Abortion

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

Oh this should be good

v/r
R

Would you like for me to walk you through a few examples?

I guess you didn’t want me to walk you through it after all.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

No, I must be a little slow.

I’m guessing RoccoR realizes his error by now.

(COMMENT)

I'm still waiting to hear about the standards that "exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes?" All standards are manmade; and can be altered by man.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

No, I must be a little slow.

I’m guessing RoccoR realizes his error by now.

(COMMENT)

I'm still waiting to hear about the standards that "exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes?" All standards are manmade; and can be altered by man.

Most Respectfully,
R

I’m trying to walk you through it.

Have you ever cheated on your wife?

 

[ding]

Reason and experience tell us that standards are independent of man. Standards exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes. Standards, like truth, are discovered through a conflict and confusion process. In other words, standards exist for a reason. When deviation from the standard is normalized, the reason why the standard exists becomes known from the consequences of deviating from the standard.

So let me walk you through a few examples to prove it.

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

No, I must be a little slow.

I’m guessing RoccoR realizes his error by now.

(COMMENT)

I'm still waiting to hear about the standards that "exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes?" All standards are manmade; and can be altered by man.

Most Respectfully,
R

I have already proven it through the logic (i.e. reasoning) that man believes in a universal right and wrong. See green text below. But you rejected this logic without actually showing where this logic was flawed.

So I am now attempting to show you that standards are independent of man by using your own experiences (i.e. reason and experience). But unless you cooperate in this exercise, I will be unable to do so. I submit that you are afraid of being proven wrong, so you have no intention of participating.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

No, I must be a little slow.

I’m guessing RoccoR realizes his error by now.

(COMMENT)

I'm still waiting to hear about the standards that "exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes?" All standards are manmade; and can be altered by man.

Most Respectfully,
R

So just to be clear here, you believe that abortion is not morally wrong because man can make morality anything he wants it to be. I submit your behaviors say otherwise. This is you rationalizing wrong as a right. You believe in right and wrong but when you violate it, rather than abandoning the concept, you rationalize you didn't violate it.

Adam did you eat the fruit? The woman you made gave it to me. See? That's a rationalization.

Furthermore, you do know wrong from right because you hide from the conversation.

When they heard God coming they hid. See?

 

[Taz]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

Oh this should be good

v/r
R

Would you like for me to walk you through a few examples?

Are you married? Have you ever cheated on your wife?

I bet you have cheated on your wife... with a goat.

Not my knowledge.

I’m guessing RoccoR realizes his error by now.

So you might have fucked a goat, you just don't remember.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals.

(COMMENT)

◈ The flawed first statement is an argument against the Universe to have been created by something other than the "natural processes." This deduction leaves on two alternative possibilities:

✧ Unnatural processes
✧ Supernatural processes ​

In the universe in which I live, there is "no expectation for absolute morals."

◈ IF "the Universe to have been created by something other than the "natural processes;"
◈ THEN the universe must be created through a fashion through other Unnatural or Supernatural Processes.

✧ The processes not are existing in nature (Unnatural Processes). Thing that are "unnature are either socially unaccepted or generally undesireable."
✧ The Processes through forces beyond our scientific understanding or the laws of nature; (Supernatural Processes)including the manifestations or observable events considered to be associated with a religious force in origin. This is a faith-based belief.
​

Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome.

(COMMENT)


This is about the “Categorical Imperative” (CI) noted by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804).

◈ It is objective from the view of the outside observer.
◈ It is rationally necessary.
◈ It is not subject to any conditions.
◈ It is a course of action followed despite desires to the contrary."​

Nature does not have a "preference." Nature never has a preference. Why? (RHETORICAL) Because nature is not human. It has no feelings. It does not make choices. There is always a reason for the path by nature, even if that choice is random; or some unexplained spooky action at a distance (alla Prof Albert Einstein).

Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

(COMMENT)

"What naturally comes to mind is this: Duties are rules or laws of some sort combined with some sort of felt constraint or incentive on our choices, whether from external coercion by others or from our own powers of reason." Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) Duty and Respect for Moral Law • Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, First published Mon Feb 23, 2004; substantive revision Thu Jul 7, 2016

If I speed through a School Zone here in Ohio, I am violating the traffic law on speeding. It is the minimally acceptable standard to follow the ORC 4511.21, speed limit 20 mph during school recess. That is a law. But from a moral imperative, at 10 mph, I may be traveling to fast for conditions (black ice). And that would be a callose disregard for human life.

NOW! Neither the of these explanations of conditions has a basis in any Universal Law of nature. Man and society set the conditions for deciding what the law says in the acceptable standard, and how the moral code might weigh in on the matter of our duty to protect human life.

Morals are effectively standards.

(COMMENT)

Morals are variable guidelines of appropriateness. They may be different from society to society.

◈ In country "A" it may be totally acceptable both morally and under Law to include amputation of limbs, death by stoning or lashes as acceptible means of punishment.

◈ In country "B" those same punishments would be totally unacceptable, immoraly or under law.​

The Arab Palestinians argue that the actions of the jihadists, insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, adherents, guerrillas and asymmetric fighter that are designed to encourage and further criminal acts, intended or calculated to create terror in the minds of the Jewish Civilian population. That to attack Jews anywhere is a moral obligation of all Arab brothers.

For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard.

(COMMENT)

There is no standards for standards; or a requirement for the degree and magnitude for standards. Many standards are set by a consensus.

My home was built in 1937. And at that time, the electrical wiring met what little code there was to meet standard installations. I have had various renovations done on my home. And each time I did a renovation, the electrical code changed and an upgrade was required. That is because the scope and magnitude are determined locally. The building code in Columbus is not the same as in Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, or Frankfort. Variable standards for the same type of job and very similar conditions.

This standard exists independent of anything else.

(COMMENT)

Many things affect standards. They are not independent of anything else. One of the most common impacts on standards is political in nature...

It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason.

(COMMENT)

With the (possible) exception of the speed of light, at last count (given the extent of our knowledge) there were 26 Universal Constants:

• It Takes 26 Fundamental Constants To Give Us Our Universe, But They Still Don't Give Everything •
Ethan Siegel Senior Contributor
The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.

When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is that error cannot stand. Eventually, error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

(COMMENT)

Could be, depending on the nature of the action or event.

The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias.

(COMMENT)

Something like that. But a totally objective observation can be both subjective and untrue.

Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

(COMMENT)

Not all subjective observations lead to moral relativism. The Sun os Yellow. That is subjective, but it does not lead us to some moral relativism.

It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

(COMMENT)

Anyone that has an "expectation for absolute truth" is naive.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

(COMMENT)

I'm sure you have heard the saying that "life isn't fair." There is a TV Show called "House." He's a doctor. And one of that characters favorite saying is: "Everyone lies." And from that simple truth, comes the world we live in today. It is not the only truth that shapes our world, but it is surely a major contributor.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RodISHI]

There is a lot more than I desire to address in these posts in this thread but I do desire to comment on this one comment. I captured it with snapshot as it makes it easier for me.

The only way one shall be enlightened by the Holy Spirit is to have an expectation of absolute truth. For without seeking absolute truth the spirit at work in a person's own life cannot make sense, nor will the Holy Spirit fully awaken the person without that expectation when searching for the truth with the true desire to be closer to God.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of its latest strategic plan, which will guide the agency from 2018 to 2022.

This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. Health and Human Services is a government organization. Its actions should be evidence-based, not faith-based, and this decidedly unscientific language should be eliminated from its strategic plan.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

From a scientific perspective, life doesn't begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.


the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspective but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

sure sissy, I was just attempting to save you from articles you might have not agreed with - in light of the descriptive article did you find my conclusion rewarding ...

the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspectives but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

thanks ...

As usual, you started out with bullshit and I didn't bother digging through it in hopes of finding a diamond. I just stepped around it and kept walking, as I always do with piles of shit.

 

[Votto]

Can some lib out there please, give me ONE good reason to be "Pro Abortion"? Just one?

Abortion is comparable to slavery in the South in the 1800's.

Both were supported due to monetary concerns. Slaves were cheap labor as where killing off unborn children help maintain a certain standard of living since kids are expensive and time consuming. Plus, abortion is a trillion dollar industry that lobbies Congress nonstop.

Slavery was at one time considered OK, even though not ideal for obvious reasons. However, centuries after being made illegal, the notion of abortion is morally repugnant to all. Likewise, abortion was considered morally repugnant before Roe vs. Wade, but decades after Roe vs. Wade the general consensus is that abortion is not ideal, but that it is OK, just like society viewed slavery in the 1800's.

And lastly, to justify slavery people had to rationalize that blacks were subhuman, or a glorified ape. Likewise, to justify abortion, unborn babies are referred to as a "fetus" or parasite.

No doubt about it, like slavery, the abortion issue is also tearing apart the country.

 

[BreezeWood]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

No, I must be a little slow.

I’m guessing RoccoR realizes his error by now.

(COMMENT)

I'm still waiting to hear about the standards that "exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes?" All standards are manmade; and can be altered by man.

Most Respectfully,
R

So just to be clear here, you believe that abortion is not morally wrong because man can make morality anything he wants it to be. I submit your behaviors say otherwise. This is you rationalizing wrong as a right. You believe in right and wrong but when you violate it, rather than abandoning the concept, you rationalize you didn't violate it.

Adam did you eat the fruit? The woman you made gave it to me. See? That's a rationalization.

Furthermore, you do know wrong from right because you hide from the conversation.

When they heard God coming they hid. See?

.

ding: So just to be clear here, you believe that abortion is not morally wrong because man can make morality anything he wants it to be. I submit your behaviors say otherwise. This is you rationalizing wrong as a right. You believe in right and wrong but when you violate it, rather than abandoning the concept, you rationalize you didn't violate it.

This is you rationalizing wrong as a right.

- is not morally wrong because man can make morality anything he wants it to be.

proof is in the pudding

this is the same person, bing who read the forged, 4th century christian bible and chose to make that his personal religion ... then accusing others of rationalizing.


You believe in right and wrong but when you violate it, rather than abandoning the concept, you rationalize you didn't violate it.

how bing became a christian ...

 

[deanrd]

I can't stay in these discussions too long anymore. I used to be able to. But to read people being so callous now, comparing unborn babies to scrambled eggs and worse--it's like the bowels of Hell open up and spill their contents for a few minutes, as sort of a preview.

Hating humanity is demonic.

I do not misspeak. I do not say that lightly or as an accident. Talking about the death of humans like it's eating eggs or just a matter of course--it's unspeakable evil. It's straight from the pit of Hell. Literally.

God help us

You mean the god who drowned nearly all of humanity? You want his help?

Well, the reason he nearly drowned all of humanity is because leaders were having unprotected sex with porn stars, ripping off their workers, and cheating on their wives. They turned from God's laws and followed corrupt liars.

Hopefully, we aren't seeing a rerun.

 

[ding]

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

The flawed first statement is an argument against the Universe to have been created by something other than the "natural processes." This deduction leaves on two alternative possibilities:

Wrong, there is no flaw in the first statement. I am only addressing the case for a material universe at this point. You are jumping the gun. The statement If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals is addressing a universe not created by spirit. Under this scenario it is absolutely true that there would be no intentionality which means there can be no expectation for an outcome. It can only be matter and energy doing what matter and energy do.

Unnatural processes

Supernatural processes

Yes, these are the only two options. Every other option will reduce to one of these two mutually exclusive options.

In the universe in which I live, there is "no expectation for absolute morals."

I disagree. Not all behaviors have equal outcomes. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. Do you have any examples where all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

IF "the Universe to have been created by something other than the "natural processes;" THEN the universe must be created through a fashion through other Unnatural or Supernatural Processes.

Not necessarily. Supernatural is a human concept to describe something outside of space and time. To say it is unnatural is not necessarily correct. All we can say with any certainty is that it is not possible for matter and energy to exist outside of space and time. The premise is that spirit exists outside of space and time. Spirit is not made up of matter or energy. Spirit is no thing. Spirit can exist outside of space and time. In fact, science tells us that space and time were created according to the laws of nature from nothing. Nothing is no thing (i.e. not consisting of matter or energy) . The laws of nature are no thing. They do not exist as matter or energy. So we already have an example of no thing (i.e. not consisting of matter or energy) which exists outside of space and time.

The processes not are existing in nature (Unnatural Processes). Thing that are "unnature are either socially unaccepted or generally undesireable." The Processes through forces beyond our scientific understanding or the laws of nature; (Supernatural Processes)including the manifestations or observable events considered to be associated with a religious force in origin. This is a faith-based belief.

As I have already explained the creation of space and time followed rules, so the creation of space and time from spirit is not necessarily unnatural. It is only unnatural to four dimensional beings existing inside of space and time. It is not necessarily unnatural for something not made up of matter or energy which exists outside of space and time. At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. If the material world was created by spirit then everything which proceeded originated from spirit. Both options need to be explored. It seems you want to skip the examination of the evidence and move directly to judgment. I can assure you that a case for spirit creating the material world can be made by examining the evidence that we have at our disposal.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

This is about the “Categorical Imperative” (CI) noted by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804).

◈ It is objective from the view of the outside observer.
◈ It is rationally necessary.
◈ It is not subject to any conditions.
◈ It is a course of action followed despite desires to the contrary."
Nature does not have a "preference." Nature never has a preference. Why? (RHETORICAL) Because nature is not human. It has no feelings. It does not make choices. There is always a reason for the path by nature, even if that choice is random; or some unexplained spooky action at a distance (alla Prof Albert Einstein).

You are making an appeal to authority. I am making a logical argument. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. And that is exactly what we see. Nature does have a preference for an outcome. Life is programmed to survive and multiple. If nature had no preference for life to survive and complexify then life would not be programmed to survive and multiple. Nature doe have a preference for behaviors too. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

(COMMENT)

"What naturally comes to mind is this: Duties are rules or laws of some sort combined with some sort of felt constraint or incentive on our choices, whether from external coercion by others or from our own powers of reason." Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) Duty and Respect for Moral Law • Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, First published Mon Feb 23, 2004; substantive revision Thu Jul 7, 2016


If I speed through a School Zone here in Ohio, I am violating the traffic law on speeding. It is the minimally acceptable standard to follow the ORC 4511.21, speed limit 20 mph during school recess. That is a law. But from a moral imperative, at 10 mph, I may be traveling to fast for conditions (black ice). And that would be a callose disregard for human life.


NOW! Neither the of these explanations of conditions has a basis in any Universal Law of nature. Man and society set the conditions for deciding what the law says in the acceptable standard, and how the moral code might weigh in on the matter of our duty to protect human life.

Right. Different people may have different perceptions of right and wrong. So what? It is the fact that we all have a preference for right over wrong and that we have an expectation that everyone knows the moral law and expects them to follow it which confirms that a universal code of decency and fairness exists. In fact this belief is so strong in us that when we violate the law of right and wrong, rather than abandoning the concept we rationalize that we didn't violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth. If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

Morals are variable guidelines of appropriateness. They may be different from society to society.


◈ In country "A" it may be totally acceptable both morally and under Law to include amputation of limbs, death by stoning or lashes as acceptible means of punishment.


◈ In country "B" those same punishments would be totally unacceptable, immoraly or under law.

The Arab Palestinians argue that the actions of the jihadists, insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, adherents, guerrillas and asymmetric fighter that are designed to encourage and further criminal acts, intended or calculated to create terror in the minds of the Jewish Civilian population. That to attack Jews anywhere is a moral obligation of all Arab brothers.

Again, different people may have different perceptions of right and wrong. So what? This is the conflict and confusion process at work. It is the fact that we all have a preference for right over wrong and that they have an expectation that everyone knows the moral law and expects them to follow it which confirms that a universal code of decency and fairness exists. Just because everyone doesn't agree on what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact it is their belief that they are right that proves it does exist.

For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard.

There is no standards for standards; or a requirement for the degree and magnitude for standards. Many standards are set by a consensus. My home was built in 1937. And at that time, the electrical wiring met what little code there was to meet standard installations. I have had various renovations done on my home. And each time I did a renovation, the electrical code changed and an upgrade was required. That is because the scope and magnitude are determined locally. The building code in Columbus is not the same as in Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, or Frankfort. Variable standards for the same type of job and very similar conditions.

You are literally proving my point. Those standards changed because higher standards were discovered because the previous standards were lower. The new standards were discovered when the old standards were found through events which exposed their errors. Standards, like truth are discovered when error fails. Error will eventually fail and reveal itself. Just because everyone does not follow the same standard doesn't mean anything. If some locality is using a lower standard then the reason for why they should be using a higher standard will eventually make itself known. The Challenger explosion is a perfect example of this. The O-ring gasket on the solid fuel rockets had a criticality 1 designation. Which means if they ever saw heat, the fleet would be grounded. When they discovered signs of damage, they performed tests to show that they would still hold if they were damaged. They literally normalized their deviance from the standard and the space shuttle exploded 51 seconds after launch. So if you went back and researched all the reasons why the electrical codes were revised, I am quite certain that there were events which showed they needed a higher standard. This is an example of how error failing reveals the true standard or the higher standard. Morals are exactly that way. You are more than free to cheat on your wife, but predictable surprises (i.e consequences) will eventually show you why the standard of fidelity exists in the first place.

This standard exists independent of anything else.

Many things affect standards. They are not independent of anything else. One of the most common impacts on standards is political in nature...

Yes, many things affect man's selection of standards, but reality reveals the true standard. You can make your standard anything you want but that doesn't mean it will have equal outcomes. Let's say your standard is to cheat, steal and be lazy and my standard is to be honest and hard working. Would you expect we would have the same outcomes? Of course not. Why? Because one standard is higher than than the other. The standard itself had nothing to do with you or me. The standard exists independent of you and me.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

Many things affect standards. They are not independent of anything else. One of the most common impacts on standards is political in nature... With the (possible) exception of the speed of light, at last count (given the extent of our knowledge) there were 26 Universal Constants: • It Takes 26 Fundamental Constants To Give Us Our Universe, But They Still Don't Give Everything Ethan Siegel Senior Contributor

The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.

And so are the moral laws of nature which exist independent of man, they are waiting to be discovered. Haven't you ever heard that truth is discovered. Einstein didn't invent special and general relativity. Einstein discovered them. These laws of nature, like all laws of nature exist independent of man. They are only waiting to be discovered by man. Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. The laws of nature include the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature. Every single one of these laws exists independent of man. Man can not make them be anything he wants them to be. Man can only discover them. The difficulty with discovering the moral laws of nature is that outcomes are probabilistic. Otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing they don't exist even though you lead your life by them.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

Could be, depending on the nature of the action or event.

There is no could be about it. Normalization of deviance eventually leads to predictable surprises. Eventually error will fail and the reason for the higher standard will reveal itself. It is really only a matter of time. Your example of changing electrical codes is a perfect example of what I am trying to explain to you.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Something like that. But a totally objective observation can be both subjective and untrue.

Yes, that is possible. No one is perfect. But eventually the error will be discovered. Why? Because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail. And when it does the truth will be discovered.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

(Not all subjective observations lead to moral relativism. The Sun os Yellow. That is subjective, but it does not lead us to some moral relativism.

That really isn't a question of morals, now is it? Let's take an example of fidelity, OK? Let's say that you believe cheating on your wife is wrong and then one day you do it. What will you do? Psychology tells us that the human mind cannot live in conflict. So unless you are a sociopath you have three options; you can admit your infidelity and beg forgiveness, you can change your belief (i.e. rationalize that it wasn't wrong through a mental masturbation exercise), or you can go mad. In that example, the objective answer is to admit you infidelity, beg forgiveness and accept your consequences. The subjective answer is to rationalize that your infidelity made your marriage stronger. Not exactly a sun is yellow question, now is it?

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth. If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Anyone that has an "expectation for absolute truth" is naive.

I don't expect people to necessarily be truthful about everything. I expect people to rationalize they didn't do wrong when they are being subjective. I also expect that they won't abandon the concept of right and wrong because it is hardwired into us. We didn't put it there and we can't get rid of it. This ought to raise your suspicion.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth. If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

I'm sure you have heard the saying that "life isn't fair." There is a TV Show called "House." He's a doctor. And one of that characters favorite saying is: "Everyone lies." And from that simple truth, comes the world we live in today. It is not the only truth that shapes our world, but it is surely a major contributor.


Most Respectfully,

R

Yes, people do lie some of the time. But they lie for the sake of their own good. They don't lie for the sake of evil.


Most Respectfully,

d

 

[BreezeWood]

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of its latest strategic plan, which will guide the agency from 2018 to 2022.

This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. Health and Human Services is a government organization. Its actions should be evidence-based, not faith-based, and this decidedly unscientific language should be eliminated from its strategic plan.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

From a scientific perspective, life doesn't begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.


the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspective but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

sure sissy, I was just attempting to save you from articles you might have not agreed with - in light of the descriptive article did you find my conclusion rewarding ...

the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspectives but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

thanks ...

As usual, you started out with bullshit and I didn't bother digging through it in hopes of finding a diamond. I just stepped around it and kept walking, as I always do with piles of shit.

.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

As usual, you started out with bullshit and I didn't bother digging through it in hopes of finding a diamond. I just stepped around it and kept walking, as I always do with piles of shit.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

the post was not addressed to you, it was your decision to read it ... maybe you should try another religion than christianity that one is polluting your mind .

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

the response was a factual repudiation for another posters obvious disregard of the facts - it really is not my problem it disturbed you as it did, ceci.

 

[ding]

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

Neither of which are a new genetically distinct human life that has never existed before and will never exist again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of its latest strategic plan, which will guide the agency from 2018 to 2022.

This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. Health and Human Services is a government organization. Its actions should be evidence-based, not faith-based, and this decidedly unscientific language should be eliminated from its strategic plan.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

From a scientific perspective, life doesn't begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.


the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspective but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

sure sissy, I was just attempting to save you from articles you might have not agreed with - in light of the descriptive article did you find my conclusion rewarding ...

the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspectives but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

thanks ...

As usual, you started out with bullshit and I didn't bother digging through it in hopes of finding a diamond. I just stepped around it and kept walking, as I always do with piles of shit.

.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

As usual, you started out with bullshit and I didn't bother digging through it in hopes of finding a diamond. I just stepped around it and kept walking, as I always do with piles of shit.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

the post was not addressed to you, it was your decision to read it ... maybe you should try another religion than christianity that one is polluting your mind .

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

the response was a factual repudiation for another posters obvious disregard of the facts - it really is not my problem it disturbed you as it did, ceci.

"I posted to an open forum, and directed it to no one in particular, BUT I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU. How DARE you comment on it?!"

All you really just told me is that you're butt-hurt that I treated your post with the same disdain all your posts deserve and get, instead of marveling at the "brilliance" of the opinion column you got your panties wadded over.

You're right. I didn't have to read it. I chose to, just as I chose to then shit all over it for the non-factual garbage that it is. And I regret nothing. YOU didn't have to post to an open message forum. Since you did, you are just going to have to butch up and accept that you don't get to demand that only people who praise you are going to read and respond.

Moron.

And by the way, "embryologist" and "infertility specialist" are not necessarily the same thing. Way to prove your idiocy with every single word. Maybe you should go back to prattling about "4th century" and "religion of antiquity". It sounded just as stupid, but at least you were on famiilar territory.

 

[BreezeWood]

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of its latest strategic plan, which will guide the agency from 2018 to 2022.

This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. Health and Human Services is a government organization. Its actions should be evidence-based, not faith-based, and this decidedly unscientific language should be eliminated from its strategic plan.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

From a scientific perspective, life doesn't begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.


the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspective but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

sure sissy, I was just attempting to save you from articles you might have not agreed with - in light of the descriptive article did you find my conclusion rewarding ...

the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspectives but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

thanks ...

As usual, you started out with bullshit and I didn't bother digging through it in hopes of finding a diamond. I just stepped around it and kept walking, as I always do with piles of shit.

.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

As usual, you started out with bullshit and I didn't bother digging through it in hopes of finding a diamond. I just stepped around it and kept walking, as I always do with piles of shit.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

the post was not addressed to you, it was your decision to read it ... maybe you should try another religion than christianity that one is polluting your mind .

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

the response was a factual repudiation for another posters obvious disregard of the facts - it really is not my problem it disturbed you as it did, ceci.

"I posted to an open forum, and directed it to no one in particular, BUT I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU. How DARE you comment on it?!"

All you really just told me is that you're butt-hurt that I treated your post with the same disdain all your posts deserve and get, instead of marveling at the "brilliance" of the opinion column you got your panties wadded over.

You're right. I didn't have to read it. I chose to, just as I chose to then shit all over it for the non-factual garbage that it is. And I regret nothing. YOU didn't have to post to an open message forum. Since you did, you are just going to have to butch up and accept that you don't get to demand that only people who praise you are going to read and respond.

Moron.

And by the way, "embryologist" and "infertility specialist" are not necessarily the same thing. Way to prove your idiocy with every single word. Maybe you should go back to prattling about "4th century" and "religion of antiquity". It sounded just as stupid, but at least you were on famiilar territory.

.

And by the way, "embryologist" and "infertility specialist" are not necessarily the same thing.

sissy, you steped in that one nothing new there getting your ducks in order ...

Richard J. Paulson, MD
Richard J. Paulson, MD - USC Fertility
Dr. Richard Paulson is the Director of USC Fertility, and has been with the practice since 1986. He is also a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine.

Standards exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes.

Neither of which are a new genetically distinct human life that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Standards exist - defined through outcomes.

the christians could not go to war soon enough in iraqi with their goal to kill saddam hussein and consequentially over a million civilian casualties as being for them an acceptable collateral byproduct.

how is it for christians, bing and sissy their forged religion has been responsible for endless wars and deprivations since the 4th century, the persecution and victimization of the innocent who lived among them - they now demand to control the lives of all woman using again those same unjustified standards as before.

it is they who refuse to recognize the true standards for which in Garden Earth they reside.

 

[ding]

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

sure sissy, I was just attempting to save you from articles you might have not agreed with - in light of the descriptive article did you find my conclusion rewarding ...

the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspectives but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

thanks ...

As usual, you started out with bullshit and I didn't bother digging through it in hopes of finding a diamond. I just stepped around it and kept walking, as I always do with piles of shit.

.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

As usual, you started out with bullshit and I didn't bother digging through it in hopes of finding a diamond. I just stepped around it and kept walking, as I always do with piles of shit.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

the post was not addressed to you, it was your decision to read it ... maybe you should try another religion than christianity that one is polluting your mind .

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

the response was a factual repudiation for another posters obvious disregard of the facts - it really is not my problem it disturbed you as it did, ceci.

"I posted to an open forum, and directed it to no one in particular, BUT I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU. How DARE you comment on it?!"

All you really just told me is that you're butt-hurt that I treated your post with the same disdain all your posts deserve and get, instead of marveling at the "brilliance" of the opinion column you got your panties wadded over.

You're right. I didn't have to read it. I chose to, just as I chose to then shit all over it for the non-factual garbage that it is. And I regret nothing. YOU didn't have to post to an open message forum. Since you did, you are just going to have to butch up and accept that you don't get to demand that only people who praise you are going to read and respond.

Moron.

And by the way, "embryologist" and "infertility specialist" are not necessarily the same thing. Way to prove your idiocy with every single word. Maybe you should go back to prattling about "4th century" and "religion of antiquity". It sounded just as stupid, but at least you were on famiilar territory.

.

And by the way, "embryologist" and "infertility specialist" are not necessarily the same thing.

sissy, you steped in that one nothing new there getting your ducks in order ...

Richard J. Paulson, MD
Richard J. Paulson, MD - USC Fertility
Dr. Richard Paulson is the Director of USC Fertility, and has been with the practice since 1986. He is also a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine.

Standards exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes.

Neither of which are a new genetically distinct human life that has never existed before and will never exist again.

View attachment 239335

Standards exist - defined through outcomes.

the christians could not go to war soon enough in iraqi with their goal to kill saddam hussein and consequentially over a million civilian casualties as being for them an acceptable collateral byproduct.

how is it for christians, bing and sissy their forged religion has been responsible for endless wars and deprivations since the 4th century, the persecution and victimization of the innocent who lived among them - they now demand to control the lives of all woman using again those same unjustified standards as before.

it is they who refuse to recognize the true standards for which in Garden Earth they reside.

You are comparing war to abortion? Slavery is a better analogy.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
sure sissy, I was just attempting to save you from articles you might have not agreed with - in light of the descriptive article did you find my conclusion rewarding ...

thanks ...

As usual, you started out with bullshit and I didn't bother digging through it in hopes of finding a diamond. I just stepped around it and kept walking, as I always do with piles of shit.

.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

As usual, you started out with bullshit and I didn't bother digging through it in hopes of finding a diamond. I just stepped around it and kept walking, as I always do with piles of shit.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

the post was not addressed to you, it was your decision to read it ... maybe you should try another religion than christianity that one is polluting your mind .

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

the response was a factual repudiation for another posters obvious disregard of the facts - it really is not my problem it disturbed you as it did, ceci.

"I posted to an open forum, and directed it to no one in particular, BUT I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU. How DARE you comment on it?!"

All you really just told me is that you're butt-hurt that I treated your post with the same disdain all your posts deserve and get, instead of marveling at the "brilliance" of the opinion column you got your panties wadded over.

You're right. I didn't have to read it. I chose to, just as I chose to then shit all over it for the non-factual garbage that it is. And I regret nothing. YOU didn't have to post to an open message forum. Since you did, you are just going to have to butch up and accept that you don't get to demand that only people who praise you are going to read and respond.

Moron.

And by the way, "embryologist" and "infertility specialist" are not necessarily the same thing. Way to prove your idiocy with every single word. Maybe you should go back to prattling about "4th century" and "religion of antiquity". It sounded just as stupid, but at least you were on famiilar territory.

.

And by the way, "embryologist" and "infertility specialist" are not necessarily the same thing.

sissy, you steped in that one nothing new there getting your ducks in order ...

Richard J. Paulson, MD
Richard J. Paulson, MD - USC Fertility
Dr. Richard Paulson is the Director of USC Fertility, and has been with the practice since 1986. He is also a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine.

Standards exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes.

Neither of which are a new genetically distinct human life that has never existed before and will never exist again.

View attachment 239335

Standards exist - defined through outcomes.

the christians could not go to war soon enough in iraqi with their goal to kill saddam hussein and consequentially over a million civilian casualties as being for them an acceptable collateral byproduct.

how is it for christians, bing and sissy their forged religion has been responsible for endless wars and deprivations since the 4th century, the persecution and victimization of the innocent who lived among them - they now demand to control the lives of all woman using again those same unjustified standards as before.

it is they who refuse to recognize the true standards for which in Garden Earth they reside.

You are comparing war to abortion? Slavery is a better analogy.

.

You are comparing war to abortion? Slavery is a better analogy.

christians kill human beings when it suits their purpose ...

and try and moralize when it doesn't.

* no one believes your slavery foil - the confederacy was nothing but bible belt christianity. no issue about killing people for their cause to destroy our nation to own human beings as property - moralizer.