The Political Agenda of the Christian Right

[☭proletarian☭]

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

We already spent some 20 pages explaining this all to JD

go read it and stop being stupid

What - are you the last word on this or something?

No, but the medical authorities and definitions of words you don't know how to use are.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Did you have sex with the cleaning lady on your desk?

"Is that frowned upon here, I gotta say, I plead ignorance"

Must not have been very good if you can't remember whether you banged the cleaning lady or not.

 

[Coyote]

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

We already spent some 20 pages explaining this all to JD

go read it and stop being stupid

What - are you the last word on this or something?

No, but the medical authorities and definitions of words you don't know how to use are.

You still think this is all about the blood mixing thing?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

hat person is already born - is a person with rights.

So the rights come with birth?

At which point? How much of the body must leave the mother's before the child becomes a person with rights? 10% 20% What about the umbilical cord? The placenta? What fundamental aspect of the child's nature changes when you reach the magic number?

 

[Coyote]

hat person is already born - is a person with rights.

So the rights come with birth?

At which point? How much of the body must leave the mother's before the child becomes a person with rights? 10% 20% What about the umbilical cord? The placenta? What fundamental aspect of the child's nature changes when you reach the magic number?

There is no magic line but there are two competing sets of rights. At what point does one being's rights supercede the others?

Does a sperm have rights? It's one half of a new person. Does an egg? Does every ejaculation have to have a name? Is the right to life limited to human life only? What happens when two lives collide - who's right is greater?

 

[Charles Stucker]

What happens when two lives collide - who's right is greater?

The person with more total might, be it physical, economic or political, which can be brought to bear at the critical moment.

 

[DiamondDave]

hat person is already born - is a person with rights.

So the rights come with birth?

At which point? How much of the body must leave the mother's before the child becomes a person with rights? 10% 20% What about the umbilical cord? The placenta? What fundamental aspect of the child's nature changes when you reach the magic number?

There is no magic line but there are two competing sets of rights. At what point does one being's rights supercede the others?

Does a sperm have rights? It's one half of a new person. Does an egg? Does every ejaculation have to have a name? Is the right to life limited to human life only? What happens when two lives collide - who's right is greater?

A sperm is no more half of a person than a hair is... for it cannot develop into something more.... only the actual combination of genetic material needed in a fertilized egg can constitute a new life.... even if that genetic material is cloned material and not as a result of sperm, but when the egg is seeded with that genetic makeup and starts to develop, it is indeed a human life

As for who's lives are greater... no life is greater.. and when any choice about life must be made it is not about greater.. just as in the firefighter or conjoined twin scenario... it is tragic to take the life to save the life of another... but that is to save a life... not to alleviate an inconvenience

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Does a sperm have rights? It's one half of a new person.

Like a random piece of carbon is part human

 

[☭proletarian☭]

C needs to go read the other thread, especially where JD said everything he's saying and Cecile and I had to educate the twit

 

[Coyote]

So the rights come with birth?

At which point? How much of the body must leave the mother's before the child becomes a person with rights? 10% 20% What about the umbilical cord? The placenta? What fundamental aspect of the child's nature changes when you reach the magic number?

There is no magic line but there are two competing sets of rights. At what point does one being's rights supercede the others?

Does a sperm have rights? It's one half of a new person. Does an egg? Does every ejaculation have to have a name? Is the right to life limited to human life only? What happens when two lives collide - who's right is greater?

A sperm is no more half of a person than a hair is... for it cannot develop into something more.... only the actual combination of genetic material needed in a fertilized egg can constitute a new life.... even if that genetic material is cloned material and not as a result of sperm, but when the egg is seeded with that genetic makeup and starts to develop, it is indeed a human life

A hair will never develop into a human life. A sperm has the potential to under the right conditions. Just as, under the right conditions, a fertilized egg can implant, and develop into an embryo and eventually be born.

As for who's lives are greater... no life is greater.. and when any choice about life must be made it is not about greater.. just as in the firefighter or conjoined twin scenario... it is tragic to take the life to save the life of another... but that is to save a life... not to alleviate an inconvenience

Again. Is the life altering choice of giving birth to a baby and raising a child a mere "inconvenience" in your eyes?

 

[DiamondDave]

So you have a kid on a respirator totally dependent on others for nourishment, waste removal, respiration, etc... you devalue that life... go ahead and pull the plug so you can protest for the life of a murderer...

No. That person is already born - is a person with rights.

Life makes life valuable... a murder's decisions and actions to take the lives of others is the action of devaluing the life of others and of their own life.. they actions brought the consequences... the unborn dependent child developing within has hurt nobody and is not taking the life away from another... and if that developing child is indeed causing the mother's life to be in jeopardy, that decision is there for persons to make.... when the decision to terminate the developing life is made when there is not that mortal danger, it is just like any other choice to take any other innocent life

You are still basing the value of life not on life but on the subjective yardstick of "innocence". Does a person who has hurt nobody have a greater right to life thann a person who has hurt someone?

Otherwise you would oppose the death penalty because there is always the possibility that the person is indeed "innocent".

You devalue the dependent developing life... the murder devalues their life and the life of others and takes the lives of others.... you support protecting the vile, I support protecting the innocent....

We are both devaluing human life. Either all human life is sacred or we each apply our subjective yardstick which values some human life over others. The "vile" is also subjective. What is "vile" in one persons eyes might not be in another. Who determines "vile"?

And funny... even if I did not support the death penalty... you would still be supportive of selectively terminating the innocent developing life... the murder of convenience

Are you sure of that? See, what you don't realize Diamond Dave - I'm not attempting to make "innocence" the measure by which life is valued. I fully realize the contradictions of my position where as you can not see the contradictions in your own. And my position is still evolving and probably will as long as I live because there will always be some people will bring good points in debate, that provoke thought. This is by no means a simple ethical problem.

I fully take into account that a human life is being taken when eliminating a murderer... just as a cop has it in the back of the mind when killing someone in the line of duty.. but the elimination of murderers is the act of saving a life.... and the act of murder is tentatively saying that the person committing the murder is giving up their right to a life by taking the life of another... a sane society eliminates is maniacal murderers... a sane society does not take the life of an innocent

And it is still an innocent if it gets a traffic ticket, or throws a punch, or steal a gazillion dollars... we are talking mortal innocence here.... while I may find Bernie Ebbers a despicable and vile person, his life is still an innocent life and it is not a life that should be taken because he defrauded tons of people

What next?? The war excuse??

 

[Coyote]

C needs to go read the other thread, especially where JD said everything he's saying and Cecile and I had to educate the twit

The other thread is 51 pages of crap. If I'm going to read crap, then I would rather have it fresh and refute it (or agree with it) than dredge it from an old thread.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Again. Is the life altering choice of giving birth to a baby and raising a child a mere "inconvenience" in your eyes?

No, it rises above the level of mere inconvenience to absolute nightmare at times.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is no magic line but there are two competing sets of rights. At what point does one being's rights supercede the others?

Does a sperm have rights? It's one half of a new person. Does an egg? Does every ejaculation have to have a name? Is the right to life limited to human life only? What happens when two lives collide - who's right is greater?

A sperm is no more half of a person than a hair is... for it cannot develop into something more.... only the actual combination of genetic material needed in a fertilized egg can constitute a new life.... even if that genetic material is cloned material and not as a result of sperm, but when the egg is seeded with that genetic makeup and starts to develop, it is indeed a human life

A hair will never develop into a human life. A sperm has the potential to under the right conditions. Just as, under the right conditions, a fertilized egg can implant, and develop into an embryo and eventually be born.

As for who's lives are greater... no life is greater.. and when any choice about life must be made it is not about greater.. just as in the firefighter or conjoined twin scenario... it is tragic to take the life to save the life of another... but that is to save a life... not to alleviate an inconvenience

Again. Is the life altering choice of giving birth to a baby and raising a child a mere "inconvenience" in your eyes?

Wrong... a sperm can never develop into a life... only the complete genetic DNA makeup in a fertilized egg can be a life... now the genetic info, as stated before, than cloning has shown can be put into an egg without the typical egg/sperm combination... and that is still a human life, when developing in the womb

As stated, you ignorant dweeb, stating the term inconvenience is showing the situation of the person choosing to terminate a life when their life or the life of another is not threatened.. the choice in the vast majority of abortions is simply because they do not WANT to have the child... I.E. it is an inconvenience to THEM... though I count my children as a blessing, no matter how hard the task of raising them is and no matter how much I have to sacrifice for them (including my own life)

 

[☭proletarian☭]

A hair will never develop into a human life. A sperm has the potential to under the right conditions.

biology 101, dude

Just as, under the right conditions, a fertilized egg can implant, and develop into an embryo and eventually be born.

A fertilized egg has a human genome and, once the union is complete, constitutes a distinct organism unto itself. Sperm has no human genome and is not a distinct organism unto itself.

We spent 5 pages or so explaining to this in the other thread. Go read it.

 

[Father Time]

As for who's lives are greater... no life is greater

And yet you somehow think it's OK to take the life of someone if the state thinks they killed someone. So tell us what you really believe instead of spouting out platitudes

 

[Coyote]

I fully take into account that a human life is being taken when eliminating a murderer... just as a cop has it in the back of the mind when killing someone in the line of duty.. but the elimination of murderers is the act of saving a life.... and the act of murder is tentatively saying that the person committing the murder is giving up their right to a life by taking the life of another... a sane society eliminates is maniacal murderers... a sane society does not take the life of an innocent

But it happens. Look at death row exhonerations. If you value "innocent" human life, then you would not take an action that results the loss of a possibly innocent life.

And it is still an innocent if it gets a traffic ticket, or throws a punch, or steal a gazillion dollars... we are talking mortal innocence here.... while I may find Bernie Ebbers a despicable and vile person, his life is still an innocent life and it is not a life that should be taken because he defrauded tons of people

So you define "innocent" as those that who have not taken a human life?

What next?? The war excuse??

What war excuse?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Everyone has an agenda. Why single out Christians? Singling out Christians seems to represent an agenda in my opinion. Everyone has a right to promote their own agenda. It's the American way. This thread proves this.

 

[Father Time]

"but the elimination of murderers is the act of saving a life..."

Bullshit.

Once they're in jail or solitary confinement they are a threat to no one, when you kill them you do so only because you want to, not because you have any real need to do so.

 

[Father Time]

A sperm is no more half of a person than a hair is... for it cannot develop into something more.... only the actual combination of genetic material needed in a fertilized egg can constitute a new life.... even if that genetic material is cloned material and not as a result of sperm, but when the egg is seeded with that genetic makeup and starts to develop, it is indeed a human life

A hair will never develop into a human life. A sperm has the potential to under the right conditions. Just as, under the right conditions, a fertilized egg can implant, and develop into an embryo and eventually be born.

As for who's lives are greater... no life is greater.. and when any choice about life must be made it is not about greater.. just as in the firefighter or conjoined twin scenario... it is tragic to take the life to save the life of another... but that is to save a life... not to alleviate an inconvenience

Again. Is the life altering choice of giving birth to a baby and raising a child a mere "inconvenience" in your eyes?

Wrong... a sperm can never develop into a life

Sperm is all ready alive.