The Political Agenda of the Christian Right

[Coyote]

There is no doubt that an embryo is a biological human. There is no other species it could be. But just because it is a human doesn't give it value only potential. Until it can survive seperate from the mother, it is part of her and it's rights are less than hers.

If it were only a part of her it would only have her genetic signature

Where do you get that definition from?

It shares her blood, oxygen, nutrients and waste removal systems. The cruder would call it a parasite. It is not yet a person in it's own right with rights equal to her.

 

[txlonghorn]

It's a question I cannot answer with certainty...as if I knew the image of God. As the scripture reads...man was created in God's image. Some say that the image of God isn't a reference to an appearance, but more the spirit of Him. So, I don't know. Not sure why it would be that we couldn't have been created in the form we are today, unless it's just to support the evolution process. I guess we could have been monkeys at one time...but why not just become the planet of the apes? Why the necessity to evolve and co-exist with primates today?

I can't say that I take the entire Bible literally. There are many parts that are open to interpretation.

Then could it be that the part that says man was created in the image of God is one of those parts that is open to interpretation? And if there is such an opening, why should that part be taught as if it were true science?

Evolution is a theory that seems to be hard to wrap your mind around if all you are willing to believe is the Biblical story. Many Creationists take the false view that apes and mankind are on the same straight path of evolution and therefore the theory is invalid. Why are there still apes if primates evolve?

Well, understanding the dynamics of evolution involves understanding the process not as linear, but much more diverse. Like the branches of a tree. They splay out in every direction.

So I ask the question again...why adapt? Why evolve at all? Why not just stay in the form as God created it? Or as nature's accident created it? And if that reason is because of adaptation to surroundings, climates, etc., then why are we concerned about planet change? Won't we just evolve further?

 

[DiamondDave]

There is no doubt that an embryo is a biological human. There is no other species it could be. But just because it is a human doesn't give it value only potential. Until it can survive seperate from the mother, it is part of her and it's rights are less than hers.

If it were only a part of her it would only have her genetic signature

Where do you get that definition from?

It shares her blood, oxygen, nutrients and waste removal systems. The cruder would call it a parasite. It is not yet a person in it's own right with rights equal to her.

Oh... it is dependent on her system... just as an infant is, to survive... but it is not just her genetic makeup.. it has it's own genetic signature... Someone could call a nursing infant a parasite too, and part of the mother.....

Innocent human life is innocent human life.... developing, dependent or otherwise.. and should be protected and not just thrown away like yesterday's flat soda....

Nice to see you can designate which innocent humans can have their rights taken away

And while there are hard decisions, like when a firefighter has to choose one person out of 2 to save when he can only save 1 or when a doctor may have to sacrifice one conjoined twin to give the other a chance to survive when if left together both will die; it does not mean that the life not threatening another or not in danger should be expunged without even a second thought... so yes, to save a mother in severe medical crisis, a developing child might have to be removed from the womb... and it is tragic and generally unavoidable... but that does not mean that because of that tough decision in that rare case, that all unborn can just be terminated at the drop of a hat

 

[☭proletarian☭]

There is no doubt that an embryo is a biological human. There is no other species it could be. But just because it is a human doesn't give it value only potential. Until it can survive seperate from the mother, it is part of her and it's rights are less than hers.

If it were only a part of her it would only have her genetic signature

Where do you get that definition from?

It shares her blood, oxygen, nutrients and waste removal systems. The cruder would call it a parasite. It is not yet a person in it's own right with rights equal to her.

Let me google that for you

This has been covered before

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be.html

 

[DiamondDave]

And psssssssssssstttt... the blood of the fetus does not mix with the blood of the mother... it does not 'share' her blood... but nice try

 

[Coyote]

And psssssssssssstttt... the blood of the fetus does not mix with the blood of the mother... it does not 'share' her blood... but nice try

Her blood removes the fetus' waste - sharing doesn't necessarily mean "mixing".

 

[Coyote]

If it were only a part of her it would only have her genetic signature

Where do you get that definition from?

It shares her blood, oxygen, nutrients and waste removal systems. The cruder would call it a parasite. It is not yet a person in it's own right with rights equal to her.

Let me google that for you

This has been covered before

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be.html

From your own source:

The mom's blood carries nutrients and oxygen to the placenta, where they are picked up by the baby's cord and carried to the baby. The baby carries waste products (like carbon dioxide) to the placenta, where the mom's blood picks them up and carries them away.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

And psssssssssssstttt... the blood of the fetus does not mix with the blood of the mother... it does not 'share' her blood... but nice try

Her blood removes the fetus' waste - sharing doesn't necessarily mean "mixing".

They don't share blood at all. They each have their own blood supply.

The foetus shares the mother's blood and nutrients like you share your air with Earth and the nearest tree.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Where do you get that definition from?

It shares her blood, oxygen, nutrients and waste removal systems. The cruder would call it a parasite. It is not yet a person in it's own right with rights equal to her.

Let me google that for you

This has been covered before

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be.html

From your own source:

The mom's blood carries nutrients and oxygen to the placenta, where they are picked up by the baby's cord and carried to the baby. The baby carries waste products (like carbon dioxide) to the placenta, where the mom's blood picks them up and carries them away.

So you're pointing out that the source debunks your claim and then you're trying to declare yourself correct?

 

[DiamondDave]

And psssssssssssstttt... the blood of the fetus does not mix with the blood of the mother... it does not 'share' her blood... but nice try

Her blood removes the fetus' waste - sharing doesn't necessarily mean "mixing".

They don't share blood at all. They each have their own blood supply.

The foetus shares the mother's blood and nutrients like you share your air with Earth and the nearest tree.

My god.. I almost choked on crab soup.... It's so hard to say... you...... are....................... right

LOL

 

[Coyote]

Oh... it is dependent on her system... just as an infant is, to survive... but it is not just her genetic makeup.. it has it's own genetic signature... Someone could call a nursing infant a parasite too, and part of the mother.....

A nursing infant is dependent on another human for nurture, but an embryo is dependent on the mother for life itself. Anything could happen from reabsorption to abortion whether natural or planned. It represents potiential for an indipendent life, not a life yet. I believe that makes a difference. Traditionally in many religions and cultures an unborn human was not granted full rights as a person, until it took it's first breath.

Innocent human life is innocent human life.... developing, dependent or otherwise.. and should be protected and not just thrown away like yesterday's flat soda....

Innocent is highly subjective. Why should "innocent" be the determining factor on whether a life should be allowed to live? It either has value because it's a life - or it doesn't.

Part of the problem though is who's life is more important and who's rights. You have competing sets of "rights": the unborn embryo and the mother bearing it. Up to the point where the baby can survive outside the mother (or maybe earlier, when there are brain waves) the mothers rights predominate. After that point, I think the come close to equalizing but I do not think the unborn baby's rights should ever exceed that of the mother's right to life.

Nice to see you can designate which innocent humans can have their rights taken away

As do you it would seem.

And while there are hard decisions, like when a firefighter has to choose one person out of 2 to save when he can only save 1 or when a doctor may have to sacrifice one conjoined twin to give the other a chance to survive when if left together both will die; it does not mean that the life not threatening another or not in danger should be expunged without even a second thought... so yes, to save a mother in severe medical crisis, a developing child might have to be removed from the womb... and it is tragic and generally unavoidable... but that does not mean that because of that tough decision in that rare case, that all unborn can just be terminated at the drop of a hat

I do not think many choose to terminate a pregnancy at the "drop of a hat". That is about as accurate a generalization as the opposite claim that pro-lifers want to control a woman's body and don't care about her life. I think it's a difficult decision for many women, but no else one has the right to make that decision for them because it is her body, her life - not yours or mine. My personal feeling is that abortions should be rare and we, as a society, should do everything we can to support potential mothers and help them through whatever the difficulties may be. If they opt for abortion, it is their right and their decision because they are the ones that have to live with any consequences.

 

[Coyote]

Let me google that for you

This has been covered before

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be.html

From your own source:

The mom's blood carries nutrients and oxygen to the placenta, where they are picked up by the baby's cord and carried to the baby. The baby carries waste products (like carbon dioxide) to the placenta, where the mom's blood picks them up and carries them away.

So you're pointing out that the source debunks your claim and then you're trying to declare yourself correct?

No. I'm pointing out that sharing doesn't necessarily mean mixing. But whatever. The mother's blood does interact with the baby.

 

[DiamondDave]

From your own source:

So you're pointing out that the source debunks your claim and then you're trying to declare yourself correct?

No. I'm pointing out that sharing doesn't necessarily mean mixing. But whatever. The mother's blood does interact with the baby.

Just as your exhalation interacts with my exhalation... you're wrong on this.. every aspect of it.. and you're backpedaling like a sonofabitch

 

[Coyote]

Come to think of it...there does seem to be some mixing of blood...because otherwise you would not have the issue of Rh disease.

During any pregnancy a small amount of the baby's blood can enter the mother's circulation. If the mother is Rh negative and the baby is Rh positive, the mother produces antibodies (including IgG) against the Rhesus D antigen on her baby's red blood cells. During this and subsequent pregnancies the IgG is able to pass through the placenta into the fetus and if the level of it is sufficient, it will cause destruction of Rhesus D positive fetal red blood cells leading to development Rh disease. It may thus be regarded as insufficient immune tolerance in pregnancy. Generally Rhesus disease becomes worse with each additional Rhesus incompatible pregnancy.

 

[Father Time]

Oh and if you want to teach ID then it shouldn't be in science class because it isn't science.

no?....i would think that a "God" would need to know a HELL OF A LOT about Science to create things ...especially living things....try it sometime....see how it goes....

You cannot make a single experiment or method that would prove or falsify the existence of God so it's not science.

 

[Coyote]

So you're pointing out that the source debunks your claim and then you're trying to declare yourself correct?

No. I'm pointing out that sharing doesn't necessarily mean mixing. But whatever. The mother's blood does interact with the baby.

Just as your exhalation interacts with my exhalation... you're wrong on this.. every aspect of it.. and you're backpedaling like a sonofabitch

My life is not dependent on your exhalation. There is considerable difference. Your exhalation does not feed me or remove wasteproducts from my body.

 

[DiamondDave]

Oh... it is dependent on her system... just as an infant is, to survive... but it is not just her genetic makeup.. it has it's own genetic signature... Someone could call a nursing infant a parasite too, and part of the mother.....

A nursing infant is dependent on another human for nurture, but an embryo is dependent on the mother for life itself. Anything could happen from reabsorption to abortion whether natural or planned. It represents potiential for an indipendent life, not a life yet. I believe that makes a difference. Traditionally in many religions and cultures an unborn human was not granted full rights as a person, until it took it's first breath.

Innocent human life is innocent human life.... developing, dependent or otherwise.. and should be protected and not just thrown away like yesterday's flat soda....

Innocent is highly subjective. Why should "innocent" be the determining factor on whether a life should be allowed to live? It either has value because it's a life - or it doesn't.

Part of the problem though is who's life is more important and who's rights. You have competing sets of "rights": the unborn embryo and the mother bearing it. Up to the point where the baby can survive outside the mother (or maybe earlier, when there are brain waves) the mothers rights predominate. After that point, I think the come close to equalizing but I do not think the unborn baby's rights should ever exceed that of the mother's right to life.

Nice to see you can designate which innocent humans can have their rights taken away

As do you it would seem.

And while there are hard decisions, like when a firefighter has to choose one person out of 2 to save when he can only save 1 or when a doctor may have to sacrifice one conjoined twin to give the other a chance to survive when if left together both will die; it does not mean that the life not threatening another or not in danger should be expunged without even a second thought... so yes, to save a mother in severe medical crisis, a developing child might have to be removed from the womb... and it is tragic and generally unavoidable... but that does not mean that because of that tough decision in that rare case, that all unborn can just be terminated at the drop of a hat

I do not think many choose to terminate a pregnancy at the "drop of a hat". That is about as accurate a generalization as the opposite claim that pro-lifers want to control a woman's body and don't care about her life. I think it's a difficult decision for many women, but no else one has the right to make that decision for them because it is her body, her life - not yours or mine. My personal feeling is that abortions should be rare and we, as a society, should do everything we can to support potential mothers and help them through whatever the difficulties may be. If they opt for abortion, it is their right and their decision because they are the ones that have to live with any consequences.

Ahhh.. arguing with you on this is like clubbing a baby seal.. you are indeed clueless

1) A nursing infant would simply die, and quickly, if not TOTALLY dependent on the mother for ALL aspects of life except respiration.... and even with respiration, without a mother to prevent choking from spitting up or being face down, the infant is dependent on the mother

2) Innocent is not highly subjective... It s what it is... your mantra of 'value' is subjective... for there are plenty social parasites that many people would deem without value....

3) I did not advocate taking away the life of any innocent human... you did... nice try

4) If a woman's life is in danger from the pregnancy... I am indeed concerned.. the motherfucking fact is that in the VAST majority of abortions, the mother's life in not in danger.. it is inconvenienced

Much like a lefty with views on selective equality.. the views of selective value to an innocent life are also prevalent

 

[rdean]

The agenda of Christian conservatives is relatively limited and they believe that much of it can be accomplished through the federal courts. Broadly speaking, their agenda is as follows:

They want to control the right of women to have abortions.

They want to ban all forms of gay marriage.

They want to prevent the teaching of safe sex in schools and to encourage home schooling.

They want to ban the use of contraceptives.

They want to halt stem cell reserach using human embryos.

They want to stop the teaching of evolution and/or to start the teaching of intelligent design.

They want to bring God into the public square and eliminate the separation of church and state.

They want to overturn the legality of living wills.

They want to control the sexual content of cable and network television, radio and the Internet.

They want to eliminate an "activist" judiciary that limits or impinges on their agenda by placing God-fearing judges on the bench who will promote their sincerely held beliefs.

From "Conservatives Without Conscience" by John W. Dean (p. 109)

I don't know about y'all, but this doesn't sound too good to me.

Comments?

Wow.. where do we begin to debunk this crapola??

They wish to protect innocent human life... whether that life inconveniences you or not

Some wish to ban gay marriage.. but others wish to support civil unions or to get the government out of the marriage business

Encouraging home schooling as a choice is a bad thing in a free society??

They wish to encourage the involvement of parents into the sex education of minors and that is a bad thing? They wish to teach that no sex is safe sex and that is a bad thing? They don't want a bunch of lefty teachers telling them that sex is OK and right when they are under age, even against the parents wishes, and that is a good thing??

They want to ban contraceptives?? Show this in proof.

They wish to stop harvesting of human lives for scientific research... Last I heard human experimentation was frowned upon when we heard of the experiments of ones such as Mengele

Nobody wants to stop teaching scientific theories such as evolution, or other things. Just not the use of theories to try and offend the beliefs of others, and just to also teach that there are indeed othe rtheories about the emergence of life.

THERE IS NO MOTHERFUCKING SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, you ignorant leftist swine... try and understand what your rights and the limitations of government actually are

Show proof of making living wills illegal as supported by the entire 'christian right'.. we'll be waiting

Public decency laws are indeed supported.. for some people do believe (christian and otherwise) it is nice to have it that your children don't have to be exposed to anal sex acts in public or obscene behavior on public tv at 6PM dinner, etc... some people indeed, and rightfully so, don't necessarily want anarchy in public displays

More phony accusations by you and/or the author as a winger about judges and about a belief of an entire group

Sigh!

Magical creation is not a theory. Scientific theories are based on existing data.
You can lead a horse to water, but you........

 

[Charles Stucker]

The agenda of Christian conservatives is relatively limited and they believe that much of it can be accomplished through the federal courts. Broadly speaking, their agenda is as follows:

The agenda of Leftist Liberals is relatively limited and they believe that much of it can be accomplished through the federal courts. Broadly speaking, their agenda is as follows:
Tax
Spend

There fixed it for ya

 

[rdean]

Oh and if you want to teach ID then it shouldn't be in science class because it isn't science.

no?....i would think that a "God" would need to know a HELL OF A LOT about Science to create things ...especially living things....try it sometime....see how it goes....

You cannot make a single experiment or method that would prove or falsify the existence of God so it's not science.

You also can't prove that at the exact center of a the moon lies a single "Chicken McNugget". So, how likely is it that at the exact center of the moon, there lies a single "Chicken McNugget"? The exact same likelihood of a "magical Gawd".