Finally: Science Allowed to be Science Again

Growth, division- the mechanisms of life begin prior to implantation in the uterus,very shortly after the sperm enters the egg

yes, they do begin before such....

first with the development of the sperm and egg themselves, and with fertilization of the egg by the sperm....
begins at fertilization. Until that point, the child doesn't exist- only cells from two people exist

HOWEVER the fertilized egg....all on its own, does NOT make it to the uterus and attach itself to the wall of the uterus to make the woman''pregnant'' the majority of the time.

Most fertilized eggs, never become offspring or ''babies'' in our natural cycle of things.

And everyone dies eventually. Some are even stillborn or die from disease as infant. Does that justify homicide?
This is why, the plan b pill itself is not of great concern to me....i do not see it as killing a human at that point in the process....if it is killing then why did God form us the way he did, to allow more than half of the fertilized eggs be ''killed'' in a natural manner???
Because your god had nothing to do with it

Cute, real cute.... how's your judgemental foot taste? :eusa_whistle:
 
It's called reason. The biblical account has been disproven by science unless you take the most liberal apologetic interpretation possible, cut it in half, throw out half of it, and replace it with logic. After which, you have nothing resembling the biblical teaching

Besides, you're the one who brought god into the conversation to imply that he's either incompetent or the most infamous abortionist and killer of children ever
 
Utter and complete bullshit.. and if you would actually read what I as a conservative posted, instead of merely interjecting what you WANT to believe their/our position to be, you might have actually brought something to this thread.. but alas, you did not

So then your response, which is already stupid on its face, is made doubly stupid because you wasted time responding to a post that you didn't think brought anything to the thread. Not surprising, though.
 
Utter and complete bullshit.. and if you would actually read what I as a conservative posted, instead of merely interjecting what you WANT to believe their/our position to be, you might have actually brought something to this thread.. but alas, you did not

So then your response, which is already stupid on its face, is made doubly stupid because you wasted time responding to a post that you didn't think brought anything to the thread. Not surprising, though.

Yawn

At least care, jill, and others with a view opposite of mine can accurately assess the position of the opposing side... you simply came in with your preconceived notion of what you wish it to be for the sake of your argument... instead of actually reading, and properly portraying, you chose to post a myth... and you were called out on it and nailed for it

But nice try
 
Yawn

At least care, jill, and others with a view opposite of mine can accurately assess the position of the opposing side... you simply came in with your preconceived notion of what you wish it to be for the sake of your argument... instead of actually reading, and properly portraying, you chose to post a myth... and you were called out on it and nailed for it

But nice try

LOL. If that's your idea of 'nailing' someone, then you're an even bigger fool than I first took you to be. Please tell me you aren't really this stupid. I anticipate a certain number of idiots on internet forums, but this is a bit much. Your posts have provided nothing whatsoever, except your own pathetic whining.
 
Again

You posted an assumption.. a myth.. an unsubstantiated bunch of gibberish that in no way portrays the stances set forth by the "conservative" stance

That stance has been quite dutifully stated within this thread numerous times. As stated, jill, care, and others have even accurately summarized what that stance is and referenced it correctly in their opposing stance/argument.... you, did not

but nice try
 
It's called reason. The biblical account has been disproven by science unless you take the most liberal apologetic interpretation possible, cut it in half, throw out half of it, and replace it with logic. After which, you have nothing resembling the biblical teaching

Besides, you're the one who brought god into the conversation to imply that he's either incompetent or the most infamous abortionist and killer of children ever

True enough, I did bring God in to it...so replace God with Evolution or Nature itself...

It still does not negate that most fertilized eggs do not become babies in the process of human life because they don't attach or don't stay attached to the uterus in which they will be fed....why would the evolvement of humans not have made it to where all fertilized eggs attach and impregnate the woman... in order for our species to better survive?

I don't see Plan B as "helping" our survival as humans...but I also don't see it as killing a human being, not at this early point in the process, regardless of the egg beginning its division of cells, without nutrition from the attachment to the mother in her womb, there is never a child...never a pregnancy....never an offspring....at least not yet....though some day with Science, this might be possible.

Care
 
Again

You posted an assumption.. a myth.. an unsubstantiated bunch of gibberish that in no way portrays the stances set forth by the "conservative" stance

That stance has been quite dutifully stated within this thread numerous times. As stated, jill, care, and others have even accurately summarized what that stance is and referenced it correctly in their opposing stance/argument.... you, did not

but nice try

Getting a bit redundant aren't you? Can't come up with a coherent reply? Ok, let me write this down...

"DiamondDave == moron."

There. It's been noted. Now, unless I am feeling particularly charitable and want to throw a bone to one of my intellectual inferiors like you, I'll probably just ignore you. Don't take it personally. You didn't choose to be born with sub-standard gray matter. But I have to limit my posts to non-idiots for the most part.
 
Again

You posted an assumption.. a myth.. an unsubstantiated bunch of gibberish that in no way portrays the stances set forth by the "conservative" stance

That stance has been quite dutifully stated within this thread numerous times. As stated, jill, care, and others have even accurately summarized what that stance is and referenced it correctly in their opposing stance/argument.... you, did not

but nice try

Getting a bit redundant aren't you? Can't come up with a coherent reply? Ok, let me write this down...

"DiamondDave == moron."

There. It's been noted. Now, unless I am feeling particularly charitable and want to throw a bone to one of my intellectual inferiors like you, I'll probably just ignore you. Don't take it personally. You didn't choose to be born with sub-standard gray matter. But I have to limit my posts to non-idiots for the most part.

there's treatment available for dissociative disorders you know. maybe your guardian should look into it? good luck!
 
True enough, I did bring God in to it...so replace God with Evolution or Nature itself...

because nature is not intelligent and can be quite hit-or-miss

It still does not negate that most fertilized eggs do not become babies in the process of human life because they don't attach or don't stay attached to the uterus in which they will be fed....

Once again, I ask. Does the fact that many babies die as such and we all die- oft early from disease or illness justify murder? This where it gets gray. We can go two directions from here:

1)it is not murder because it might die anyway.
You might die later tonight if you fail or a plain hits your house or whatever. At what mathematical probability does this mean it's not murder to end the one life that would have continued?

2)Of course not. Ending your life is not justified simply because it might end anyway.
This would make it murder to stop a fertilized egg from implanting

In either case, 'flushing' the woman's body prior to fertilization is unaffected, as you're dealing only with cells from the two parties

I don't see Plan B as "helping" our survival as humans...but I also don't see it as killing a human being, not at this early point in the process, regardless of the egg beginning its division of cells, without nutrition from the attachment to the mother in her womb, there is never a child...never a pregnancy....never an offspring....at least not yet....though some day with Science, this might be possible.

There is a human life and a child. However, you have a point that it could be argued there is not a pregnancy, although I fail to see how this has any bearing on the matter at hand
 
True enough, I did bring God in to it...so replace God with Evolution or Nature itself...

because nature is not intelligent and can be quite hit-or-miss

It still does not negate that most fertilized eggs do not become babies in the process of human life because they don't attach or don't stay attached to the uterus in which they will be fed....

Once again, I ask. Does the fact that many babies die as such and we all die- oft early from disease or illness justify murder? This where it gets gray. We can go two directions from here:

1)it is not murder because it might die anyway.
You might die later tonight if you fail or a plain hits your house or whatever. At what mathematical probability does this mean it's not murder to end the one life that would have continued?

2)Of course not. Ending your life is not justified simply because it might end anyway.
This would make it murder to stop a fertilized egg from implanting

In either case, 'flushing' the woman's body prior to fertilization is unaffected, as you're dealing only with cells from the two parties

I don't see Plan B as "helping" our survival as humans...but I also don't see it as killing a human being, not at this early point in the process, regardless of the egg beginning its division of cells, without nutrition from the attachment to the mother in her womb, there is never a child...never a pregnancy....never an offspring....at least not yet....though some day with Science, this might be possible.

There is a human life and a child. However, you have a point that it could be argued there is not a pregnancy, although I fail to see how this has any bearing on the matter at hand
I agree with all of those scenarios where after a human has come in to fruition, is born or capable of being born, that we do not take their lives or personhood from them....no matter their physical or mental, or disabled condition.

But I do not agree with you that a fertilized egg that has NOT attached itself to the woman's uterus, is going to survive and become a human someday.

I can understand your stance, which would also be to keep birth control pills off of the market, because it also does what Plan B does, prevents the egg, even a fertilized egg, from developing in to a human being...The Catholic Church takes this stance with every day birth control pills....

I personally do not agree with it, though I can understand the position.

Plan B is already approved by the FDA for over the counter use for adults....am I reading your position correctly by presuming that you are not just against the FDA making this drug available to 17 year olds but also adults?

Care
 
But I do not agree with you that a fertilized egg that has NOT attached itself to the woman's uterus, is going to survive and become a human someday.

I did not say that a fertilized egg wil (as in always will) implant and develop further, Such an absolute statement would be factually inaccurate

I can understand your stance, which would also be to keep birth control pills off of the market, because it also does what Plan B does

if hormones are used to regulate menstruation so one can plan around it, there is no problem. Also, IUDs and the like prevent fertilization in the first place
 
as for the last questions, it depends,. I know it can take time for the sperm to reach the egg, especially if the woman is early into ovulation. I need more data regarding the times involved to give an informed response to that one
 
But, according to Add Health data, evangelical teen-agers are more sexually active than Mormons, mainline Protestants, and Jews. On average, white evangelical Protestants make their sexual début--to use the festive term of social-science researchers--shortly after turning sixteen. Among major religious groups, only black Protestants begin having sex earlier.

I can't get to the the link and couldn't get to the article using a Google search either but one thing kind of jumps out at me. The statement above compares one group characterized by theology including the belief that sex outside of marriage is imoral to other groups that are also characterized by theology including the belief that sex outside of marriage is imoral. Well, I don't know for sure about Jews but I'm pretty confident that Mormons, mainling Protestants, and Black protestants are like that. So one group has an average age at which it becomes sexually active than the others do? Big deal.

It seems to me like it'd be more meaningful to compare groups characterized by theology including the belief that sex outside of marriage is imoral to other groups not characterized by that theology. For instance: Compare the groups characterized by such theology to atheists. That kind of thing. You still technically couldn't ascsribe cause and effect but at least it'd be an association (or lack thereof) suggestive of something.
 
In early September, when Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for Vice-President, announced that her unwed seventeen-year-old daughter, Bristol, was pregnant, many liberals were shocked, not by the revelation but by the reaction to it. They expected the news to dismay the evangelical voters that John McCain was courting with his choice of Palin. Yet reports from the floor of the Republican Convention, in St. Paul, quoted dozens of delegates who seemed unfazed, or even buoyed, by the news.

If liberals were shocked they must misunderstand Evangelical Christian belief. One of the central beliefs is that we are all sinners who fall short of the glory of God. If they truely follow the belief, they do not automatically look down on somebody because that person has sinned. That does not mean that they do not vigorously comment on what they view as sin as what they don't or don't oppose proactively promoting it. The fact that they say sex outside of marriage is a sin does not mean they reject persons who have sex outside of marriage because, if they follow the teachings of their faith, rejecting those who sin would mean rejecting everybody including themselves.

Meanwhile, taking public positions in opposition to what they view as sin is completely consistent with their belief system. There is no inconsistency involving their belief system at all between opposing public policies believed to increase the likelihood of sex outside of marriage while also being loving and accepting with respect to those who have sex outside of marriage.
 
Last edited:
Ok. I was able to find the article Old Rocks cited. Here's an interesting quote from it:

"Religious belief apparently does make a potent difference in behavior for one group of evangelical teen-agers: those who score highest on measures of religiosity—such as how often they go to church, or how often they pray at home. But many Americans who identify themselves as evangelicals, and who hold socially conservative beliefs, aren’t deeply observant."

So the authors do note that there is a difference for those who actually practice their "religiousity."
 
I'm going to mention that the article Old Rocks linked is an orgy of implying cause and effect from association. Example:

The highest teen-pregnancy rates were in Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas (all red); the lowest were in North Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine (blue except for North Dakota).

The implication is that conservatism and/or religiosity "causes" higher teen pregnancy rates or, at least, does not reduce them. But let's look at the percent Non-White (i.e, racialiesMinority) population in each of the mentioned States.

Nevada (High Rate, Red) 25.4
Arizona (High Rate, Red) 23.6
Mississippi (High Rate, Red) 39.9
New Mexico (High Rate, Red) 31.3
Texas (High Rate, Red) 29.4
North Dakota (Low Rate, Red) 9.1
Vermont (Low Rate, Blue) 3.8
New Hampshire (Low Rate, Blue) 5.0
Minnesota (Low Rate, Blue) 12.0
Maine (Low Rate, Blue) 4.5

Obviously, "how states voted" associations can be deceptive. Of the 10 states listed, the five with the highest percent Non-White populations voted "Red." Does that mean Non-White voters overall went "Red?" We pretty much know the answer is "no" because of exit polling.
 
Obviously, "how states voted" associations can be deceptive. Of the 10 states listed, the five with the highest percent Non-White populations voted "Red." Does that mean Non-White voters overall went "Red?" We pretty much know the answer is "no" because of exit polling.

what on earth are you talking about?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top