Liberals Godless? Not when faced with mortality..

[Gunny]

It is not human life. The blastocyst is an undifferentiated mass of cells which cannot even be determined to be of human origin without analyzing the DNA. Go and review a basic biology text before you make these silly assertions.

You are wrong, and while you may delude yourself by coming up with a catchy little dehumanizing, sterile, scientific name, the fact is that it is an unborn human being and NOTHING else.

There is NO right way to do the wrong thing.

 

[jillian]

You are wrong, and while you may delude yourself by coming up with a catchy little dehumanizing, sterile, scientific name, the fact is that it is an unborn human being and NOTHING else.

There is NO right way to do the wrong thing.

Actually, assigning the term "unborn human being" and ignoring the science is intended to elicit an emotional response.

Life exists on a continuum from the initial cells to the child. All are not equal.

 

[Gunny]

Actually, assigning the term "unborn human being" and ignoring the science is intended to elicit an emotional response.

Life exists on a continuum from the initial cells to the child. All are not equal.

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.

 

[CharlestonChad]

That embryonic stem cell research will ever lead to anything more than a mess on the laboratory floor is nothing but speculation. Creating human life to destroy it is WRONG, no matter WHAT justification you attempt to apply to it.

So then you must disapprove of the christian god because he creates human life only to destory it with disease, disaster, or famine.

 

[dilloduck]

So then you must disapprove of the christian god because he creates human life only to destory it with disease, disaster, or famine.

 

[Bullypulpit]

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 not "calling something what it is". You are simply assigning a designation that seemingly gives you the moral high ground when you have nothing of the sort. Essentially a straw-man argument.

In the end, the whole debate is really about control. Control over women and what they do with their lives by men who are terrified by women doing anything more than serving as baby-making machines.

 

[CharlestonChad]

www.bible.com

www.naturaldisaster.com

 

[GotZoom]

We agree that the taking of life is murder. When life begins is where we disagree. Murder has very specific statutory definitions which do not include in its terms a fertilized egg.

Where there is a heartbeat, there is life.

 

[jillian]

Where there is a heartbeat, there is life.

No heartbeat at the moment of conception, is there?

 

[GotZoom]

No heartbeat at the moment of conception, is there?

The heartbeat usually begins at 18 days.

And before you jump all over the moment of conception thing...

I believe life starts at conception. I simply stated that when there is a heartbeat, there is life.

Heartbeat = life; life does not necessarily equal heartbeat.

I would dare say that 99.9 percent of all abortions occur after day 18.

 

[CharlestonChad]

If life is said to begin at conception, then why the hell are so many people getting all worked up about ESC research, when they should be worried about morning after pills, which kill the fertalized egg. At least with ESCresearch the cells are put to good use.

 

[dilloduck]

If life is said to begin at conception, then why the hell are so many people getting all worked up about ESC research, when they should be worried about morning after pills, which kill the fertalized egg. At least with ESCresearch the cells are put to good use.

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

 

[Hagbard Celine]

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.

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."

 

[GotZoom]

An "unborn child," but not a fertilized egg. 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."

Issues...party of one....

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Issues...party of one....

Nice comeback.

 

[GotZoom]

Nice comeback.

Wow.

Ouch.

You told me.

I hope you fell better after your little tirade.

 

[5stringJeff]

Actually, assigning the term "unborn human being" and ignoring the science is intended to elicit an emotional response.

Life exists on a continuum from the initial cells to the child. All are not equal.

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?

 

[Gunny]

You are not "calling something what it is". You are simply assigning a designation that seemingly gives you the moral high ground when you have nothing of the sort. Essentially a straw-man argument.

In the end, the whole debate is really about control. Control over women and what they do with their lives by men who are terrified by women doing anything more than serving as baby-making machines.

Sideways, liberal, BULLSHIT argument. Talk about a strawman. It is neither about control nor relegating women to the role of baby-making machines. Besides the fact that it's a far-fetched, grasping-for-straws argument, it is irrelevant to the topic.

It's about a right to life and snuffing it out prematurely. And so long as you choose to champion the cause of the latter, I DO maintain the moral high ground, whether or not you like it and/or agree with it.

 

[Gunny]

So then you must disapprove of the christian god because he creates human life only to destory it with disease, disaster, or famine.

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

 

[Gunny]

If life is said to begin at conception, then why the hell are so many people getting all worked up about ESC research, when they should be worried about morning after pills, which kill the fertalized egg. At least with ESCresearch the cells are put to good use.

What good use? I have YET to see even ONE example of this so-called good use. This "hope" you keep proclaiming is nothing but pure speculation.