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

[dude1394]

Ah those sticky,sticky moral issues. So tough for the left.

[dude1394]

Ah, now I understand.

[dude1394]

Kerry tries again...

KERRY ON ABORTION, CLEAR AS MUD

Kerry talked with Peter Jennings tonight about how he could support abortion under all circumstances, yet believe that life begins at conception:

JENNINGS: The senator has always supported a woman's right to have an abortion but also agrees with the central premise of the anti-abortion movement: that life begins at conception.

KERRY: My personal belief about what happens in the fertilization process as a human being is first formed and created, that's when life begins. Something begins to happen, a transformation, an evolution and within weeks you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in.

JENNINGS: If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first trimester not murder?

KERRY: No, because it's not a form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. Do I believe we should talk about alternatives to abortion? I think we should talk about adoption, we should talk about, I think it is responsible to talk about abstinence, but I also believe you should talk about proper education of people, sex education.

This. Is. Gobbledygook.

[dude1394]

So any of you kerry supporters kind of want to decipher this??

---------
DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

KERRY: But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

You'll help prevent AIDS.

KERRY: You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.

You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half.

BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.

My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.

This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America.

I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.

I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them.

I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

BUSH: In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that.

These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life.

I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion.

And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done.

Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society.

Thank you.

[Mavdog]

It's pretty simple.

Those who oppose the termination of a pregnancy do so based on their religious convictions that life begins at conception.

Not everybody shares that belief, many believe that a women should have the right to control their own body.

Kerry supports the right of the women to make her own choice.

Kerry does not see his role to legislate his beliefs on this issue upon those who believe different than he does.

[Drbio]

Kerry therefore violates his Catholic belief foundations.

[Mavdog]

Is it a "Catholic belief" that everybody must act like a Catholic?

That was what we refer to as The Inquisition. It was wrong then and it would be wrong today.

[Drbio]

Nice attempt at sensationalistic spin. Kerry clearly violates the teachings of Catholicism here. If he espouses his belief as a way to get votes (something he has repeatedly done) then he must answer for the discrepancy. He doesn't get to flip flop here. He cannot have it both ways.

I'm sure the Pope would agree.

[Mavdog]

Catholicism advocates the intermingling of church and state? not in America.

Kerry would only violate the teachings of his church by way of his personal conduct, not by refusing to legislate his church's theology.

I don't feel capable of speaking for the Pope.

[Drbio]

You sidestepped nicely. Kerry must address the discrepancy. He has not.

Kerry would only violate the teachings of his church by way of his personal conduct, not by refusing to legislate his church's theology.
Obviously you know little of catholicism.

[reeds]

I thought this was covered back in July?? Kerry made his point clear during debate #2..whats not to get??

He personally doesnt beleive in abortion himself, but also does not feel he should tell a woman she cannot have an abortion (in a nutshell)..

"catholicism. " hmmm...perhaps strict catholics may not agree- cant please everyone..Kerry is not GOD..at least he admits that...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: reeds
I thought this was covered back in July?? Kerry made his point clear during debate #2..whats not to get??
He personally doesnt beleive in abortion himself,

no, he said he thinks you can take a position that's not pro-abortion. He didn't say in his answer what his position is.

but also does not feel he should tell a woman she cannot have an abortion (in a nutshell)..

no, he said he would counsel people about "making other choices", and affording people their constitutional rights. He never states in his answer what those rights are. Most importantly he never says a word in direct answer to Degenhart's question. Can anyone read his huge rambling dodge of an answer and tell me if he would or would not spend Degenhart's tax dollars on abortion?

Nevertheless, Reeds, I think you are right about assuming what Kerry's position on abortion is. And it is the absolute scariest position that could be held. He does believe that life starts at conception. He believes that a mother has the right to kill that life. Realize that Kerry himself believes that each and every aborted fetus was a living human. That's no small point. His position has removed the "not alive/alive" distinction from the legality of killing. He's replaced that with something so vague as "personhood as we've previously defined it". If our policy is really to be set along such idiotic lines, who would be in charge of deciding where personhood starts and stops (that is, deciding who can and cannot be killed)? Definitely not science, for "personhood" is definitely a step or two further away from science than is "life". Not religion, for Kerry believes religious views should not determine legislation. Not the government, for Kerry believes that the right to make the decision is constitutional. Evidently, it's mothers. According to Kerry's "position" on abortion, each and every mother should have the right to decide whether or not her own children are killable.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
Can anyone read his huge rambling dodge of an answer and tell me if he would or would not spend Degenhart's tax dollars on abortion?

Yes, he would. He talks about "making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise." He's talking about paying for an abortion if a person can't afford it.

According to Kerry's "position" on abortion, each and every mother should have the right to decide whether or not her own children are killable.

You're exactly right, and that highlights how absurd Kerry's position really is.

[sike]

I think any "good" Catholic would say that his beliefs must penetrate every corner of his life. I am fairly certain that Kerry would be considered a pretty liberal Catholic...even moderate Catholics would say this.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: sike
I think any "good" Catholic would say that his beliefs must penetrate every corner of his life. I am fairly certain that Kerry would be considered a pretty liberal Catholic...even moderate Catholics would say this.

uh oh, the "L" word. Is there such a thing as a "neo-con" Catholic? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[kg_veteran]

We HAVE had this discussion before. What Kerry's answer on Friday in response to the abortion question confirms is that Kerry is a moral coward.

The argument that you "can't legislate morality" is, frankly, ridiculous.

When we pass laws prohibiting the use of marijuana and cocaine, we are legislating morality.

When we pass laws prohibiting prostitution and marrying multiple people at the same time, we are legislating morality.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court says gay marriage is permissible, it is legislating morality. When states pass laws prohibiting gay marriage, they are doing the same.

When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, it legislated its morality on the rest of us.

John Kerry, don't tell us you CAN'T legislate your morality on others. The truth is, you either don't really believe what you say you do, or you don't have the courage to stand up for your beliefs. It's one, or the other.

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
We HAVE had this discussion before. What Kerry's answer on Friday in response to the abortion question confirms is that Kerry is a moral coward.

The argument that you "can't legislate morality" is, frankly, ridiculous.

When we pass laws prohibiting the use of marijuana and cocaine, we are legislating morality.

When we pass laws prohibiting prostitution and marrying multiple people at the same time, we are legislating morality.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court says gay marriage is permissible, it is legislating morality. When states pass laws prohibiting gay marriage, they are doing the same.

When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, it legislated its morality on the rest of us.

John Kerry, don't tell us you CAN'T legislate your morality on others. The truth is, you either don't really believe what you say you do, or you don't have the courage to stand up for your beliefs. It's one, or the other.

KG, excellent synopsis. There really is no way to debate what you and Sike have said with regards to Kerry's comments.
This is an instance where Kerry is simply attempting to appeal to as many possible voters as possible.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
We HAVE had this discussion before. What Kerry's answer on Friday in response to the abortion question confirms is that Kerry is a moral coward.

The argument that you "can't legislate morality" is, frankly, ridiculous.

When we pass laws prohibiting the use of marijuana and cocaine, we are legislating morality.

When we pass laws prohibiting prostitution and marrying multiple people at the same time, we are legislating morality.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court says gay marriage is permissible, it is legislating morality. When states pass laws prohibiting gay marriage, they are doing the same.

When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, it legislated its morality on the rest of us.

John Kerry, don't tell us you CAN'T legislate your morality on others. The truth is, you either don't really believe what you say you do, or you don't have the courage to stand up for your beliefs. It's one, or the other.

Did John Kerry specifically state that 'you can't legislate morality?'

I thought what he said was very clear despite what the feudalist backward christians would want from him. He said he respects the religious belief that life begins at conception and he says he shares that belief, but that he can't legislate something based on religion, and he's right. Separation of Church and State. There are many things that religious people oppose that have no business in our law books. If anyone's guilty of spin here it's the conservatives.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
I thought what he said was very clear despite what the feudalist backward christians would want from him. He said he respects the religious belief that life begins at conception and he says he shares that belief, but that he can't legislate something based on religion, and he's right. Separation of Church and State. There are many things that religious people oppose that have no business in our law books. If anyone's guilty of spin here it's the conservatives.

You don't understand what "separation of church and state" means. In fact, you probably believe that those words are found in the Constitution. They aren't.

What our Constitution prohibits is establishment of a state religion. Congress can't pass a law establishing that the United States is a Methodist, Mormon, or Islamic nation. This is for the purpose of protecting religious freedom, not removing religious influence from the public arena. Over the course of time, the language of the Constitution has been twisted and distorted in an attempt to remove all of Christianity's influence over government. That was never the intent of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

If we follow your logic and we aren't permitted to legislate based upon religious beliefs or morality, then we need to strike down all of the murder laws in our country. After all, they are all based upon the Sixth Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." Let's also strike down all laws prohibiting stealing of any kind. After all, they are based upon the Eight Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal."

John Kerry wants people to believe that he doesn't have a choice because he can't "legislate" his beliefs on others. The fact is, he does have a choice, and he either doesn't really believe what he says or he is too much of a coward to stand up for his beliefs.

[Mavdog]

So in your mind catholicism mandates that Kerry and every other Catholic politician must legislate according to Catholic beliefs? In that case divorce would never be allowed...and contraception would be outlawed.

Nope, that is why we have the seperation of church and state.

[Drbio]

Mavdog attempts to spin again....but we won't let him. Sike nailed it. Kerry has stated discrepancies between his religious beliefs (which he is usuing to garner votes) and his actions (which clearly are not consistent with catholic theology).

[sike]

I'd vote for kg...thats for sure.

great post!

[Mavdog]

There are certainly many so called "moral" laws that are on the books. They do for the most part transcend any specific religion however.

A legislator must have moral basis to their decisions, that I will agree. There needs to be a compass to decide what is right or wrong.

[sike]

They do for the most part transcend any specific religion however.

most world religions that I am aware of have negative reflections on abortion. What makes you think that only Christianity is the only religion has problems with it Mavdog?

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: sike

most world religions that I am aware of have negative reflections on abortion. What makes you think that only Christianity is the only religion has problems with it Mavdog?

Sike, it's not like you know anything about religion...do you?

[sike]

Originally posted by: Murphy3

Sike, it's not like you know anything about religion...do you?

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] just a bit...

[sike]

Will all do respect, Epitome22, you are the one who comes off sounding "backward" and in intolerant in this last post. Especially since there has been plenty of Science done to argue the point of life at conception. It must be stated with certantity, that to my knowledge there has been no conclusive scientific research to show that life begins at a later point than conception...both sides of the debate use science to push their ethical arguments...the issue is very similar to evolution still being tought in schools as more than a mere theory...most cutting edge secular(non-religious) scientists today do not hold to the evolution that is still being tought in schools..they have modified it greatly to make the numbers a tad (only a tad mind you) more likely...But has that changed the fact that in most public schools the same old far fetched form of evolution is being tought? No. They still teach a weak theory as scientific fact. THE MODEL IS OUTDATED BUT STILL IN USE. Much the same as the point of life's beginnings...much study has been done to prove another possible point of view scientificallybut still little credence is given by those of the old model. This is sad, for both the scientific and the religious communities.

There are many things that religious people oppose that have no business in our law books.

I'll agree, there are some, but your point is feeble if you think that science and not ethics is more your governor on this issue.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: sike
Will all do respect, Epitome22, you are the one who comes off sounding "backward" and in intolerant in this last post. Especially since there has been plenty of Science done to argue the point of life at conception.

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

Originally posted by: sike

the issue is very similar to evolution still being tought in schools as more than a mere theory...most cutting edge secular(non-religious) scientists today do not hold to the evolution that is still being tought in schools..they have modified it greatly to make the numbers a tad (only a tad mind you) more likely...But has that changed the fact that in most public schools the same old far fetched form of evolution is being tought? No. They still teach a weak theory as scientific fact. THE MODEL IS OUTDATED BUT STILL IN USE.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[sike]

"Personhood" is where the modern abortionist will always take you. Because of course the "future human" as they so boldly call him/her is alive, science knows this..along with any mother who has ever felt her baby move in the womb ...but not yet a person or not yet fully human. The point, as UL put it so well is "Who decides when a future human has "actualized" it's humanity? Who should decide? Scientists? Doctors? Philosophers? Theologians(Heaven forbid...not those loonies)? Individual mothers?

Some abortionists are so moronic as to say that not until the fetus has passed the vaginal canal has it "actualized" humanity. Thus a half a second before it was still just a living mass of tissue or a "future human"(this is usually a person who advocates third-trimester abortion). And some, the most radical, say that a baby does not reach humanity or personhood until well into its life. (possible in the first or second year)

and of course, sadly, most people who take a stand in support of abortion never even give this deep thoughts consideration. They just see abortion simply a woman's rights issue so they passionately support it. I am not painting abortionists as non-thinkers...just poor ones.

[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]

[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.

[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.