Religion on the Left and Right

[apple0154]

"The breath of life"...sounds like when a child exits the womb and takes it's FIRST BREATH...

Yes, it does.

Frequently people will say nothing major changes at the time of birth. They ask what great change takes place. Well, the proverbial slap on the ass to get the breathing started results in a redirection of blood flow. A valve closes at the heart directing the blood flow to the lungs. Veins previously carrying blood to certain organs shut down and atrophy creating "bungee cords" that help hold the organs in place. The "being" goes from a liquid environment to a gaseous one.

I don't know what "major" means to some people but I've suggested they take a fish out of water and watch what happens. And then tie off a vein stopping blood flow to a part of their body and observe the result. Maybe then they'll understand the meaning of "major" change.

 

[apple0154]

And when the "righteous man" runs out of arguments, he resorts to the same old ad homs.

Oh yeah...show us how a REEEEEAL Christian acts, aren't ya Bravo!

He doesn't have a rebuttal. The anti-abortionists jumped on the "science" wagon before looking to see where it was going. Their argument is that a fertilized cell is an organism and contains human DNA so it must be a human being falls apart when it's shown 50% of fertilized cells can not carry on the functions of life and that's a requirement of an organism.

 

[apple0154]

An organism is clearly defined in science. You apparently need education on that. The fetus meets the criteria for an independent living organism, it certainly meets every scientific definition. Your argument is, once it no longer "carries on" the process, but we agree, when it no longer carries on the process, it is no longer a living organism. Cells didn't "fake" being a living organism, if there were cells, there was a living organism, again... science is fairly clear on this. Something does not have to live a certain amount of time to be living, it just has to begin the process of life... then... it is living! The process may end at any time... a nanosecond, a month, a year, 120 years... but the process of life begun, you can't pretend it didn't and be supported by science. If you wish to tell yourself something else, I don't blame you, it's hard to live with what you are doing in the name of vanity and convenience, to the most precious and innocent life of all... yeah, I'd be running from the facts myself, if I held such heinous views.

First, I was talking about fertilized cells. A fertilized cell is not necessarily an organism as an organism has to be able to "carry on" the processes of life. Science is in it's infancy regarding fertilized cells. We do not know exactly what is required to carry on the processes of life and common sense tells us if 50% of fertilized cells die within hours/days then they were unable to carry on those processes. This is not a big leap. It's logic. It's rational thinking.

We know babies have been born with the most hideous defects so it's reasonable to conclude fertilized cells also are subject to defects, defects so major they can not be considered organisms because they are unable to carry on the processes of life. After we eliminate the actions of the mother and other possible reasons cells may spontaneously abort the logical conclusion is the cell was defective. Defective to a degree it could not carry on the functions of life which negates it being an organism.

Your assumption every fertilized cell has the necessary components to be considered an organism is based on nothing, not even common sense, due to the fact 50% of them do not carry on life.

 

[NOVA]

Yes, it does.

Frequently people will say nothing major changes at the time of birth. They ask what great change takes place. Well, the proverbial slap on the ass to get the breathing started results in a redirection of blood flow. A valve closes at the heart directing the blood flow to the lungs. Veins previously carrying blood to certain organs shut down and atrophy creating "bungee cords" that help hold the organs in place. The "being" goes from a liquid environment to a gaseous one.

I don't know what "major" means to some people but I've suggested they take a fish out of water and watch what happens. And then tie off a vein stopping blood flow to a part of their body and observe the result. Maybe then they'll understand the meaning of "major" change.

wow...so its your contention that a valve closes and presto chango, a human is created ?
Or is it a valve closes and presto chango , what was dead is now alive.....?

Thats a hell of a breakthrough in the science of biology....
Or is it a valve closes but because the newborn cannot reproduce, its not an organism.....?

and the fish story...double wow....take the fish out of water as what ....it changes into a cow ?.....
cut him into little pieces and he becomes sushi...??

You know food intake changes too, and the asshole begins to work, and the kid gets vocal.....amazing stuff....
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not about morality, religion, or 'cheapening' a human being.....those are not biologic issues....

A fertilized egg, if left to grow and develop in a healthy environment will grow, be born, age, and die all by itself as nature designed.......there is no end product unless a process is started.

There is not a point at which a switch is thrown, or a spark ignites, or angels begin to sing, to denote a human is created......we decide that in an arbitrary manner for our own purpose....

It is what it is from start to finish, beginning to end, ....no matter what you name it, and no matter how many die during their stages of growth and development....time is irrelevant to the biology......an event starts the process of life until it dies for whatever reason....

It doesn't matter whether you pick out 1 second after fertilization, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, at birth, at 5 years of age, 20 years of age , or 50 years of age.....they are all arbitrary moments established for our own gratification and purpose and not scientific events.....they certainly are stages of growth.....

The process is biological, it begins, ages, and dies......whether the life lasts 1 sec.. 1 day, 5 days or 500 years......

If it were not for the fact that killing a human is the underlying issue that some refuse to acknowledge, their would be no issue.....I don't debate abortion, I can't control how many die or at what stage of life you kill.....what I refuse to do is deny what is done....ending a human life....its legal, at and before a certain age, I have no power to change that and wouldn't if I did have the power....

 

[apple0154]

a

I could sit here and argue with some spaced out ass from the "Flat Earth Society" and argue the shape of the earth all day to no avail...
There comes a time to give it up....all the posts, proof, and debate in the world won't make a Mensa candidate out of an idiot like Apple....(sorry Apple)
and I've reached that time to give it up....

The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, and intelligence,... etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

Yes, conduct, character, motives and intelligence are very important and one has to question those very things whenever anyone advocates forcing a woman to bear a child. For example, in 1869, Napoleon of France made a deal with the Pope whereby the Emperor would acknowledge papal infallibility in exchange for the Pope declaring abortion a sin as France was running out of young men to send to the slaughter of war. Truly a deal made in Hell.

 

[NOVA]

Yes, conduct, character, motives and intelligence are very important and one has to question those very things whenever anyone advocates forcing a woman to bear a child. For example, in 1869, Napoleon of France made a deal with the Pope whereby the Emperor would acknowledge papal infallibility in exchange for the Pope declaring abortion a sin as France was running out of young men to send to the slaughter of war. Truly a deal made in Hell.

Thats a moral/social problem and not MY moral/social problem....you social engineers that can't your noses out of other peoples business can deal with that....
its irrelevant to the biology of human life.....

 

[apple0154]

Nope. God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living being. The child in the womb is already receiving the oxygen from the mother. The scripture is explaining creation, not birth.

The Bible also recounts breathing in the breath of life after men had been dead 3 days. You must have missed my previous post. As for the fetus receiving oxygen the Bible makes it clear the breath of life is through the nostrils. The Bible even goes as far as to compare the breath of life to smoke in the nostrils.

Do some research.

 

[NOVA]

The Bible also recounts breathing in the breath of life after men had been dead 3 days. You must have missed my previous post. As for the fetus receiving oxygen the Bible makes it clear the breath of life is through the nostrils. The Bible even goes as far as to compare the breath of life to smoke in the nostrils.

Do some research.

Interesting....do you take the literal word of the Bible as fact in all cases or only in those cases when it dovetails with your biased beliefs ?....
You don't think the earth is 7000 years old or something do you.....?
But you do like that idea of air up the nostrils as something you can cling to, literally ....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

First, I was talking about fertilized cells. A fertilized cell is not necessarily an organism as an organism has to be able to "carry on" the processes of life.

Again, you are clinically, scientifically, and biologically WRONG! An organism is defined by science, neither you or I can arbitrarily assign our own interpretation to the term, it means what science says it means, and we have to go by that. What you keep trying to argue is, since in some cases the cells (or organism) stops functioning in that capacity, they can't be counted as "living" and I agree, AFTER the cells stop living, they are no longer a living organism. That doesn't change the fact they WERE living and WERE living organisms before they died. The fact they DIED should tell your ignorant ass that.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

But religious conservatives seem to want them to

but they only seem that way to dimwitted liberals....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Are you trying to claim God breathed life into Adam but that He doesn't breath life individually into each and every child of His?

.

which of course doesn't mean that God doesn't consider them His until they start breathing.....you're entire approach to this argument is exceedingly lame....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Are you certain there's no such thing as reincarnation?

You know...reincarnation...as in, "ANOTHER chance at life"?

Simply provide some proof to the contrary and I'll take your word that we only get "one chance at life".

so you're argument is, we ought to kill the unborn to give them a headstart on their second chance?........

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I don't know what "major" means to some people but I've suggested they take a fish out of water and watch what happens.

It doesn't stop being a fish, does it? And when it finally dies from being out of the water, that doesn't mean it wasn't ever a fish, does it?

 

[Alias]

The Bible also recounts breathing in the breath of life after men had been dead 3 days. You must have missed my previous post. As for the fetus receiving oxygen the Bible makes it clear the breath of life is through the nostrils. The Bible even goes as far as to compare the breath of life to smoke in the nostrils.

Do some research.

The breath of life GOD breathed into Adam was God's Spirit at Creation, not oxygen like it is referring to in the parts you mentioned. You do some research and study the scriptures and keep them in context.

Now tell us if the egg is a human egg and the sperm is a human sperm or not. Thanks.

 

[apple0154]

Do you seriously demand that I need proof debating a nitwit of the "Flat Earth Society"....
I need no proof....Appel the Pinhead is the one that must prove his ridiculous logic....
The logic that claims the mentally handicapped are less than human.....
The logic that claims lack of reproductive ability makes you not a organism....
The logic that claims taking a breath transforms a fetus from dead to alive or nothing to human being....
Screw you clown...

You talk about logic. Extrapolate your logic to every day life. Roasted eggs sold as B-B-Q chickens. Apple seeds sold as apples. The local plant nursery selling acorns as oak trees. Try ordering scrambled chickens and bacon for breakfast the next time you're out.

Obviously we can't get through to you so share your views with the rest of the world and then come back and tell us about your experience. Deal?

 

[apple0154]

It doesn't matter if 100% of them "abort" if they are "aborting" the process of LIFE they WERE ALIVE! Doesn't matter what happens to them after that. You keep making the same bonehead argument that since something died it was never alive to begin with, and that is beyond retarded.

You still don't understand. I'll give it one more try.

Sperm and egg are alive. They join. Rather than creating a unique organism something goes wrong and the resulting "product" starts to deteriorate/die. There was no unique organism formed. What formed was faulty.

If a unique organism had formed it would have carried on the processes of life but it didn't. Considering half of all such "products" spontaneously abort it's ludicrous to conclude the joining of sperm and egg, the fertilization of the cell, always results in an organism.

With what part of that are you having difficulty understanding?

 

[apple0154]

The egg is a human egg and the sperm is a human sperm. If you don't believe that, then tell me which species they belong to.

Yes, they are both human but that doesn't mean their joining always produces a human being. The reality is half of the "products" formed can not carry on the functions of organisms.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You still don't understand. I'll give it one more try.

Sperm and egg are alive. They join. Rather than creating a unique organism something goes wrong and the resulting "product" starts to deteriorate/die. There was no unique organism formed. What formed was faulty.

therefor, we ought to kill those that do survive and form a unique organism before they have a chance to be born and suffer........

 

[apple0154]

wow...so its your contention that a valve closes and presto chango, a human is created ?
Or is it a valve closes and presto chango , what was dead is now alive.....?

My contention is the changes that happen at birth are major. Just the fact the "entity" can go from a liquid environment to a gaseous one in a matter of seconds and survive is nothing short of astonishing. If we could take an "entity" living in a liquid environment or an "entity" living in a gaseous environment and switch environments and that "entity" lived it would rock the scientific world. Of course, there's none we know about because if any could it would not be considered the same "entity".

If a fish could live on land it wouldn't be considered a fish. If a mammal could breathe under water it wouldn't be a mammal.

and the fish story...double wow....take the fish out of water as what ....it changes into a cow ?.....
cut him into little pieces and he becomes sushi...??

As explained above if it lived out of water it wouldn't be a fish. The fact something can live out of water tells us it isn't a fish.

Did you take any biology courses, at all?

This is not about morality, religion, or 'cheapening' a human being.....those are not biologic issues....

Quite the contrary. Abortion is about morality, religion, 'cheapening' a human being and the attempted ownership/slavery of women.

A fertilized egg, if left to grow and develop in a healthy environment will grow, be born, age, and die all by itself as nature designed......

Except, of course, those 50% that spontaneously abort. Did you forget about them?

There is not a point at which a switch is thrown, or a spark ignites, or angels begin to sing, to denote a human is created......we decide that in an arbitrary manner for our own purpose....

In that case the fertilizing of a cell is an arbitrary call and it's a call that affects the freedom of half the human population and is the last point we should consider.

It is what it is from start to finish, beginning to end, ....no matter what you name it, and no matter how many die during their stages of growth and development....time is irrelevant to the biology......an event starts the process of life until it dies for whatever reason....

In that case the sperm and the egg are stages. If we're going to consider the merging of them as a start to something we can just as easily consider birth as the start to something and considering it's easier to determine the time and place of birth as opposed to the time and place of the combining of sperm and egg it makes much more sense to use birth as the defining point.

It doesn't matter whether you pick out 1 second after fertilization, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, at birth, at 5 years of age, 20 years of age , or 50 years of age.....they are all arbitrary moments established for our own gratification and purpose and not scientific events.....they certainly are stages of growth.....

It does matter. How do we know if a fertilized cell has the necessary components to carry on the processes of life? The answer is we don't know but we do know 50% of them spontaneously abort. It's reasonable to conclude, minus any extenuating circumstances, many of them do not have the ability to carry on the processes of life.

The process is biological, it begins, ages, and dies......whether the life lasts 1 sec.. 1 day, 5 days or 500 years......

I agree. However, the life of a human being begins at birth. The ability to change from a liquid environment to a gaseous one is a fundamental change. As I stated previously if a fish was discovered to be able to live on land and breath in a gaseous atmosphere it would no longer be classified as a fish. The opposite is true of mammals. Such an "entity" would be considered a different organism.

If it were not for the fact that killing a human is the underlying issue that some refuse to acknowledge, their would be no issue.....

But no human being is being killed. Some people insist on classifying something that is not a human being as a human being. Of course problems are going to arise. Bizarre, weird, unsolvable problems because it's a fabricated issue. It is based on part science, part religion, part beliefs while none of those prove anything.

All DNA does it let us know a fetus is composed of human material just like a kidney or liver. It does not nor can not tell us if something is a human being. As for religion...well, not much need be said after knowing about the deal between Napoleon of France and the Pope in 1869 and as for beliefs people can believe anything they wish, right or wrong.

 

[apple0154]

Interesting....do you take the literal word of the Bible as fact in all cases or only in those cases when it dovetails with your biased beliefs ?....
You don't think the earth is 7000 years old or something do you.....?
But you do like that idea of air up the nostrils as something you can cling to, literally ....

The point is the "breath of life" could be a euphemism but euphemisms are not generally detailed. If it was meant to be a euphemism it's doubtful the author would have continued with nostrils, etc. As for taking the Bible as fact I submit that for the benefit of those who do.