god" and (b) "my god" happens to be particularly petty and stupid.
(a) is flawed because your god belief has the same evidence as every other god belief (read: none), thus it's not a binary equation but a one-to-many.
(b) isn't so much flawed as it is an insult to your god.
If you're going to argue apologetics, I recommend at least being brushed up on the basics. As it stands, it's about 450 years out of date.
RWS:
Check out the discussion of "soul" and the "sweater analagy" between me and Kafka at andy's site. It gave me an opportunity to take a swipe at Catholic doctrine along with the atheists.
BTW, Sparkle, FYI you are almost certainly a Lutheran. I've met Baptists-turned-Catholic before. If you explore their beliefs and eliminate (1) what they rejected from their Baptist upbringing, and (2) what they haven't really bought into in RC doctrine, invariably what's left over is a Lutheran who doesn't know it.
andy
stephen meyer earned his phd at cambridge university. so why is he discredited?
when i last wrote, i was distracted by my daughter to think to included in the similarities of the third reich and the baby murder since roe v wade [besides the presumption they could declare who is human and hiding the grusome facts by phrases as final solution etc to disquise murder] is the fact that both the third reich and baby murder involve the sadistical
the third reich had the medical experiments for example by joseph mengle
the baby murder since roe v wade involves amputation [this fact is hidden by it being described as d&c]
and baby murder involves use of burning to death [this fact is hidden by it being described as saline solution]
everyone can use their imagination and understand if they were amputated with out anesthesia or burnt that they would experience pain.
since the embryo is human and alive that person experiences the sadism inflicted on it.
lime 5 does more than just enumerates who died, but gives the unsavory details of such acts as the abortion doctors who wouldn't call ambulances when the female was experiencing serious ttrouble.
i will write about some of these incidences mentioned in lime 5 later.
stephen meyer earned his phd at cambridge university. so why is he discredited?
Perhaps you ought to read the Kitzmiller decision... you might find it of interest. Further, his PhD is in history and philosophy of science... not quite the same as the biological sciences.
stephen c meyer recieved a masters from cambridge university for the history of molecular biology and evolutionary theory
stephen c meyers recieved a doctorate from cambridge university for the analyzing the the scientific and methodoogical issues in the origin of life biology.
now some information from the book lime 5 reguarding the unpleasent details of fraud naral promotes by saying abortions are safe
18 y o JANET died 11/11/71
the abortionist botched the job because he didn't complete the proceedure because he left the embryo that measured 14.5 cm [crown to rump length] in JANET's uterus. as a result JANET heart and lung sacs were filled with fluid.
28 y o LINDA died june 1073
the abortionist botched the job because he left an embryo with a missing arm and a missing leg and part of the skull missing in LINDA's uterus
CINDY brought a case in front of the Colorado Board of Medical Examiners in june 1993. The board found that knowingly sending a women home with a retained skull of an embryo DID NOT DEVIATE from standard care because other abortionist in colorado testified they often left the skull in the patient.
25 y o PATRICIA experienced hemorrhaging and passed the upper part of her embryo and said she freaked out when she saw the embryo's eyes.
this is just one sampling of how naral committed fraud when they claim baby murder is safe. caveat emptor
i will publish at a later time more about the fraud the baby murder industry as mentioned in lime 5
A little more history on Dr. Meyer:
Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).
A special degree does, of course, lend some authority to one's voice. However, when hundreds of others with similar degrees, or even more specific ones, point out the flaws in your research, your position is in trouble.
Meyer, like Dembski and Behe, is a hack, putting his religious belief in front of his obligation to the scientific method.
red state -
Pointing out the activities of NARAL (even if true), adds nothing to the debate about whether abortion is moral or immoral. All it says it that some people are dishonest (well, that's quite the headline, and I thank you for bring such a revelation to our attention).
It's rather like saying that since Mussolini was an evil man, it's also evil that the buses in Italy ran on time.
As always, you're just not very good at this debate thing.
red state voter said:
question fatman
you claim at time and date 641 AM on 6/24 that i am long winded
Yes I did. Because you are.
then why up to the point you claimed that about me why does counting show that i wrote 261 lines while andy wrote 512 lines. now since 512 is greater than 261 so how can it be justified that i am long winded
You actually counted how many lines you and andy had each written? Have you ever been diagnosed with obsessive/compulsive disorder? Seriously.
in addition i haven't totaled all the times he made derogatory remarks about me. making derogatory remarks does nothing to exlain what is said is incorrect. degrogatory remarks is just a tactic. but notice how often he tryed to ignore the fact when i said there are those who commit fraud by claiming life doesn't begin at fertilization until late yesterday and in the meantime there was a lot of slander against me.
After you had, in your first post on this thread @ 8:27 PM, 6-21-2006, come barging in calling Democrats idiots (which a lot of them are, but not all of them), he got snide with you, which admittedly he's good at. You then, in your second post @ 12:05 AM, 6-22-2006, began calling him "gestapo andy" and the insults began to fly.
just like the third reich declared Jews and Gypsies as non human the us supreme court has a habit of declaring who is a human and who isn't not only in the case of roe v wade but also in the dred scott decision
IIRC, the Dred Scott decision was about the constitutionality of segregation.
just like the nazi's use of terms as final solution to hide murder, so also the promotion of baby murder hide their guilt of murder by phrases like products of conception, which is also like the phrase ethnic cleansing was used to hide murder in the balkans.
Actually, I agree with you. Monsters frequently use euphemisms like "final solution" and "seperate but equal" to hide the true intent and effects of their crimes. And if you capitalized and punctuated properly and used a more coherent writing style, you might convince others. As it is, most people will read one or two of your comments, decide you're irrational, and dismiss you.
these 2 facts in the similarity of the third reich and baby murder is enough to justify my use of the terms as gestapo and malignant.
Name calling, no matter how satisfying it might feel at the time, gets us nowhere. It simply convinces people that we can't make a coherent argument, so we resort to name calling.
to be continued
stephen c meyers recieved a doctorate from cambridge university for the analyzing the the scientific and methodoogical issues in the origin of life biology.
I just hate it when those methodoogical issues come up.
part two
at fertilization it is human, as alive as you and i and not identifying baby murder as evil is unjustifiable.
red state voter, I agree with you. I'm a pro-lifer. Preaching to me is preaching to the choir. As for andy, preaching to him won't change his mind. As my grandpappy would say (on this subject at least), andy's "...got a mind like a steel trap. Rusted shut." The people you should be thinking about are the others reading your comments. The people who haven't made up their minds. They're the ones you should really be talking to. Convincing them that andy's wrong and you're right. And poorly written, insult-laden, spittle-flecked rants aren't going to convince anyone of anything. Except that you're an extremist. And maybe a loon.
As my grandpappy would say (on this subject at least), andy's "...got a mind like a steel trap. Rusted shut."
No, I'm open to new evidence of a rational sort; but faith-based evidence isn't going to convince me of anything. If anything, my mind has become more open from my days as a right-wing Christian.
However, I agree with you on who the target audience is, and have said that on my blog regarding debates on evolution, existence of god, etc. I don't expect to change the mind of the opposition, although I might plant a seed of doubt; I'm more interested in someone who already has that seed having it sprout because of what I have to add.
crazy state -
you can quote stephen meyers phd dissertation all you like but his actions since are what have discredited him among the science community. perhaps you should read up on the wegde document and why the discovery institute was created. hint: it isn't for science.
(ps i tried writing this in your style so that perhaps some if might sink in)
When did I say anything about "faith based evidence"? I no more buy into the god myth than you do. Less even; I was a Catholic, but never would have described myself as devout.
What I'm having trouble understanding is how you can state
No one says the embryo or the fetus is not human. The question is one of rights...
Then, in the very next sentence, say
Every skin cell you shed is human. A single liver cell of yours is human. The intestinal tissue you slough off with each crap is human by virtue of its DNA.
No, they aren't. They are the waste products of humans, incapable of thought, consciousness or reproduction once they've left the human body.
Later (in another comment) you said
...I don't know of anyone, even the most staunch abortion supporters, that would argue that the embryo or fetus is not alive.
Okay, so we're in agreement; the zygot, embryo, fetus, whatchamacallit is alive and it's human. I think we can agree that if left in the mother's womb, it will usually develop into a baby, capable when it matures of conscious thought and self-awareness. What I can't understand is how you can then say that the fetus has to wait 20 to 24 weeks from the time of conception to have the same rights as a fully developed human being. Why should its state of development determine whether or not the mother can decide that having a baby is too inconvenient for whatever reason and abort it? I just don't get it.
I'm going to take this over to my blog and see if I can't get a post out of it. Feel free to come over and continue the discussion if you want. Or you can have the last word here. Or you can just let it drop. Your choice.
When did I say anything about "faith based evidence"? I no more buy into the god myth than you do.
It was more a general comment about the evidence often provided in support of a staunch pro-life position (e.g. crazy state), and not specific to anything you have said.
No, they aren't. They are the waste products of humans, incapable of thought, consciousness or reproduction once they've left the human body.
Yet, by virtue of their DNA, identifiably human. No one is going to do a DNA sequencing on it and think it came from a dog.
Further, an embryo is "incapable of thought, consciousness, (and) reproduction." A fetus (in support of my position) at some stage becomes capable of at least one, if not two, of them.
Why should its state of development determine whether or not the mother can decide that having a baby is too inconvenient for whatever reason and abort it? I just don't get it.
Because we need a rational way to decide when something is a human being with rights.
Human experience shows that, despite what we say, we don't really consider a blastula a human being; given that 30-50 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage, often before the woman knows she is pregnant, one would think Hallmark would have made a card for it by now. "So sorry about your heavy period (or miscarriage)."
Your choice.
I'll probably stop by.
One last question, andy. You said
Because we need a rational way to decide when something is a human being with rights.
Why?
Why?
You'd prefer an irrational way? I suppose that religious belief fits it perfectly then.
feodor dostoevsky is the one who wrote 'if there is no GOD then all is permitted' which certainly includes baby murder
and bertrand russell wrote on the dangers of a GOD free subjective ethics and was never able to give a more compelling answer against cruelty than he doesn't like it.
for those who believe in GOD there is a reason - because GOD condemns it.
darwin is no substitute for GOD, because there is problems with the fossil record - intermediate forms do not exist. i heard a long time ago there is no fossil evidence for the intermediate forms for the extremly long neck of the giraffe. today doing a google search of images, using the search term 'fossils of giraffes' gives 145 results. as the website named 'giraffe neck evolution' said
where are the giraffe neck evolution fossils?' the answer is no one has seen them.
then i did a google search for images for the search term 'fossils of jellyfish' there were 145 results showing fossilized jellyfish. i find it strange that giraffes with ever increasing neck length is not fossilized yet jellyfish are fossilized. it does lend credibility to meyer and behe etc
behe recieved a degree in chemistry with honors from drexel university. his phd is in biochemistry from university of pennsylvania.
also doctor stephen jay gould has admitted that there is a lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record.
i know because in a discussion once with holly m. i went to the library and requested a xerox copy of gould's statement. i will look it up again and post where gould made the statement.
so GOD isn't such a ridiculous idea. and i have a feeling that there is a high probabilty that i will be teaching my daughter what is correct.
by the way it will not be to long before my daughter will turn 3 and her daddy and mommy is so proud of her.
red state voter:
That's nice, but it isn't really germane to the conversation.
I don't know if andy's atheism has influenced his pro-abortion views or not, though I would suspect it has. I do know that my atheism hasn't affected my pro-life beliefs. If anything, it's strengthened them; if I'm right and this is the only go-round we get, then denying anyone their shot at it is, IMHO, reprehensible.
andy:
That's done (finally!) if you want to take a look at it.
My last comment ^^, second paragraph, second sentence:
Substitute the word "weakened" for the word affected.
(The preview button is my friend, the preview button is...)
stephen jay gould was aware that no fossil evidence for evolution of on species to another did revive goldschmidts 'hopeful monster' theory with gould's idea of 'punctuated evolution' were new species suddenly are born totally different creatures than the parents were. this was introduced in the magazine natural history [may 1977]
punctuated evolution is a definite departure from darwin's small changes between intermediate forms.
fatman
what reason would you use to call baby murder wrong? would it be like bertrand russel you don't like the cruelty? so the discussion appears to me to be relevant.
in fact when the third reich leaders were on trial at nuremburg for war crimes their defense of their sadistical treatment of people was the laws that germany had under the nazi's authorized such cruelty. so under similar circumstances what do you do?
everyone agrees robbery is wrong, then what is the problem in the condemning of baby murder since it also involves the sadistical like the methods of amputation [a.k.a. d&c]
or burning to death [a.k.a. saline solution] or shoving scissors in the skull of a fully developed baby and suction its brains out [a.k.a. dilation and extraction]
feodor dostoevsky is the one who wrote 'if there is no GOD then all is permitted' which certainly includes baby murder
Well, if he said it, it must be true.
and bertrand russell wrote on the dangers of a GOD free subjective ethics and was never able to give a more compelling answer against cruelty than he doesn't like it.
Only someone with a very limited imagination is unable to see how morals have a biological and rational basis. Broad moral concepts are universal: do not kill (usually), do not steal (usually), do not lie (usually). Specific moral codes are subjective and differ from culture to culture. It is my position that, through reason, we can assess moral presciptions and evaluate them for value.
What is more frightening to me are the people who only behave morally because they're scared of their god.
Additionally, as I've stated here before, invoking god does nothing to resolve the problem of moral relativism, as "good" becomes "whatever god says" and can change on his whim. If "good" is "good" independent of this god, then the god is not necessary to morality.
Your god solves nothing.
there is problems with the fossil record - intermediate forms do not exist.
This is, quite obviously, to all but the most crazy or ignorant, a lie.
i find it strange that giraffes with ever increasing neck length is not fossilized yet jellyfish are fossilized.
Only because you do not understand the basics of fossilization or the relevant timespans in which each of the forms has existed.
it does lend credibility to meyer and behe etc
Only to someone ignorant of basic science.
behe recieved a degree in chemistry with honors from drexel university. his phd is in biochemistry from university of pennsylvania.
That's fantastic. As I've said before, the degree gets you initial authority, but your arguments must stand alone to be taken seriously. Behe, Dembski, and Meyer have utterly failed in that regard.
also doctor stephen jay gould has admitted that there is a lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record.
No, he hasn't. He has been dishonestly quote-mined by creationists to support their agenda of lies.
so GOD isn't such a ridiculous idea.
Nothing you have said supports this claim. Even if one could show evolution to be false, it doesn't mean that creationism is the winner by default. You really need to brush up on the most basic tenets of logical discourse.
Still think your nuts,
andy
Correction: that should read "still think you're nuts."
If anything, it's strengthened them; if I'm right and this is the only go-round we get, then denying anyone their shot at it is, IMHO, reprehensible.
Which is fine, and the obvious difference in our position is that we disagree on the definition of "anyone." If I thought that a blastula was a person, it would logically follow for me to be against killing them.
fatman - I'll take a look today.
crazy state - you misuse the word "suddenly" when describing Gould's position. The rapid change in PE is rapid in the sense of geologic time, not in the sense of how long it takes you to look kooky. Also, do you know how to use the shift key for capital letters? And how many cats do you own?
sorry I missed the whole argument, but if its a question of rights...
The woman's right to choose?
Well how about this, if the woman chooses to keep the kid, how about the man can CHOOSE not to pay child support?
I'm sorry if I have a fucked up view, but if the woman has the ultimate choice to keep or kill the baby (without the man's decision as well!), suppose the woman wants to keep the kid...the state then FORCES the man to pay child support.
What kind of fucked up man-hating shit is that?
(sorry for the vulgarity, Kathy)
since there are those who defend darwin in this discussion over baby murder here is a quote from stephen jay gould, professor of zoology and geology at harvard university
in natural science, vol 86, no. 5, pp 12-16 may 1977 an article published by stephen jay gould titled 'evolutions erratic pace' wrote and i quote
"the EXTREME RARITY OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD PERSISTS AS THE TRADE SECRET OF PALENTOLOGY. the evolutionary trees that adorn our text books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branching, the rest is reference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.'
charles darwin himself admits a lack of fossil evidence would be detrimental to his theory.
i made public the information can be found in natural history vol 86 no. 5 pp 12-16 may 1977. the public can request from their local libraries to see the words for themselves.
so those who insist that GOD has made the statement baby murder is immoral do indeed have very good reason to condemn the sadistical and don't have to worry about a bertrand russell predicament that he couldn't give any reason that cruelty is wrong other than he doesn't like it.
stephen jay gould is not misquoted by dishonest creationist. quoting from an opponent who agrees with you is permitted in American courts because you have a self interest, but if your opponent agrees with you it is considered true.
and then charles darwin also have another problem. charels darwin insists that in transforming from one species into another it is done in small incremental steps.
there is no connection between animals that have vertebrae and animals that lack vertebrae. either there is a backbone or there is no backbone - like the giraffe and its useful long neck - there is no intermediate forms.
furthermore GOD is needed for morality, because the different cultures produce conflicting ideas so people can find murder justifiable like in the incident of the publishing of the cartoon in denmark in early 2006
one more point about that creationist not dishonestly quoting stephen gould.
in a book supporting evolution, the writings are from a proponent of evolution, and quotes used from that book has a high probability that it was from for example an accountant.
red state -
You're quote a 30 year old article to knock down evolution today? Wow, insightful.
You might want to visit Talk Origins and do some reading on fossilization, PE, and other topics. You'd look a lot more knowledgeable and a lot less silly.
andy
you do say what is right about any mistakes i make. because there are reasons why mistakes are great when i discover an error
whats so great about mistakes?
1st - one mistake generally doesn't mean the whole thing is ruined
2nd - they provides a learning experience, not making mistakes can mean your not learning something
3rd - most people aren't going to get mad after a mistake
4th - adjusting after a mistake operates to make a person happier and make things better
5th - we don't die by making mistakes
in regard to the stephen gould article being 30 years old, i think what gould said will turn out to be a timeless truth, because i know piltdown is fraudulent, and i can look up problems with neanderthal etc because i once read about these problems on the web.
P.S. Stop taking your talking points from liars like Answers in Genesis.
Talk Origins has evidence at how much quote mining those idiots like to do, including yours.
Which, summarized, concludes:
So it would seem that Gould has no problems with the fossil record. But did he believe that transitional forms are lacking? Note that in the quote originally presented, the claim is made that they are rare, not absent. Also, as anyone who is familiar with Gould's writings will know, the text quoted reflects his recognition that, while there is a scarcity of transitional fossils between species, there is no such lack of transitional fossils between major groups.
The only thing more shameful than a liar is a liar wrapped in the robe of the Jesus they supposedly follow. And that's all these creationist hucksters are: liars.
i do not see these people as liars.
just saying that they are liars doesn't prove that they are liars.
other problems with evolution that they ask questions about are
how does random changes cause tails to drop off going from monkeys to humans
how does random changes cause cold blooded animals to become warm blooded
how does random changes cause laying eggs to become internal fertilization
do i think these people who ask such questions are liars? no not at all.
i figure it is a high probability that darwin is holding up progress just like aristotle hindered for centuries scientific progress until galileo came along.
is GOD puntitve? george lakoff says the religious right believes this on page 102 in the book don't think of an elephant. no the religious right doesn't believe this and the religious right knows the parable of the prodigal son. just like in any crowd individual differences assures there are those who claim to be Christian yet doesn't walk the walk.
incase someone has the inclination to define those who do not believe evolution as liars lets use the words of charles darwin from the origin of species.
from the origins of species chapter 6
chapter title is difficulties of the theory
quote
"this extinction and natural selection go hand in hand. if we look at each species as descendent from some unknown form, both the parent and the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of the formation and perfection of the new form.
but, by this theory innumerable transistional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
charles darwin said that on page 162 of my copy of the origins of species from signet classics, published september 2003
so the transitional forms was a problem for charles darwin in the mid 19th century and the same problem continues so to cause stephen gould's comments in may 1977 that i quoted at date and time of 1258AM on 6/29/06
actually what is more shameful than a liar is a premeditated murderer which includes baby murder. these postings is on the event how a young lady who survived the attempted baby murder on her was honored by the colorado state legislature until they found out she survived baby murder. so shame on those politicians for their silence after applauding her when they found out she survived abortion, and shame on the person who tried to murder that young lady
since talk origins is used and they defend darwin, talk origins overlooks the fact charles darwin says there will be innumerable forms while talk origins are satisfied with a few transitional forms.
if there are a few transitional forms then there must be large gaps present, so these fossils can also be regarded as a species by themselves unconnected to any other species i feel that talk origins is trying to score points they are not entitled to.
just saying that they are liars doesn't prove that they are liars.
No, but linking to evidence of quote-mining to misrepresent the words of others sure does.
Is this really that hard for you to follow?
how does random changes cause tails to drop off going from monkeys to humans
It doesn't. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, but from apes. If you can't even get the basics right, how can I be expected to take you seriously on more complex matters?
Further, perhaps you're aware that some human children are born with tails... and that even those without one have a tailbone where one would be anchored. Quite obviously there's been genetic modification to conserve energy in development, but sometimes the switch gets turned back on.
P.S. With your Darwin quotes, you are (a) referencing a 150 year old first whack at the theory and (b) quote mining (e.g. lying) again.
Please admit to me that you're really a left-leaning evolutionist trying to make right-wingers look like idiots. Please? It's working!
any one can read darwins book and see he said exactly what i wrote. and i take darwin at his word. and your disagreement with someone doesn;t make them a liar.
but i do find this useful, because my husband introduced me to richard carlsons books don't sweat the small stuff. and one of carlsons thoughts was think what the other person can teach you.
so everyone can see i didn;t misquote darwin the library of congress number for my copy of the darwin's origins is
87-72890. i take darwin at his word.
any one can read darwins book and see he said exactly what i wrote. and i take darwin at his word.
As do I, when I want to know what Darwin thought when he first came up with his theory. When I want to know the facts of the matter, I catch up to current research.
As it stands, you're about 150 years out of date.
And crazy.
Commenting by HaloScan
