Liberals Godless? Not when faced with mortality..

[Bullypulpit]

Since when was thinking a fertilized egg is a person a religious belief?

Since an opportunistic politician decided it was so in order to appeal to religious fundamentalists in their quest for elected office.

 

[Bullypulpit]

But biology DOES include a fertilized egg as the beginning of life.

Not to mention, if you harm a woman's unborn child that causes its death you are charged with murder, so in that regard, the law DOES consider an unborn child a person.

Abortion and all its twisted definitions is just a means of escaping the responsibility of one's actions.

If any definitions are twisted here, it is those used by the so called "Right-to-Life" movement and the members of the religous and political right. They equate the potential for life with actual human life. This is simply an attempt to give their own narrow, dogmatic view of human morality and religion the force of law. It is not about human life, as they don't seem to give a rat's ass about a fetus once it leaves the womb in child-birth. Nor do they seem to give much thought to the provision of adequate pre-natal care for those who can't afford it. As for honest and forthright sex-education in public schools, that has been shown to reduce unintended preganancy, forget that. That will only promote "sex-cults" amongst teens, just like easy access to emergency contraception. It is about power...pure and simple.

 

[theHawk]

Except that a fertilized egg isn't a "person" except in your own religious judgment which, while you're certainly entitled, you have no right to impose that religious belief on others.

And not having to do with your post, just as an observation with regard to this thread, haven't any of you yet figured out that the whole construct of liberals being "godless" is a fallacy?

Or is it that y'all like the propaganda so much that you enjoy spreading it around? :halo:

A fertilized egg has its own unique DNA, human DNA at that. But hey if you wanna tell yourself its just a collection of cells then so be it. Then again you're nothing but a collection of cells too. At what exact point did you become a "person" with a right to live?

 

[MissileMan]

A fertilized egg has its own unique DNA, human DNA at that. But hey if you wanna tell yourself its just a collection of cells then so be it. Then again you're nothing but a collection of cells too. At what exact point did you become a "person" with a right to live?

So does any cell in any person alive or dead...is that going to be your legal definition of a human being, a cell or group of cells containing human DNA?

 

[musicman]

The determination as to when life begins is always a religious one in this context.

Then, throw religion out of the question. Tell me the PRECISE moment human life begins. You can't, can you? And, since the stakes are innocent life and death, a prudent, decent, and sensible answer would be to simply err on the side of life. Anyone could see that, unless he/she had a blind spot, which - it appears - you do:

You know anyone who is non-Christian (not all sects, btw) or non-orthodox Jew who would suggest taking away the reproductive choice of the rest of us?

Let's call reproductive choice what it is: the belief in a fundamental human right to consequence-free sex. Haven't herpes, AIDS, Super-AIDS, and 40 million abortions demonstrated to you the myopic, self-absorbed absurdity of this concept?

 

[theHawk]

So does any cell in any person alive or dead...is that going to be your legal definition of a human being, a cell or group of cells containing human DNA?

A human cell doesn't grow into a human being.

But a fertilzed egg does.

Did you ever take biology in junior high?

 

[MissileMan]

A human cell doesn't grow into a human being.

But a fertilzed egg does.

Did you ever take biology in junior high?

That wasn't my question. Is your legal definition of human being going to be a cell, or collection of cells containing human DNA? If it isn't, what is your definition?

FYI, not all fertilized eggs become human beings.

 

[dilloduck]

Since an opportunistic politician decided it was so in order to appeal to religious fundamentalists in their quest for elected office.

Ahh so it can also be a scientific question, or a philosphical question .

 

[Bullypulpit]

That wasn't my question. Is your legal definition of human being going to be a cell, or collection of cells containing human DNA? If it isn't, what is your definition?

FYI, not all fertilized eggs become human beings.

Indeed, about 50% of fertilized eggs fail to even implant in the uterus, and pass from the woman's body through the normal menstrual cycle. Are we to try and save these doomed lives as well? And what about all those "emerging lives" that are being disposed of by IVF clinics?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Ahh so it can also be a scientific question, or a philosphical question .

No, it is a medical issue of interest only to the woman and her physician. If you look closely at Roe v. Wade, the state only has an interest in the matter once the pregnancy enters the second trimester. And in the case of a threat to the mother's health, the state has no interest at all.

 

[Gunny]

You're trying to make an argument from science and from legal precedent, but unfortunately neither support you in this case.

Whatever dude. If what you have posted below this is your argument against mine, I feel pretty secure in my position.

Biological speaking, life does not necessarily begin with a fertilized egg. What bout those species who reproduce asexually? Mitosis? Hmm? The definition of life is very broad... Moreover, the difference between human life and animal life is one that is very thin and narrow. Let me ask you... What makes a human different from an animal?

I beleive my statement concerned HUMAN life, not the reproduction of a paramecium. Life begins at conception, regardless the method used. This is nothing more than a dishonest attempt at deflection.

Legally, there are a few cases where an unborn fetus is considered a person. A few states have passed laws regarding murdering a fetus (when the parent is killed) and can tack on charges thereafter. There is no legal precedent that automatically assumes that a fetus is a person and therefore entitled to legal rights (or else we would not be having this debate).

More twisted logic. IF the law allows prosecution for murder for harming an umborn human being, then I would say that law DOES recognize the rights of that unborn human being to exist.

And let's just examine your statement. First sentence:

Legally, there are a few cases where an unborn fetus is considered a person.

Third sentence:

There is no legal precedent that automatically assumes that a fetus is a person and therefore entitled to legal rights .....

Obviously, based on the first sentence, legal precedent has been established, which refutes your third sentence.

 

[Gunny]

Regardless of how hard one might try to equivocate, the medical termination of a first rimester pregnancy is not the equivalent, moral or otherwise, of genocide. That you would even attempt to do so reveals a certain level of moral bankruptcy on your part.

Finding the destruction of human life for personal convenience acceptable is ajust about as morally bankrupt as it gets.

 

[Gunny]

If any definitions are twisted here, it is those used by the so called "Right-to-Life" movement and the members of the religous and political right. They equate the potential for life with actual human life. This is simply an attempt to give their own narrow, dogmatic view of human morality and religion the force of law. It is not about human life, as they don't seem to give a rat's ass about a fetus once it leaves the womb in child-birth. Nor do they seem to give much thought to the provision of adequate pre-natal care for those who can't afford it. As for honest and forthright sex-education in public schools, that has been shown to reduce unintended preganancy, forget that. That will only promote "sex-cults" amongst teens, just like easy access to emergency contraception. It is about power...pure and simple.

The fact that you and your ilk wish to qualify human life as anything but to suit your own narrow views to support the destruction of human life for matters of convenience is what is twisted here.

Believing in a fundamental right to life is not mutally inclusive with how that life is lived, nor coddling a person from cradle to grave. That's a bout as lame an argument as you lefties like to pull out. It is in fact, a completely separate argument.

I would say that child has a much better chance at overcomming the odds and being successful by being born to a shitty family than it has ending up on the operating room floor without having been given ANY chance at all.

 

[Gunny]

And, btw, to address the original post, liberals are not "Godless." I was raised in a God-fearing, Southern Baptist, church 3-times-a-week family of Roosevelt Democrats.

The problem with liberals is, they are "stateless persons." Conservatives equate them with extreme leftwingers, while the latter equate them with being "neo-cons." The DNC does not represent them; yet, for some reason they remain willfully blind to that fact.

Carter's REAL legacy is that he pulled the rug out from under the moderate liberals and left a void between the moderate right and the extreme left.

But I somehow doubt God changed his party affiliation when that happened.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

More twisted logic. IF the law allows prosecution for murder for harming an umborn human being, then I would say that law DOES recognize the rights of that unborn human being to exist.

Then explain the apparent contradiction between that and abortion.

And let's just examine your statement. First sentence:



Third sentence:

A few scenarios as dictated under particular state laws does not equal a broad, wide ranging legal precedent. Learn2Law.

I beleive my statement concerned HUMAN life, not the reproduction of a paramecium. Life begins at conception, regardless the method used. This is nothing more than a dishonest attempt at deflection.

You never stated what the difference is between human and animal life. What is it that makes us so special?

 

[Gunny]

Then explain the apparent contradiction between that and abortion.

Nothing to explain. The contradiction exists and will continue to exist until the two issues run into each other in a court of law.


A few scenarios as dictated under particular state laws does not equal a broad, wide ranging legal precedent. Learn2Law.

Oh, so now it's a "wide-ranging" legal precedent. Not what you stated. Don't try and play semantics with me. I did not state nor imply that a "wide-ranging" legal precedent was set. Only that legal precedent was set. It only takes that law being appealed to a Federal court and you will have your so-called, "wide-ranging" precedent, one way or the other.

You never stated what the difference is between human and animal life. What is it that makes us so special?

I didn't respond to it because it is irrelevant to this conversation, and nothing more than a sidetrack, IMO.

 

[ErikViking]

I have a few honest and open questions about USA, politics and religion.

Background:
I live in a country where christianity was introduced about 1000 years ago. I pray in churches twice as old as USA itself. My country (Sweden) has a flag carrying a yellow cross on a blue background and up to a few years ago everyone had to activley deny christianity to get "unrolled" from the church. Also Sweden has been a socialist country for like a hundered years or so. In Sweden there is no law against forming a religous party and thus to have a religous government. But there is NO debate over christian values v.s. political right/left whatsoever and the christian party gets like 4% of the votes every year. A minority of the christians that is, since like 98% of the population is christian.

Okay, the questions:
Don't you think religion is used ONLY as a tactic by politicians?
Do you really think liberals or conservatives are different in the eyes of God?
If you where able to vote for a Christian party, - would you?

 

[CharlestonChad]

To GunnyL and anyone else who disapproves of ESC research:



Are you a pacifist? If not, then do you view the droppings of the atom bomb on Japan as a way to actually save lives that would have normally been lost in standard warfare?

If you support the above, then you must also support ESC research because that is a way to potentially save lives that would be lost. Potentially living persons (as defined biologically) will be terminated, but they will feel no pain and they have not developed enough to have thoughts. People that do feel pain and have real lives will be saved from pre-mature death.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Don't you think religion is used ONLY as a tactic by politicians?

Yes

Do you really think liberals or conservatives are different in the eyes of God?

If god does exist, then god wouldn't care how a person thought about politics. That would be a waste of the god's time to even bother with such meaningless beliefs.

If you where able to vote for a Christian party, - would you?

No

 

[Nuc]

I have a few honest and open questions about USA, politics and religion.

Background:
I live in a country where christianity was introduced about 1000 years ago. I pray in churches twice as old as USA itself. My country (Sweden) has a flag carrying a yellow cross on a blue background and up to a few years ago everyone had to activley deny christianity to get "unrolled" from the church. Also Sweden has been a socialist country for like a hundered years or so. In Sweden there is no law against forming a religous party and thus to have a religous government. But there is NO debate over christian values v.s. political right/left whatsoever and the christian party gets like 4% of the votes every year. A minority of the christians that is, since like 98% of the population is christian.

Okay, the questions:
Don't you think religion is used ONLY as a tactic by politicians?
Do you really think liberals or conservatives are different in the eyes of God?
If you where able to vote for a Christian party, - would you?

These are good questions. It's like the joke about Italian politics, vote Christian Democrat, because they are neither.

Comparing Swedish Christianity with that in the States is problematic. Here in the states there is a history of puritanism which thrives not only in the religious sphere, but in other social circles as well. Feminism for example in the states is no fun. It's puritan.

You have a mainly homogenous population, so even if there were a religious party most of the people in Sweden would have ties either to the religion or to people in the party. Not so in America which is divided into many subgroups by race, religion, economics, region, etc.

Whether Americans would vote for an openly religious party has already been answered. The Republican Party has done a very good job of being all things to all people. They have sold religion as politics very well. And people bought it repeatedly. The only reason they don't declare a specific religious affiliation is in order not to alienate potential voters. That's why they couch their religion in vague terms such as "family values" and so on. Also the abortion wedge issue works for them with the Catholic vote and the evangelical vote, two groups which don't have a lot of other things in common. They've been very shrewd with their religious marketing.