A great first step to ending Abortion!

evince said:
because its not human


it has no soul


it has no heart



it has no penis


it has no womb



it has no real meaning



all it contains is the evil ideas of its Russian programmer
Click to expand...

YOU ARE WRONG! And disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself! I suspect you had an abortion, and so must defend it. Turn to Jesus for forgiveness, and embrace life.
 
Oneuli said:
OK. So then you accept that you defied Jesus and risked hell fire with your words? What made you do that?
Click to expand...

your logic sucks as much as your morals......I accept you're a worthless lib'rul cunt that wants to kill babies......what makes you do that?......
 
Oneuli said:
By definition, if one life is exactly the same as the other, then we're only talking about a single life, not two.
Click to expand...
Yes, we are talking about a single life.

Oneuli said:
If the two differ (e.g., one has been born and one hasn't), then they are, by definition, not exactly the same.
Click to expand...
Correct, their qualities at one time are different than their qualities at another time, but the life itself is one in the same.

Your life right now is the exact same life that was inside your mother's womb starting at conception. You were once that little zygote, that little fetus, etc. etc... It's the same life, just at a different point in development (like how a butterfly is that same caterpillar, just in a different stage of development). I'm curious as to why you value human life at certain stages of development over other stages... Why do you value human life as an adult, as a teenager, as a pre-teenager, as a child, as a toddler, as an infant, but NOT as a fetus, embryo, or a zygote? It's all part of the same process; it's all the same exact life...

Oneuli said:
I'm puzzled how you could fail to understand a truism that's as simple as "when two things differ in some respect, they're not exactly the same." I'm not sure how to argue with someone who can't even grasp that.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they are the same in appearance/etc... I'm saying that they are the same life force... If a human life is special at the infant stage, why not at the fetus stage?

It all comes down to people wanting the pleasure of sex without wanting the responsibility of raising children... It's morally abhorrent...

Oneuli said:
No, not all of us. Fetuses, obviously, don't. Neither do embryos, even if they're human embryos. Nor clumps of fat cells, even if they're clumps of human fat cells. Or corpses. Or the irreversibly braindead. It's the mind that gives rise to a right to life.
Click to expand...
And those things all have the same mind you speak of, just at a different stage of development...

Oneuli said:
How would you define conception?
Click to expand...
The very moment that the man's sperm and the woman's egg join together.

Oneuli said:
It's impossible to, say, measure the motion of every particle on Earth simultaneously, if that's what you mean. However, what we can do is take a vast number of readings of the atmosphere and oceans, all around the world, and intelligently deduce whether there's been a net heating of the overall system.
Click to expand...
We don't have near enough instrumentation (and neither is it uniformly spaced and simultaneously read) to accurately accomplish this...

Oneuli said:
And, it turns out, there has: on an astronomical scale.
Click to expand...
Argument From RandU Fallacy... random numbers are not data.

Oneuli said:
We know with a high degree of confidence what's behind the majority of that warming, in the last couple centuries: humans burning mind-boggling amounts of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
We do not use fossils for fuel. They do not burn very well. We DO make use of various carbon based fuels, however...

Oneuli said:
Falsifiable theories are a part of science. Even to get to the point of theories, though, you have ideas, hypotheses, revisions, etc. Science doesn't start and end with falsifiable theories.
Click to expand...
Actually, it does. It starts with a theory, that theory gets tested against a null hypothesis, and then ends with that theory becoming (and remaining) a theory of science so long as it continues to withstand null hypothesis testing...

Oneuli said:
That's not a theory, in the scientific sense of the word. More information:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory-usage
Click to expand...
False Authority appeal to Merriam Webster ignored on sight. The word 'theory' doesn't change in meaning because of science. It holds the same meaning of "an explanatory argument".

Oneuli said:
Was it a lousy school or did something happen to diminish your brain function at a later time?
Click to expand...
False Dichotomy Fallacy.

Oneuli said:
For someone who likes to throw logic terms around, you have not even made an attempt to understand the terms. That's not a true Scotsman fallacy.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was. You were appealing to purity.

Oneuli said:
No. Religion is belief in the absence of any supporting evidence.
Click to expand...
Under that definition, Atheism is a religion. Correct? If not, then define "evidence"...

Oneuli said:
As you know, there's not a shred of evidence to support the idea of Jesus as a supernatural Savior being.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is... Apparently you operate under a MUCH different definition of evidence than I do... The Bible is evidence of such a notion... So is life itself. So is the vast number of Christians across the world. So is the vast number of theistic religions... I could go on and on, but the point has been made.

Oneuli said:
That's what makes it a religious notion.
Click to expand...
No... The initial circular argument that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is" is what makes it a religion...

Oneuli said:
By comparison, the idea that there was an historical Jesus can be approached more scientifically, since there's some historical evidence to support that idea, and it's testable in a real-world way (probably not testable enough to ever be definitively established, but at least enough that it can influence a reasonable person's perception of how probable it is to be true.)
Click to expand...
Nope, it can't be approached by science. It must be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.

Oneuli said:
They can be falisfied, they just haven't been, yet, despite massive attempts to attempt to do so. What makes you think natural selection has?
Click to expand...
Because it is arguing a paradox. Natural Selection argues that an organism exists because it is best suited to exist out of the variety available. However, why DOES the variety exist? Natural Selection would tend to REDUCE variety, not increase it... The logical conclusion of the natural selection theory would be a single organism (the "perfect selection"), unable to produce any variety at all. In essence, it reduces the very differences it itself needs to select from...

The other falsification is the existence of traits in various animals which do not help those animals survive, such as albino varieties. Since those varieties exist, the theory of natural selection is falsified, as it only takes one example of such a trait to falsify the theory.

Oneuli said:
It's neither hateful or bigoted. I actually feel a lot of sympathy for the know-nothings. Life in the cave is pathetic and I wish them the best luck in making their way out into the world.
Click to expand...
Yes, it WAS bigoted. Bigotry is an error of logic. It is the Compositional Error Fallacy, but involving people as the class. Racism would be bigotry which involves a genetic trait as the property, such as skin color... People seem to think that bigotry involves intolerance... It need not involve ANY intolerance...

Oneuli said:
Science is a method -- a method that starts long before you get to a point of a theory.
Click to expand...
Science is NOT a method. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

Oneuli said:
We know it with a high degree of confidence. Experts put that degree of confidence well over 90%.
Click to expand...
Random numbers dismissed on sight...

Oneuli said:
AGW is, however, rejected by right-wing dummies, for reasons of political faith.
Click to expand...
No, it is rejected because it rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

LOGIC: it rejects logic because it is argumentation based on a circularly-defined buzzword. Circular definitions do not work; they are meaningless. Any argumentation based upon them result in void arguments.

SCIENCE: It rejects the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law. AGW attempts to make heat flow backwards, rejecting the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold, NOT from cold to hot. A colder CO2 molecule can NOT heat a warmer surface. AGW also attempts to simultaneously reduce radiance of Earth AND increase temperature of Earth. This rejects the stefan boltzmann law, which states that radiance and temperature are directly proportional. AGW also attempts to reduce entropy, which violates thermodynamics... Entropy can only increase or stay the same in an isolated system; it cannot be reduced.

MATHEMATICS: It rejects mathematics because it thinks that global temperature can be accurately measured. NASA makes use of around 7,500 thermometers, so I will use that number here. Let's also, for argument's sake, say that those thermometers are uniformly spaced and simultaneously read (they are NOT). Now, Earth has an area of around 197 million sq miles, so that would mean one thermometer per approx. 26,266 miles, or an area around the size of West Virginia. Can the temperature of West Virginia be accurately read with a single thermometer? I don't think so... Why is that? Well, that is because of the range and variance of temperature... Temperature is known to have a range of approx. 262 deg F, known to vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile and 49 deg F per two minutes. In order to get a thermometer per sq mile, you would need about 200 MILLION thermometers, and that would leave you with a margin of error of approx. +-10deg F... still not incredibly accurate, but at least able to form a beginning point for measuring... 7,500 thermometers is NOT 200 million thermometers...

BUT, but what about magickal satellites?!?!?!? Satellites do not measure absolute temperature. They measure light. One would need to take those light measurements and convert them into temperatures via the stefan boltzmann law. The issue there is that we do not know what the emissivity of Earth is. We do not know how much light is a result of Earth's radiance nor how much is a result of other reflections, such as sunlight and starlight... Thus, it creates a chicken and egg problem... In order to figure out the emissivity of Earth, we first need to know the temperature of Earth, which is what we are trying to figure out to begin with...
 
"Why do you value human life as an adult, as a teenager, as a pre-teenager, as a child, as a toddler, as an infant, but NOT as a fetus, embryo, or a zygote"

Because the former has higher brain function and the latter doesn't? Because the former doesn't require the use of another person's body functions to survive and the latter does?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Don't you think it's amusing though how some Xtians use that verse in Leviticus to condemn homosexuality -- and the ppl who are gay -- yet disregard all the other prohibitions in that chapter?
Click to expand...
My thought is that homosexuality was probably condemned because homosexual relationships don't produce offspring, and a primitive warlike society depends on a constant supply of warm bodies for its survival.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Grumpy said:
If Adolph would have had Oneuli he wouldn't have needed Goebbels. She will support and try to justify every liberal idea real or imagined.
Click to expand...
You, of course, mean that she's very effective at shooting down conservative fantasies.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
I don't think it should be a policy. I don't wish to compel people to practice it. I'm suggesting that people ought to follow it, however, especially if they wish to avoid pregnancy and etc. until they are ready.
Click to expand...
It makes more sense to promote contraception and such, rather than to insist that the only way to be safe is to not do what people are going to do anyway.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
I don't have to justify my belief to you in any way.


Argument From Ignorance Fallacy. Remember, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence... Lack of evidence is not a proof.


It could be argued that the being already HAS done so...


Or so you believe... It can't be proven or disproven, however... You can only accept/reject religion on a faith basis.


Yup, they believe that he's done so.
Click to expand...
You're just proving that religion depends entirely on the absence of evidence. Reason itself for any rational being to avoid it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes, you are.


Yes, a fetus IS a person. A fetus is a living breathing soul. It has as much right to life as you or I...


What about them??
Click to expand...

The Exodus verse demonstrates that the fetus has no right to life and has no value except to the parents. The other verse demonstrates, again that the fetus has no right to life and that there's no biblical prohibition against abortion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
No, it doesn't. Not at all...

"Judicial power" (as pertaining to the USA) is SCOTUS and other inferior courts, as laid out in Article 3 Section 1... It is not the 'power to interpret'... Stop adding language into the Constitution which isn't there...
Click to expand...
You clearly have no idea what "judicial" means. You are steeped in dogma and are unable to deal with reality.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
evince said:
a fetus does not breath

why did you lie about that


I thought lying was against your chosen religion?



God gave that woman a womb


god gave her the choice over her own body


god did not give you the right to tell her what to do with that womb



That is your own religion


you don't get to order others around because you chose a certain religion



If you hate the founders and our government of freedom then move out of this nation
Click to expand...
And God performs abortions all the time. But we don't call them that. Instead, we call them miscarriages.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
It pays attention to both, actually... I think you are operating under much different definitions that I am for those words.

Religion is NOT theism, although theism is a part of what religion entails. Religion is best defined as "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it". A circular argument (ie, "circular reasoning") is best defined as "an argument which concludes with its initial predicate".

A fact is an assumed predicate. That's all a fact is. Facts are meant to speed up conversation, as arguments don't have to be formed about a predicate which is already agreed upon.

Evidence is "any statement which supports an argument". Thus evidence is, essentially, a predicate.

Hopefully those definitions make it clearer as to the logic behind how those things all relate to each other...


Faith is not mindless. It requires a mind to formulate it and to accept/reject it.

Faith is simply another word for circular reasoning, as I have defined above.

Your belief that no god(s) exist is dependent entirely upon "mindless" faith... It is a religious belief. You criticize precisely what you YOURSELF are doing...
Click to expand...
You point out that religion is a logical fallacy, then complain about those that don't fall for your fallacy.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
Yup, I've been trying to teach her what science, religion, faith, evidence, facts, etc. etc. are, but she truly is unwilling to learn, unwilling to consider a viewpoint different from her own dogma...
Click to expand...
You have your own dogmatic beliefs about all of that.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top