Liberals Godless? Not when faced with mortality..

[Gunny]

An "unborn child," but not a fertilized egg. The whole designation has to do with whether or not the parents wanted the thing to begin with. Hence, it is a personal designation, which is important, because abortion is a personal decision. It is not up to society to decide if you should keep YOUR pregnancy. If you take a moment to dissect your belief structure, that is, the ridiculous web of beliefs that makes up the "neo-conservative" (Christio-fascist) belief structure, you'd see just how schitzophrenic it really is. You hold the rights of a clot of cells over those of a living woman. You call yourselves American while trying to force your own religious beliefs on all the rest of us, though that way of thinking clearly defies the principle foundations of the Constitution. You call yourselves "Christian" and bask in feux righteousness while harping on abortion patients all the while salivating over the prospect of executing prisoners. You say nothing about animal testing. Your false Christianity is also belied by your spirit of war mongering at every corner as well as your refusal to acknowledge the value of social programs like welfare, medicaid and others that ease the suffering of the poverty-stricken and medically afflicted. You are not righteous and your false Christianity built up on principles of murder, hatred and indifference to the suffering of your fellow man will be punished if there is an afterlife. So yes, get your house in order "conservatives."

Please point out where exactly I have used the fact that I am Christian as substantiation for my argument. Hint: you can't, so oyur little tirade is a waste of bandwidth.

It's simple logic, when you wash away all the left-wingnut, twisted arguments, that life begins at conception.

And since you wish to judge me based on my religion when you don't know a damned thing about me but what you have presumed, lets add the hypocrisy of you lefties who are more concerned about noncombatants being accidentally killed than you are about winning; yet, you have absolutely NO problem snuffing out a human life without so much as giving it a say in the matter for the simple convenience of an irresponsible person.

I suggest in the future if you don't want me shoving my religion up your ass, you let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[jillian]

So if it's cool to end a life at the initial cell stage, is it also cool to end a life sometime in the middle, or at the end, when the cells aren't doing a good enough job of maintaining the body's well-being?

I do believe you're confusing your issues, though if you want to stray from the topic and talk about euthanasia, I'll say that I think we're kinder to our pets than we are to people.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Why?--if someone worried about morning after pills you would tell em they are full of shit.

No, you just hadn't thought about that until I mentioned it.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Stupid, irrelvant response #2. Comparing apples and oranges in yet another attempt to deflect.

Attempt to deflect, bullshit. You know good and well how hyporcitical you and your fellow "cell lovers" are being. I called your group out on the fact that god makes life only to destroy it in terrible ways, but somehow that isn't relevant in your eyes. It is in now way different than ESCresearch, and you know that, but you think that you can dance around the issue by calling it something different than it is.

 

[Gunny]

No, you just hadn't thought about that until I mentioned it.

Perhaps you need to read up on what you are casually throwing around.

Plan B works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy.

http://www.canadadrugs.com/info/ind...g after pill&gclid=CLzYrYOpvYYCFRgfUAodQ2EmPA

The "Morning After Pill" is contraceptive/preventative. Based on your argument, I would say you probably are trying to refer to RU-486, the Abortion Pill.

 

[dilloduck]

No, you just hadn't thought about that until I mentioned it.

Really? How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Gunny]

Attempt to deflect, bullshit. You know good and well how hyporcitical you and your fellow "cell lovers" are being. I called your group out on the fact that god makes life only to destroy it in terrible ways, but somehow that isn't relevant in your eyes. It is in now way different than ESCresearch, and you know that, but you think that you can dance around the issue by calling it something different than it is.

YOU called out "me and my group?" GMAFB. Man experimenting on Man, and God's judgment that Man will die because Man sins are two completely separate subjects.

You are grasping for straws to make a bullshit argument. period.

I am not the one calling embyonic stem cell research soemthing it is not ... YOU are. YOU dishonestly attempt to relegate human life to a collection of cells for the purpose of your self-serving experimentation, and THAT is what it amounts to.

For you Godless fucks, there is no life after death so you don't give a rat's ass what you have to destroy to hang on to this one as long as you possibly can. THAT is the real truth to the matter.

 

[Gunny]

Really? How did you come to that conclusion?

Coming to illogical and dishonest conclusions appears to be his forte.

 

[dilloduck]

Coming to illogical and dishonest conclusions appears to be his forte.

:teeth:
Damn--I thought he had some magic mind reading power I could use.

 

[jillian]

I'm calling something what it is. Relegating it to a collection of cells and a puddle of water is designed to remove the fact that it IS a human being from the equation for the purpose of unethical and immoral Promethian experimentation.

You are calling something what you believe it to be. I'm actually the one assigning the proper scientific terms.

Even assuming that the cells are "life", and I think we agree they are. They are not human life, but are potential human life. Somewhere along their 9 month journey, those cells might become a human being or might not, for whatever reason. At some point during that continuum, it was decided that the governmental interest in protecting those cells outweighs the individual's right to govern what happens to them herself. I've always thought that was a fair compromise.

On a related, albeit not quite equal basis, we make choices about terminating "life" all the time. We eat food that comes from living animal cells because it benefits society that we do so. We kill animals for clothing, because they are nuisances or for sport. We are one gene away from apes, yet think nothing of keeping those apes on display for human beings. Elephants are sentient, yet we keep them captive.

In other words, it's not about "life", it's about our determination as to the worth of that life. Your religious beliefs, which I respect, though don't agree with, dictate that you assign equal value to the "life" that exists in a fertilized egg as you do to a baby after its 9-month gestation period. I tend toward the court determination, however inartfully it may have been written, that the governmental interest in governing what happens to those cells increases as the cells move through their development. I also always favor existing life over potential life, so believe that societal good dictates that if we can save existing lives by using some of those cells which comprise potential life, then we should do so, ethically and with the mandate that we not use the cells for nefarious purpose.

 

[5stringJeff]

I do believe you're confusing your issues, though if you want to stray from the topic and talk about euthanasia, I'll say that I think we're kinder to our pets than we are to people.

It's really all the same issue: sanctity of life. Abortion, EC, euthanasia, etc. are just different ways in which the sanctity of life is eroded.

 

[Gunny]

You are calling something what you believe it to be. I'm actually the one assigning the proper scientific terms.

Was science the sole, definitive answer for all things, you might have an argument. SInce it is not, you do not.

Even assuming that the cells are "life", and I think we agree they are. They are not human life, but are potential human life. Somewhere along their 9 month journey, those cells might become a human being or might not, for whatever reason. At some point during that continuum, it was decided that the governmental interest in protecting those cells outweighs the individual's right to govern what happens to them herself. I've always thought that was a fair compromise.

Of course you are willing to call something being your way "compromise;" something, abortion is certainly not.

On a related, albeit not quite equal basis, we make choices about terminating "life" all the time. We eat food that comes from living animal cells because it benefits society that we do so. We kill animals for clothing, because they are nuisances or for sport. We are one gene away from apes, yet think nothing of keeping those apes on display for human beings. Elephants are sentient, yet we keep them captive.

In other words, it's not about "life", it's about our determination as to the worth of that life. Your religious beliefs, which I respect, though don't agree with, dictate that you assign equal value to the "life" that exists in a fertilized egg as you do to a baby after its 9-month gestation period. I tend toward the court determination, however inartfully it may have been written, that the governmental interest in governing what happens to those cells increases as the cells move through their development. I also always favor existing life over potential life, so believe that societal good dictates that if we can save existing lives by using some of those cells which comprise potential life, then we should do so, ethically and with the mandate that we not use the cells for nefarious purpose.

One, you merely cofirm my argument by attempting to compare human life with ALL animal life, when every society that has existed within recorded hostiry has placed more value on human life.

Two, you may disagree all you wish, and attempt to paint the topic any color you wish, but it all boils down to creating then destroying human life, REGARDLESS what stage it is in.

Societal good does NOT dictate that we use unethical and immoral experimentation for the self-serving purpose of attempting to cheat death.

And once again, embyonic stem cell research has netted exactly nothing of value. So to make matters worse, you advocate experimenting on human life on nothing more than wishful thinking.

What's next? Cannibalism? I can think of no really good scientific reason why not. It wouls solve the problem of wasting countless acres of land in reverence to dead collections of cells.

 

[bobn]

Many people supported dropping the atom bomb, defending it by saying that ground and sea battles would have cost more lives that the bomb took. Well, ESC research can save more lives than it destroys. And those lives that are saved are living people with thoughts, emotions, and families.

Good analogy, I never thought of that before.

 

[Gunny]

Good analogy, I never thought of that before.

Hardly a good analogy. He is making a presumptive claim based on no evidence whatsoever.

At least the pinheads who did the math in regard to dropping the bomb on Japan had real numbers representing real people on both sides with which to go by.

The pro-ESC crowd makes claims is akin to taking a container of yogurt and claiming you are going to create a cure for cancer with it.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Hardly a good analogy. He is making a presumptive claim based on no evidence whatsoever.

At least the pinheads who did the math in regard to dropping the bomb on Japan had real numbers representing real people on both sides with which to go by.

The pro-ESC crowd makes claims is akin to taking a container of yogurt and claiming you are going to create a cure for cancer with it.

Scientists across the globe acknowledge that there is no immediate way to get positive results, but those same scientist advocate that there is too much potential to let it go to waste. Either America can fund this and potentially lead the front to regenerating life saving organs, or we can wait until India does it, which the outcome of that kind of power is unknown.

google.com is my source

 

[Gunny]

Scientists across the globe acknowledge that there is no immediate way to get positive results, but those same scientist advocate that there is too much potential to let it go to waste.

google.com is my source

Google.com? THAT is your source?

Your argument is unethical and immoral, and the basis for it nonexistent. The real heartbreaker for you and those of your ilk is science doesn't have an answer for everything, and it never will.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Google.com? THAT is your source?

Your argument is unethical and immoral, and the basis for it nonexistent. The real heartbreaker for you and those of your ilk is science doesn't have an answer for everything, and it never will.

And religion doesn't either. It serves as a guide to moral behavior, it is not some absolute, immutable and unerring law...Unless you're leading a theocracy. Then, it's whatever you want it to be.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Your argument is unethical and immoral, and the basis for it nonexistent. The real heartbreaker for you and those of your ilk is science doesn't have an answer for everything, and it never will.

-Why do you fight against ESCresearch and not morning after pills? Morning after pills have no potential to save lives.

-That's why I have my faith. I'm agnostic, which takes more faith than joining any religion.

-Have you ever had a parent, relative, or friend die of organ failure?

 

[Gunny]

And religion doesn't either. It serves as a guide to moral behavior, it is not some absolute, immutable and unerring law...Unless you're leading a theocracy. Then, it's whatever you want it to be.

Let me lay your own, anti-religious rhetoric on you .....

WHo says morality and ethics have to be based on religious belief? Seems to me when I try THAT argument, I hear this crapola that it has nothing to do with religion.

So, until I invoke the name of my Christian God, you need to practice what you preach and assume I was just born with this particular set of values. Or you can admit you're a hypocrite and wish to apply a blatant double-standard to suit your particular stance. Either way works for me.

 

[Gunny]

-Why do you fight against ESCresearch and not morning after pills? Morning after pills have no potential to save lives.

One, I am not arguing the potential of saving lives. Two, as I already provided you with a link, morning after pills are contraceptive in nature. In other words, they stop the pregnancy from ever taking place. I see no reason to argue to save a life than never existed.

-That's why I have my faith. I'm agnostic, which takes more faith than joining any religion.

1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Actually, it requires NO faith at all.

-Have you ever had a parent, relative, or friend die of organ failure?

Matter of fact, yes. It is however, irrelevant. There is NO evidence to support that ESC will ever accomplish anything in general, much less specifically. Again, that is just wishful thinking on your part.