Kerry believe's life begins at conception before he believed it should be aborted

[dalmations202]

Epitome wrote:
But I assure you, the model currently being taught is much closer to what is believed by most scientists, biologists and anthropologists with experience in the field......

I have two things to question you about this statement.
#1) I read a survey done in 1998 on this and only 55% of scientists believe it to begin with. Why only 55%, if they are the smart ones.

#2) Just because 55% believe it, it don't make it true. In the 6th Century, scientist believed the world was flat -- and taught it. In the 4th century, scientist believed the sun orbited around the earth not vice versa.

The evolution theory has been shot down logically for years, but will not go away because people are "willingly ignorant" of the truth. 2Pe 3:5 for reference. I have done hours of study on it from a scientific level, and the model has circular logic, and does not work. Any person with any logic at all can shoot down the theory of evolution. We were designed by a creator.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22

Fine then. Document specific sources, preferably peer reviewed. Please exempt 'Christian science weekly' or any other absurd tome.

link

Developments in the science of fetology have given us greater opportunities than ever to learn about the preborn. We know that the baby has a completely different circulatory system than the mother, and often a different blood type. He or she has a completely different genetic code. We know that by the 21st day after conception the baby's heart has begun to beat [1]. Brain waves are detectable by day 40 [2], and movement also begins around this time [3]. By eight weeks, when a woman generally discovers she's pregnant, all body systems are present [4]. One doctor, operating on an ectopic pregnancy at eight weeks, discovered an "extremely alive," perfectly developed little person, vigorously swimming in his environment with a "natural swimmer's stroke."[5] The preborn child is unmistakably human, unmistakably alive, and unmistakably distinct from the mother.

* * *
1. J.M. Tanner, G.R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books. Growth, New York: Life Science Life, 1965. p.64.

2. H. Hamlin, Life or Death by EEG'. Journal of the Amedos"' Medical A's',, 1W12/84, p. 20.

3. LB. Arey, Developmental Anatomy (6th ed.), Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders Co, 1954

4. Hooker and Davenport, The Prenatal Origin of Behavior, University of Kansas Press, 1952.

5. PE. Rockwell, M.D. Director of Anesthesiology, Leonard Hospital, Troy, NY, U.S. Supreme Court, Markle vs. Abele, 72-56, 72-730, p. 11 1972.

If the model is outdated, than it needs updating. But I assure you, the model currently being taught is much closer to what is believed by most scientists, biologists and anthropologists with experience in the field than whatever you read in a Christian apologetics manuel.

You're about to dive off into the deep end with this one, Epitome. Science is a methodical approach to the acquisition of knowledge. I don't care what scientists, biologists, and anthropologists believe. Belief requires faith in something that you can't prove. And the fact is, scientists cannot prove evolution has ever occurred. They have to operate on faith. So, in essence, evolution is NOT science. It is a set of beliefs, and nothing more.

[vinnieponte]

pro-choice is the way to go, thats it

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
pro-choice is the way to go, thats it

Do you really think this contributes to the discussion?

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

At least you're honest about it. There has been a concerted effort by various groups over the past century to remove religious influence from the public sector, which honestly started with the Scopes trial, and has progressed from there. All of it has been done under the guise of "separation of church and state." That was never the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but thanks to the distortion of those clauses by our Supreme Court, we now in effect do have a state religion: secularism.

I wouldn't call it being under the guise of separation of church and state. It's clear that belief in separation of church and state is the guiding principle of these laws. As it is in most other advanced Western nations. Or, perhaps, the people who have interpreted the constitution all these years, really believe that the founding document extendeds to these principles. Either way, as a non religious person with a healthy respect for the advances secularism has brought about in Western Civilization as well as a healthy fear of theocrats, I applaud their efforts.

oral relativism is the ultimate goal of secularists and liberals, but I'm well aware that laws against murder and stealing have existed for a long time. And the vast majority of them have been based upon religioius teachings. So my point remains the same.

I don't find your mere assertion that our laws, excepting judeo-christian influence, are based on religious teachings very convincing. In fact I would argue that most advances in Western Liberal Democratic law, have been made by those, since the time of the Romans, who had a healthy distance from the influence and constraints of theocrats. Certainly in the last 500 years. Although it is a testament to Christianity that they have kept up with the moral evolutionary advances of Western Civilization.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to draw between legislating an "article of faith" and legislating morality. Please elaborate.

Simply legislating based on religious doctrine. Such as the prohibition of abortion, on the grounds of a religious belief that life begins at conception.

You're right. He did make himself perfectly clear. He's a weak-minded politician trying to pander to both sides at once.

Loyalty to the country? I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Every elected official tries to promote laws and advance agendas which reflect their beliefs. If John Kerry really believed that abortion is murder, then he would have voted for a ban on partial-birth abortions. He would have voted for parental notification laws. You may not view abortion as murder, but John Kerry has said that he does. If you believed that an act was murder, are you telling me that you would support another person's right to murder? That's ridiculous. No rational, sane person would support an act they believed to be murder. Thus, one can fairly assume that if you support the act, you don't believe it to be murder.

That's how we know where John Kerry really stands. We look at what he does (and how he votes), not what he says.

He can run, but he can't hide...

Perhaps. I don't keep up with theology and what makes one a good catholic or whatnot. It's up to the theocrats to determine whether his support for women's court protected right to choose interferes with his religion and what he proclaims his beliefs are. I wouldn't have tried to appease if I were him certainly. But in the end, as long as he doesen't let his religion interfere with Western American values, I don't care much.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: dalmations202


I have two things to question you about this statement.
#1) I read a survey done in 1998 on this and only 55% of scientists believe it to begin with. Why only 55%, if they are the smart ones.

I don't know. Perhaps if you could dig up this phantom survey, along with a summary of who all was asked and what kind of guidelines were used, we can talk.

Originally posted by: dalmations202


The evolution theory has been shot down logically for years, but will not go away because people are "willingly ignorant" of the truth. 2Pe 3:5 for reference. I have done hours of study on it from a scientific level, and the model has circular logic, and does not work. Any person with any logic at all can shoot down the theory of evolution.

The evolutoniary theory has persisted because people with actual backgrounds in anthropology and science realize how truthfully grounded it is. Science will always question and build on itself, religion will always remain the same. If you've discovered the secret of evolutonary theory being false, severely flawed or compromised, then by all means call up Stephen Jay Gould or whoever and tell them what they are doing is wrong. I await the results.

We were designed by a creator.

If there's one great advancement in Western scientific thought. It's the realization that flaw in the theory of our human origins is not sufficient reason to fall back on our old standby that we were all created by a big boogieman in the sky. It's what separates Western Civilization from the backward theocrats and their fairy tales. Such as yourself.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
I wouldn't call it being under the guise of separation of church and state. It's clear that belief in separation of church and state is the guiding principle of these laws. As it is in most other advanced Western nations. Or, perhaps, the people who have interpreted the constitution all these years, really believe that the founding document extendeds to these principles. Either way, as a non religious person with a healthy respect for the advances secularism has brought about in Western Civilization as well as a healthy fear of theocrats, I applaud their efforts.

I'm sure you do applaud the effort to remove Christianity from the public discourse, since it advances YOUR religion.

I don't find your mere assertion that our laws, excepting judeo-christian influence, are based on religious teachings very convincing.

I never said anything about our laws. I was responding to your point that other civilizations had laws concerning murder and stealing before the Ten Commandments came into existence.

In fact I would argue that most advances in Western Liberal Democratic law, have been made by those, since the time of the Romans, who had a healthy distance from the influence and constraints of theocrats. Certainly in the last 500 years. Although it is a testament to Christianity that they have kept up with the moral evolutionary advances of Western Civilization.

Your derogatory (and incorrect) use of the term "theocrats" notwithstanding, the greatest advance in the history of modern democratic law was the signing of our Constitution, and many of those involved were Christians who hardly "had a healthy distance from the influence and constraints of theocrats."

Simply legislating based on religious doctrine. Such as the prohibition of abortion, on the grounds of a religious belief that life begins at conception.

That's a distinction without a difference. The belief that murder is wrong is a religious doctrine. The belief that stealing is wrong is a religious doctrine. The belief that prostitution is wrong is a religious doctrine.

Perhaps. I don't keep up with theology and what makes one a good catholic or whatnot. It's up to the theocrats to determine whether his support for women's court protected right to choose interferes with his religion and what he proclaims his beliefs are. I wouldn't have tried to appease if I were him certainly. But in the end, as long as he doesen't let his religion interfere with Western American values, I don't care much.

You said that John Kerry ignoring his alleged religious convictions was being "loyal to his country." And you were wrong.

BTW, get it straight. It is a woman's court-CREATED right to choose, not court-protected right to choose.

If there's one great advancement in Western scientific thought. It's the realization that flaw in the theory of our human origins is not sufficient reason to fall back on our old standby that we were all created by a big boogieman in the sky. It's what separates Western Civilization from the backward theocrats and their fairy tales. Such as yourself.

There's really no point in engaging in a lengthy debate about the origins of life with you, because you obviously have made up your mind and don't plan on changing it. Your condescension toward dalmations is really rather humorous, though, considering that you're hanging your hat on an unproven hypothesis. It would be one thing for you to think that your beliefs were superior if they were actually based in proven fact, but they aren't. It takes much more faith to believe that we all evolved than it does to believe in a Creator.

[sike]

both said byEpitome22: "But I assure you, the model currently being taught is much closer to what is believed by most scientists, biologists and anthropologists with experience in the field than whatever you read in a Christian apologetics manuel."
"Fine then. Document specific sources, preferably peer reviewed. Please exempt 'Christian science weekly' or any other absurd tome."

good job not following your own advice.

for the record, I dont know you 22, so I don't know your actual intelligence or education. But I do know you have a penchant for offensive rhetoric when challenged, and that is certainly a sign of poor taste and most would argue low intellect. I assume you have dedicated much study and personal time into this subject, otherwise you undoubtedly would not argue with such offensive passion. There is an evident rejection of the Divine in your diatribes…that is fine with me, your destiny is not in my hands …while some men feel mentally justified in clinging to their faith in science, I do prefer a faith in the God of all sciences. The greatest minds of all time have held to such a being, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Edison, etc. And most great Scientists have professed their hope in a greater being than themselves(unprovable though He be)…(I’m sorry I won’t dig that up for you, but my 'Christian science weekly' wasn’t handy…honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever read such a “tome”) I say none of this to try and assuage your dedication to whatever it is that you believe…but you better know that when it comes to belief you are in a major minority among academia.

All in all, believe whatever you want, but don't come in here and put me down with some weak ad hominem(go look it up) about Christian apologetics (you know nothing about me) and think you've made a good point. I am fairly certain that I could more than hold my own in an intellectual setting with most anyone on this forum.

As for naming a great mind who has done wonderful work on evolution as a logically false system, have you ever heard of Alvin Plantinga? I'm sure someone as dedicated to his belief system would have read him. I am reading some of his works at the moment and he presents a very interesting philosophical/logical view of the weaknesses of the theory. He is one of the leading philosophers in the western world today so I hope you don't consider him beneath you.

If there's one great advancement in Western scientific thought. It's the realization that flaw in the theory of our human origins is not sufficient reason to fall back on our old standby that we were all created by a big boogieman in the sky. It's what separates Western Civilization from the backward theocrats and their fairy tales. Such as yourself.

this statement sounds like something an ignorant college kid who has taken some science and now knows it all would say. Your sciene, my arrogant fellow, has done nothing even remotely close to disproving the existence of a Divine being. If you think it has, you are quite mistaken indeed. The one popular (non-scientific mind you) theory that has bounced around for a while, evolution, cannot even explain itself (be verified) scientifically, and still they cannot elucidate how the original unmoved matter came to be moved…much less explain how it came to be in the first palce…and please don’t throw Davies’ weak argument as a viable option of explanation.

all in all, you have been fairly offensive in your remarks, especailly in reguards to your treatment of religious belief. I'm sure with such diametrically opposed ideals as we seem to carry only one of us has found truth...and if its you, I've got nothing to lose...if its me...you have everthing to lose. I sincerely hope God captures your mind and softens your heart.
If you want to talk to me further or just cuss me out, PM me....I'll be here [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Epitome22]

[quote]
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

[i]Originally posted by:
I'm sure you do applaud the effort to remove Christianity from the public discourse, since it advances YOUR religion.

I have no religion. If you wish to equate a belief in secularism or atheism as being a religion, even a secular religion like atheism, then you are mistaken. I'm merely a person who through study of history, realizes that advancements in Western Liberal Democracies stem from the decline of influence of theocrats in government.

Your derogatory (and incorrect) use of the term "theocrats" notwithstanding, the greatest advance in the history of modern democratic law was the signing of our Constitution, and many of those involved were Christians who hardly "had a healthy distance from the influence and constraints of theocrats."

I'm not particular about the founding father's deism or lack thereof, but I do applaud them taking some of the first steps in reducing the power of religion in Government.

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." --- James Madison

Here's a more modern one I like, from a self proclaimed Catholic

"Our very system of government came out of resistance to the power of religion in politics; and what we're fighting for in this war is the possibility of religion outside of politics. ---- Andrew Sullivan

That's a distinction without a difference. The belief that murder is wrong is a religious doctrine. The belief that stealing is wrong is a religious doctrine. The belief that prostitution is wrong is a religious doctrine.

So is the belief that working on sunday is a crime worthy of stoning and that anything a menstruating woman touches is unclean for a week. Neither of which would be given much consideration in modern civil societies.

BTW, get it straight. It is a woman's court-CREATED right to choose, not court-protected right to choose.

Is her right to choose not protected by the courts?

There's really no point in engaging in a lengthy debate about the origins of life with you, because you obviously have made up your mind and don't plan on changing it. Your condescension toward dalmations is really rather humorous, though, considering that you're hanging your hat on an unproven hypothesis. It would be one thing for you to think that your beliefs were superior if they were actually based in proven fact, but they aren't. It takes much more faith to believe that we all evolved than it does to believe in a Creator.

Not really. Because proponents of evolutionary theory have things I can read and base my own conclusions on. I use the same litmus test for my deism or lack thereof. Who knows, maybe the majority of anthropologists, upon further review, will abandon evolutionary theory and search for something better. I don't know, it doesen't come down to one or the other for me. It stems from my and many other sensible people's healthy skepticism that there's a boogie man hovering above me watching everything I do.

[mavsman55]

Not really. Because proponents of evolutionary theory have things I can read and base my own conclusions on. I use the same litmus test for my deism or lack thereof. Who knows, maybe the majority of anthropologists, upon further review, will abandon evolutionary theory and search for something better. I don't know, it doesen't come down to one or the other for me. It stems from my and many other sensible people's healthy skepticism that there's a boogie man hovering above me watching everything I do.

First of all, if you'd stop referring to God as the "boogie man" I'd appreciate it. Secondly, your belief that there is no god is a religious conviction. Everybody has their own opinion when it comes to how the earth was made, and that is just another one of them. Doesn't make it any better than ours, and doesn't mean that the government should force it upon us just because you think it is right.

[Usually Lurkin]

the argument that killing your own children is wrong is not just a religious one.

Epitome, I will for the moment accept your argument that the decision of when life begins is a religious one. This makes the decision of which kids are killable a religious one.
If you want to remove religion, then, from the decision of which children are killable, you have 2 choices:
All children are killable or no children are killable. If you draw the line somewhere in the middle, as abortionists do, then you are necessarily favoring one religious definition of the start of life at the expense of another.

The decision of when life begins is really arbitrary as a deciding factor in your "removal of religion" argument, because religion might also take up defining when "personhood begins", or defining whatever criteria one might draw up for killable/unkillable.

To put it another way: pro-choice is not pro-choice at all, but is "pro-choice within the constraints of my own moral belief system". You simply cannot make an argument for why certain children should not be killed without a plea to your own morality.

[FreshJive]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

First of all, if you'd stop referring to God as the "boogie man" I'd appreciate it. Secondly, your belief that there is no god is a religious conviction.

I agree that athiesm is pure religion, but a seperation of church and state can mean agnosticism.

Everybody has their own opinion when it comes to how the earth was made, and that is just another one of them. Doesn't make it any better than ours, and doesn't mean that the government should force it upon us just because you think it is right.

Exactly

[Drbio]

If you do not think that a fetus is a living being, please check out the following and it will likely change your mind.



Dr. Joseph Bruner at Vanderbilt is known for his work in fetal surgery, especially on babies with spina bifida, a condition in which the spine does not close properly during development. Vanderbilt confirms that little Samuel Armus was 21 weeks-old in the womb which makes the surgery very risky because if anything goes wrong, the baby cannot survive on its own. Dr. Bruner and his colleagues, however, have done numerous successful spina bifida surgeries on fetuses that are not yet viable. In this particular surgery, the baby's hand poked out of the incision in its mother's womb and Dr. Bruner says he instinctively offered his finger for the baby to hold. Most versions of the story say the baby reached out and grasped Dr. Bruner's finger, but in an article in USA Today on May 2, 2000, Dr. Bruner says both the mother and the baby were under anesthesia and could not move. Michael Clancy, the photographer who took the picture and who owns the copyright to it says, however, that out of the corner of his eye he saw the uterus shake and the baby's hand pop out of the surgical opening on its own. Clancy says that when the doctor put his finger into the baby's hand, the baby squeezed the finger and held on. You can read Clancy's description of the experience and more about the picture at his website at Clancy's account

Update: The surgery was successful and little Samuel Armas was born on December 2, 1999, and has been developing well, according to his parents, Alex and Julie Armas.

Verfieid by: Truthorfiction.com


Baby Samuel reaches out to grasp a helping hand

[dalmations202]

The evolutoniary theory has persisted because people with actual backgrounds in anthropology and science realize how truthfully grounded it is. Science will always question and build on itself, religion will always remain the same.

Purely lies. The evolutionary theory has no basis in fact. NONE. The theory states that a Big Bang happened, but no one can say what caused the bang, because science has proven that it takes oxygen and a combustible matter to cause an explosion. The evolutionary theory has you getting something from nothing. Then you have dead planets and dirt. How did you get so many that grew from a single nothing to all the massive planets.....no science, no proof, just religion (belief). Then you have to grow various intelligent life, in both plant form and in animal form, from nothing, and give varying intellects and abilities to use all of them. No proof, no science, just religion. Then you have rocks becoming amoeba's, and reptiles, and mammals, and eventually human. No proof, no science, just religion. Then you look at the stars, and make false assumptions, and break the laws of physics in justifying your belief. Well, science doesn't break the laws of physics, they utilize them to prove their points. Take for instance, if your Big bang theory is correct, why aren't all the planets spinning the same direction?

I understand that you do not want to have someone in charge of you. But whether you like it or not, God is in charge. Logically it can be explained, but you wouldn't listen to logic anyway. Masses of people not listening to reason has happened for thousands of years, and is documented in History.

If you've discovered the secret of evolutonary theory being false, severely flawed or compromised, then by all means call up Stephen Jay Gould or whoever and tell them what they are doing is wrong. I await the results.

Would it matter to him? He has his beliefs. The Muslims have their beliefs. Just because you tell them the truth, and explain it logically to them, doesn't mean they would understand -- especially when they don't want to understand. Moses tried to tell Pharoah, but it took the death of all the firstborn for him to even start to understand, and even then he fought it.

If there's one great advancement in Western scientific thought. It's the realization that flaw in the theory of our human origins is not sufficient reason to fall back on our old standby that we were all created by a big boogieman in the sky. It's what separates Western Civilization from the backward theocrats and their fairy tales. Such as yourself.

Wrong again, and still all lies. Many of which were taught to you in the public school system recently. Unfortunately you don't know history, nor do you know truth. I didn't say true, I said truth. There is a big difference. In the 6th century, scientist called the world flat. If you answered on a test that the world is flat, it would have been true. But with understanding, we have later figured out that the world is not flat -- truth. What is true is relative to your individual world. What is the truth, is what is correct and governed by God.

You can call me a backwards theocrat, but I can tell you that I have several degrees, spent time defending this country, lived with a small amout of money, and with lots of money. None of it mattered because I had no purpose till I knew Jesus Christ. I know you can't understand, but that is OK, I'll hope you come to find him before it's too late. Like it or not, every knee will bow, and every tongue confess Jesus Christ is Lord.
*************************************************

Just FYI: I don't still have the article, but:

Published on August 22, 1998, The Washington Times
Americans lead industrial world in belief of creationism

Americans have much stronger belief in the Bible's creation story than do Europeans, Canadians and citizens of other industrialized nations, a University of Cincinnati public opinion researcher has found.In one of the first studies of its kind, political science professor George Bishop compared the beliefs of Americans on human origins with those in other advanced countries.Citing Gallup and other public opinion polls since the early 1980s, Mr. Bishop said about 45 percent of

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can finish up that the article stated that 45% of American scientist believed in Creation. That left 55% to believe in Evolution. I haven't heard any other theories but Creation and Evolution. Do you have one?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next, you state that separates Western Civilization is our realization that flaw in the theory of our human origins.

Let me give you a little History Lesson my friend: Declaration of Independance
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So God gave the rights for us to do what we had to do. Rights were given to us by our Creator (God).

How about the Bill of Rights? ? ?
Amendmant 1 -- <u>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof</u>; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

So Congress decided that the Government could not form a National Religion, like England had. Saying that people should be free to exercise their own "right" to worship God any way they chose.

This was interpreted by a man 100 years later to say that their would be separation of Church and State. A law that was suppose to keep government from trying to <u>control the church</u> was mangled into no belief in God. Funny how self serving people tend to try and make things their own selfish way.

The makers of the Declaration of Independance, and the Bill of Rights all believed in God. Even Thomas Jefferson who was the first known person to ever use the term Separation of Church and State. He wrote it in a letter to a pastor in Pennsylvania (I believe); Basically saying that the government should adhere to Godly beliefs, but it should be one way, and the Church should be separated and not have to live by government rule. That is the Separation of Church and State that was started. Not that we don't need God or that we don't need God in government, but that the church shouldn't be ruled by government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and just FYI -- my father retired after 32 years as a public school teacher. He taught science 18 years of it. He has his Masters degree, and the hours for his Doctorate. He studied science for years, taught it, lived it. He does not believe in the evolutionary theory because it is not SCIENCE. It is a very bad theory that cannot be proven, and has no basis in FACT.

[Drbio]

Maybe epitome should try to argue for punctuated equillibrium here instead. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

[sike]

Originally posted by: Drbio
Maybe epitome should try to argue for punctuated equillibrium here instead. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

Though more feasible, there is still no scientific data to prove one species becoming another….its either just wrong or dem “links” are really good at hiding.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

First of all, if you'd stop referring to God as the "boogie man" I'd appreciate it. Secondly, your belief that there is no god is a religious conviction. Everybody has their own opinion when it comes to how the earth was made, and that is just another one of them. Doesn't make it any better than ours, and doesn't mean that the government should force it upon us just because you think it is right.

the 'boogie man' comment intended no harm (consciously), just using it as a symbol for all things imaginary, like the easter bunny. Although if you go by the tomes theocrats hold dear, the old guy up stairs is guilty of being called far worse. Secondly, my lack of belief in a god is not a religion, it is quite exactly the absense of religion. As for forcing my belief on you. I intend no such thing, it would make me a hypocrite to impose my alleged religion on would be tyrannical theocrats such as yourself. We civilized westerners merely ensure that the theocrats, whatever cult they belong to, do not have the sufficient power to impose their fascism on us ever again. We've been through enough of that.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
the argument that killing your own children is wrong is not just a religious one.

Epitome, I will for the moment accept your argument that the decision of when life begins is a religious one. This makes the decision of which kids are killable a religious one.
If you want to remove religion, then, from the decision of which children are killable, you have 2 choices:
All children are killable or no children are killable. If you draw the line somewhere in the middle, as abortionists do, then you are necessarily favoring one religious definition of the start of life at the expense of another.

Not exactly. Religion plays no factor in my arbitrary decision of when presonhood is legally defined. Usually sometime after the first trimester by the way.

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

The decision of when life begins is really arbitrary as a deciding factor in your "removal of religion" argument, because religion might also take up defining when "personhood begins", or defining whatever criteria one might draw up for killable/unkillable.

To put it another way: pro-choice is not pro-choice at all, but is "pro-choice within the constraints of my own moral belief system". You simply cannot make an argument for why certain children should not be killed without a plea to your own morality.

Good point. I've never advocated that abortion should be perfectly accessible at any time. I think any abortion within the first trimester should be legal and after that as well so long as the issue of a mother's health or the health of the fetus is in question. I do not however support the religious and their magical belief that personhood begins when the sperm enters the egg and therefore any abortion is wrong. That should be kept out of discourse.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Epitome22

Good point. I've never advocated that abortion should be perfectly accessible at any time. I think any abortion within the first trimester should be legal and after that as well so long as the issue of a mother's health or the health of the fetus is in question. I do not however support the religious and their magical belief that personhood begins when the sperm enters the egg and therefore any abortion is wrong. That should be kept out of discourse.

Why is your own magical belief about the onset of personhood more valid than my religion? How in the world did you come up with this goofy "trimester" crap? That marks time, not personhood.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
the 'boogie man' comment intended no harm (consciously), just using it as a symbol for all things imaginary, like the easter bunny.

Nice patronizing response.

In the future, however, please be more accurate by stating, "all things which, in my opinion, are imaginary..."

Although if you go by the tomes theocrats hold dear, the old guy up stairs is guilty of being called far worse. Secondly, my lack of belief in a god is not a religion, it is quite exactly the absense of religion.

To the contrary, your belief that God is "imaginary" is a religion.

As for forcing my belief on you. I intend no such thing, it would make me a hypocrite to impose my alleged religion on would be tyrannical theocrats such as yourself. We civilized westerners merely ensure that the theocrats, whatever cult they belong to, do not have the sufficient power to impose their fascism on us ever again. We've been through enough of that.

Believe whatever you want, but knock off the condescension, Epitome. The use of terms like "tyrannical theocrats", "cult", "fascism", etc. just show that you don't have a substantive argument to make, and therefore have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

[kg_veteran]

I think any abortion within the first trimester should be legal and after that as well so long as the issue of a mother's health or the health of the fetus is in question. I do not however support the religious and their magical belief that personhood begins when the sperm enters the egg and therefore any abortion is wrong. That should be kept out of discourse.

What is it about Day 91 that makes a difference? Do you have some sort of scientific basis for that opinion?

[Drbio]

wow. And I thought Mavdog got his butt handed to him. This is a slaughter.

[kg_veteran]

Here are some first trimester facts for you:

(from the National Right to Life Council)

Abortion ends a pregnancy by destroying and removing the developing child. That baby’s heart has already begun to beat by the time the mother misses her period and begins to wonder if she might be pregnant (about 31 days after the mother’s last menstrual period or LMP). [3] Surgical abortions are usually not performed before seven weeks, or 49 days LMP. [4] By that time, the baby has identifiable arms and legs (day 45)[5] and displays measurable brain waves (about 40 days).[6] During the seventh through the tenth weeks, when the majority of abortions are performed,[7] fingers and genitals appear and the child’s face is recognizably human. [8]

3. Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human, 4th ed.. (Philadelphia,: W.B. Saunders Co., 1988), p. 3, 29. Moore’s chart uses the actual age of the child rather than the gestational age commonly used by most doctors. His numbers are translated here into gestational age, measured from the woman’s last menstrual period, or LMP.

4. According to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Vol. 43, No. 50 (December 23, 1994), p. 931, only about 13.8% of abortions are performed prior to 7 weeks of gestation.

5. Robert Rugh, Ph.D., and Landrum Shettles, M.D., Ph.D., From Conception to Birth (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), p. 46. Rugh’s and Shettles’ dates are also translated to gestational age here, measured by LMP.

6. Hannibal Hamlin, M.D., "Life or Death by EEG," Journal of the American Medical Association (October 12, 1964), p. 113. See also Sharon Begley, "Do you hear what I hear?" Newsweek (Special Issue, Summer 1991), p. 14.

7. The CDC says 15.2 % of abortions are performed during week 7, 20.9 % during week 8, and 24.6% in weeks 9 through 10. This totals 60.7% of all abortions. See note 4.

8. Sharon Begley with John Carey, "How Human Life Begins," Newsweek, January 1, 1982, p. 46.

(from the American Life League)

Does the baby feel pain in an abortion? The pain mechanism has been found to be functioning in the preborn child as early as 45 days after conception. Abortion does cause pain.[6] In the film, "The Silent Scream," an actual first-trimester abortion is seen via ultrasound. The baby can be seen repeatedly moving to dodge the abortionist's suction instrument, and her heart rate doubles. As she is dismembered, her mouth opens in a silent scream. Abortion is violence - against preborn children, and against the women in whose bodies the violence takes place.

6. Noonan, "The Experience of Pain, New Perspectives on Human Abortion, A1etheia Books. 1981, p.213.

[Drbio]

Silent Scream will absolutely bring tears to your eyes.

[sike]

I do not however support the religious and their magical belief that personhood begins when the sperm enters the egg and therefore any abortion is wrong. That should be kept out of discourse.

all I ask for is a definition of "personhood" and at what point a potential human is actualized. I mean, surely, that would have been one of the abortion rights advocates first steps...CAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO KILL A HUMAN...RIGHT????

One of the stickiest problems for most pro abortion advocates that I have found is that they have no clue how to define it without sounding totally subjective. Because to them, in the end and in all actuality, the personhood of what they call the "potential human" is not really a chief concern.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: sike

all I ask for is a definition of "personhood" and at what point a potential human is actualized. I mean, surely, that would have been one of the abortion rights advocates first steps...CAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO KILL A HUMAN...RIGHT????

I think they have to. The constitution says no person can be deprived of life without due process.

[dalmations202]

As long as you can get someone to believe that it is OK to kill the innocent, who have done no harm, then you can get them to kill anyone because they no longer value life.

Once upon a time, this same concept was had by people who thought slaves were animals.
Once upon a time, this same concept was had by people who thought Jews were a lower lifeform than the animals.

This concept of life having no value has been around for a long time. People who believe that life is a choice and not life has meaning, are the ones who can be taught to kill based on race, color, ethnicity, and religious belief.

If you look at it from a life level, pro-choice = racist, and elitist. Both are values of evolution which states survival of the fittest, and the strong survive and the weak need to be eliminated.

Pro-choice is not a question of right, it is a religious belief that man controls his own destiny, and not God. Will the world never learn.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

I think they have to. The constitution says no person can be deprived of life without due process.

The way that the Supreme Court weaseled around this requirement in 1973 was by holding that, before the third trimester, the child is not "viable", that is that the child does not have a "capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb." That's their way of defining "personhood". Viability.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

Why is your own magical belief about the onset of personhood more valid than my religion? How in the world did you come up with this goofy "trimester" crap? That marks time, not personhood.

That goofy 'trimester' crap is based around the research done by various physicians and their arbitrary decisions about when life begins. Most western countries agree that within the first trimester is the most arbitrarally agreeable time span for an abortion. Based on the research I have done, I find no reason to disagree.

[Epitome22]

[i]Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Nice patronizing response.

In the future, however, please be more accurate by stating, "all things which, in my opinion, are imaginary..." [/quote]


Woah. Ok, no need to get so defensive. I promise I mean't no offense to Mr. Buggle, the giant rabbit or any other of the invisible creatures you give stock too. In the future I'll try to be more polite.

To the contrary, your belief that God is "imaginary" is a religion.

Actually no it isn't. I don't think he exists at all. Lack of religion.

Believe whatever you want, but knock off the condescension, Epitome. The use of terms like "tyrannical theocrats", "cult", "fascism", etc. just show that you don't have a substantive argument to make, and therefore have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Actually they are grounded in the truth. Much human suffering, oppression and bloodshed has been brought about by those with religious delusions. They will never quit spawning but thankfully they have less power than they used to.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

What is it about Day 91 that makes a difference? Do you have some sort of scientific basis for that opinion?

Yes

[mavsman55]

Epitome, you're done. Just quit. You're only making yourself look worse and worse here.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
That goofy 'trimester' crap is based around the research done by various physicians and their arbitrary decisions about when life begins. Most western countries agree that within the first trimester is the most arbitrarally agreeable time span for an abortion. Based on the research I have done, I find no reason to disagree.

So on Day 90, the baby is not alive despite the fact that its heart is beating, its brain is functioning, its arms, legs, face, genitalia, and all internal organs are developed and growing, but on Day 91 it suddenly IS alive?

Why? What makes the difference?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
Woah. Ok, no need to get so defensive. I promise I mean't no offense to Mr. Buggle, the giant rabbit or any other of the invisible creatures you give stock too. In the future I'll try to be more polite.

Defensive? I just want you to be factual. It is your opinion that God does not exist, not a statement of fact.

And you're hardly the one to call me defensive when you resort to continued ad hominem attacks.

Actually no it isn't. I don't think he exists at all. Lack of religion.

Belief that God doesn't exist is called atheism. It's a religion.

[sike]

They will never quit spawning but thankfully they have less power than they used to.

nope, they just wear different masks...like the one you wear...you have already in multiple posts described where your faith is placed....its in men like archeologists and anthropologists etc....you cling to their beliefs when they make statement about the reality of this world. Your faith or dedication is in them. If they all denied what they had previously believed to be "scientific" because they have discovered a new fact or data...as constantly happens in scientific theory, then the FACT is that they were never truely clinging to the truth at all...only what they believed. It comes down to personal conviction...individual presupposition....or as some might say: faith.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Epitome22

That goofy 'trimester' crap is based around the research done by various physicians and their arbitrary decisions about when life begins. Most western countries agree that within the first trimester is the most arbitrarally agreeable time span for an abortion. Based on the research I have done, I find no reason to disagree.

Either you are misusing the word 'arbitrary' or you are making my point.
The point of this thread is that John Kerry is trying to argue that when life starts has nothing to do with the legality of killing someone. Are you saying he's wrong?