Religion on the Left and Right

If you could ask a human fetus and they could answer you, do you think any of them would be okay with legal abortion?

Don't want to think about it, do you!

Interesting hypothetical. Actually, I've given it considerable thought. Let's say you tell a fetus they would be born into poverty to alcoholic parents and be regularly beaten. Or maybe be born to a drug addicted mother. Or maybe be born and neglected resulting in them being a ward of the State and ending up with adoptive parents who couldn't give a damn about them. Or maybe born into lower middle class with both parents struggling to avoid poverty thereby working all the time and neglecting them resulting in them joining a gang and ending up as an accomplice to a serious crime and spending 10 years in prison.

I would think more than a few would be very happy to avoid a life of misery. Wouldn't you?
 
(Excerpt)Chemical Uniqueness. Fertilized eggs possess their own unique DNA from conception. (End)

Or unique DNAs. Fertilized cells can possess two types/sets of DNA just as people can possess two distinct types/sets of DNA.

(Excerpt) Possession of a genetic program. Francis Beckwith (1994) confirms that from conception, the fertilized egg has "its own unique genetic code." The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the genetic information that will ever be needed. (End)

BUZZ!!! Wrong. If that was the case sick babies wouldn't be born. Babies with defective immune systems, for one. Or those born with illnesses which result in children dying before they reach kindergarten age. And, of course, there's the thousands of fertilized eggs that spontaneously abort. And then there's the embryos and fetuses that miscarry. Unless by the author stating, "The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the genetic information that will ever be needed", he means that's all that's needed to live a day or a month or maybe three months after conception before spontaneously aborting.

I'd say that's being short changed. What say you?

So whats your point ?.....Yeah you're being "short changed".....
You're being short changed if you get hit by a truck at one week old too....
You're being short changed if you get hit by a truck at 99 years old....

and what this ??
The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the genetic information that will ever be needed. (End)

BUZZ!!! Wrong. If that was the case sick babies wouldn't be born. Babies with defective immune systems, for one.

Do you believe that the genetic information mentioned will keep you healthy all your life.....will keep you from getting sick.....

WTF are you talking about..????
 
I'm speaking of things that you have no idea of and clearly you do not understand biblical righteousness. Stick to topics you understand. Thanks.

I know of morals, ethics, christianity, world religions and, of course righteousness. Stop pretending you know when you clearly do not. I have read the bible and was brought up and educated as a christian, my family is christian and my children we also educated as christians, hence my statement about conscious rejection.
My son, like me, has rejected belief in a deity while my wife and daughter cling to their beliefs. As I love them both I will not destroy their faith since it seems to give them comfort.
As a fundementalist bigot, you deserve all the insults and punishments that man can heap on you because all you and your kind do is divide. Christianity should be a force for unification, to you it is an excuse for illogical hatred.
Righteousness? You have absolutely no idea! Jesus? He'd be well advised to kick you in the bollocks and talk to those who deserve his care.
 
I know of morals, ethics, christianity, world religions and, of course righteousness. Stop pretending you know when you clearly do not. I have read the bible and was brought up and educated as a christian, my family is christian and my children we also educated as christians, hence my statement about conscious rejection.
My son, like me, has rejected belief in a deity while my wife and daughter cling to their beliefs. As I love them both I will not destroy their faith since it seems to give them comfort.
As a fundementalist bigot, you deserve all the insults and punishments that man can heap on you because all you and your kind do is divide. Christianity should be a force for unification, to you it is an excuse for illogical hatred.
Righteousness? You have absolutely no idea! Jesus? He'd be well advised to kick you in the bollocks and talk to those who deserve his care.


You reject Christianity and God altogether and have the balls to preach to another that his beliefs should be a force for unification...???

Are your morals, ethics, religion and, righteousness the very same that others all over the world adhere to.....???
 
You really should quit trying to make me look stupid because you're only making a case against yourself. You're in over your head. I keep telling you that, but your arrogance keeps you going.

Who do you think you are to presume to know the bounds of my knowledge? You know nothing of me but what you guess. The arrogance you speak of is your own.
 
You are taking the CREATION of man and then applying that to reproduction. That's deception and twisting of scripture, something the left does, but not very well when someone knows the scriptures.

That's quite a deception you have there, but you forgot something....... The mother breathes and gives oxygen to the child. You also forgot this scripture.......Jeremiah 1:5 ""Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

God says HE knows us even before HE FORMS US IN THE WOMB.

Your turn.

Of course he knows us. The scriptures say he forms us. There is the body and then there is the soul/spirit. God knows the spirit. Do you think if God wants a spirit to be born he is going to place it in a fetus and take a chance a woman may abort or suffer an injury or take medication resulting in a grossly deformed baby?

As for "The mother breathes and gives oxygen to the child" the Bible makes it clear the breath of life is through the nostrils. Not oxygen through an umbilical cord. Rev 11:11 makes that clear.

There is a process. We are formed and at the right time the spirit enters like a breath through the nostrils. The breath of life. It's stated the same way, over and over, and there is no breath in the womb.

Your turn.
 
Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for Homosexual debauchery. Scripture says so.

God destroyed the evil so they would not infect the rest of humanity as a lesson, but the mind of man being stupid like a liberal's went ahead and joined themselves because man is disobedient and gives in to the flesh instead of the Sprit. Same thing today.

Two cities destroyed. Surely there were children. Why would God destroy children if not due to faulty DNA?
 
Lot. Lot and his family were spared and told to get out so they did. Actually no righteous were found there because they were all destroyed and even Lot's wife because she looked back. The lesson there is don't turn back to evil.

Me thinks God erred when he saved Lot's daughters unless getting the old man drunk and committing incest is Godly.
 
You reject Christianity and God altogether and have the balls to preach to another that his beliefs should be a force for unification...???

Are your morals, ethics, religion and, righteousness the very same that others all over the world adhere to.....???

They are all based upon man, his experiences, his aims for peace and survival. They are not based upon the 2000 year old superstitions written by those who would exploit, and excused by the existence of an imaginary fairy. I do not know what the rest of the world thinks or does. I do know that religion 'tends' to offer comfort to those who do not understand the world and I am prepared to allow that. BUT should one christian, should one jew, should one moslem judge others by their decision to plough their own furrow then I will attack. And, believe me, the secular armoury is vastly superior to imaginary friends and tin soldiers.
 
Of course he knows us. The scriptures say he forms us. There is the body and then there is the soul/spirit. God knows the spirit. Do you think if God wants a spirit to be born he is going to place it in a fetus and take a chance a woman may abort or suffer an injury or take medication resulting in a grossly deformed baby?

As for "The mother breathes and gives oxygen to the child" the Bible makes it clear the breath of life is through the nostrils. Not oxygen through an umbilical cord. Rev 11:11 makes that clear.

There is a process. We are formed and at the right time the spirit enters like a breath through the nostrils. The breath of life. It's stated the same way, over and over, and there is no breath in the womb.

Your turn.

Two cities destroyed. Surely there were children. Why would God destroy children if not due to faulty DNA?


You don't realize your posts border on the insane ?...its literally nuts to post that nonsense and claim to actually believe it....

and liberals fear the nuttiness of Pat Robertson....?....and its you we have to fear......you're quite off you rocker, dude...
 
They are all based upon man, his experiences, his aims for peace and survival. They are not based upon the 2000 year old superstitions written by those who would exploit, and excused by the existence of an imaginary fairy. I do not know what the rest of the world thinks or does. I do know that religion 'tends' to offer comfort to those who do not understand the world and I am prepared to allow that. BUT should one christian, should one jew, should one moslem judge others by their decision to plough their own furrow then I will attack. And, believe me, the secular armoury is vastly superior to imaginary friends and tin soldiers.

You're just as fuckin' crazy as any Jim Jones or David Koresh.....and just as dangerous to those around you.....you and apple should be roommates in the nearest lunatic asylum...
 
REFUTED. PWNED. AGAIN!

I asked, "How many and/or to what degree does a chromosome have to be defective before we can conclude something is not a human being?" and you replied, "Doesn't matter."

That's precisely where the problem lies. It does matter. At least according to anti-abortionists who go on about DNA. DNA is composed of chromosomes, therefore, some criteria has to be met.

Anti-abortionists claim a fetus is a human being as it is an organism so let's look at the definition of organism. "An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal."

Now let's take look at Tay-Sachs disease. It is a severe genetic disease of the nervous system that is nearly always fatal, usually by three to four years of age.....The disease continues to progress rapidly through the first years of life, with seizures and increasing paralysis. The child eventually progresses to a completely unresponsive vegetative state."

So, we can definitely say a fetus and/or child dying before 5 years of age can not and never will reproduce. We can also say that because the child progresses to a "unresponsive vegetative state" it can not react to stimuli. At that point does the child no longer qualify as an organism? Considering it was predetermined by it's DNA that it would never reproduce does that mean it never was an organism? Does it become a non-human or was it always a non-human?
 
(Excerpt)Chemical Uniqueness. Fertilized eggs possess their own unique DNA from conception. (End)

Or unique DNAs. Fertilized cells can possess two types/sets of DNA just as people can possess two distinct types/sets of DNA.

(Excerpt) Possession of a genetic program. Francis Beckwith (1994) confirms that from conception, the fertilized egg has "its own unique genetic code." The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the genetic information that will ever be needed. (End)

BUZZ!!! Wrong. If that was the case sick babies wouldn't be born. Babies with defective immune systems, for one. Or those born with illnesses which result in children dying before they reach kindergarten age. And, of course, there's the thousands of fertilized eggs that spontaneously abort. And then there's the embryos and fetuses that miscarry. Unless by the author stating, "The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the genetic information that will ever be needed", he means that's all that's needed to live a day or a month or maybe three months after conception before spontaneously aborting.

I'd say that's being short changed. What say you?

If the thousands of eggs spontaneously aborted, logic dictates they had to "abort" from some process. The process is known as the process of life. Your OWN definition and depiction of events is evidence that something is alive and growing, and then stops that process... There is no argument from me, that once the organism stops the process of living, it is no longer a living organism.

he means that's all that's needed to live a day or a month or maybe three months after conception before spontaneously aborting....I'd say that's being short changed. What say you?

If it lives for a microsecond, it was alive! What the fuck is wrong with you? You keep saying over and over, that it IS ALIVE... A LIVING ORGANISM... then it DIED.... and you somehow think that because it eventually died, it was never alive to begin with, which is FALSE! --IT CAN'T DIE UNLESS IT LIVED FIRST, DUMB SHIT!
 
I asked, "How many and/or to what degree does a chromosome have to be defective before we can conclude something is not a human being?" and you replied, "Doesn't matter."

That's precisely where the problem lies. It does matter. At least according to anti-abortionists who go on about DNA. DNA is composed of chromosomes, therefore, some criteria has to be met.

Anti-abortionists claim a fetus is a human being as it is an organism so let's look at the definition of organism. "An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal."


Got your definition a little screwed up there loonie....
or·gan·ism (ôr
prime.gif
g
schwa.gif
-n
ibreve.gif
z
lprime.gif
schwa.gif
m)n.
1. An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

Thats quite different than using the word 'reproduce' in the way you did.....
therefore the remainder of your stupid post is bogus




Now let's take look at Tay-Sachs disease. It is a severe genetic disease of the nervous system that is nearly always fatal, usually by three to four years of age.....The disease continues to progress rapidly through the first years of life, with seizures and increasing paralysis. The child eventually progresses to a completely unresponsive vegetative state."

So, we can definitely say a fetus and/or child dying before 5 years of age can not and never will reproduce. We can also say that because the child progresses to a "unresponsive vegetative state" it can not react to stimuli. At that point does the child no longer qualify as an organism? Considering it was predetermined by it's DNA that it would never reproduce does that mean it never was an organism? Does it become a non-human or was it always a non-human?
,


You're claiming that mules aren't organisms because they are sterile and unable to reproduce...

silly notion, isn't it ?
 
Interesting hypothetical. Actually, I've given it considerable thought. Let's say you tell a fetus they would be born into poverty to alcoholic parents and be regularly beaten. Or maybe be born to a drug addicted mother. Or maybe be born and neglected resulting in them being a ward of the State and ending up with adoptive parents who couldn't give a damn about them. Or maybe born into lower middle class with both parents struggling to avoid poverty thereby working all the time and neglecting them resulting in them joining a gang and ending up as an accomplice to a serious crime and spending 10 years in prison.

I would think more than a few would be very happy to avoid a life of misery. Wouldn't you?

Nope. I would say let me live because this is my only chance at life and I'll struggle and try to overcome the bad things but at least I will have the opportunity.

How about you?
 
So whats your point ?.....Yeah you're being "short changed".....
You're being short changed if you get hit by a truck at one week old too....
You're being short changed if you get hit by a truck at 99 years old....

and what this ??
The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the genetic information that will ever be needed. (End)

BUZZ!!! Wrong. If that was the case sick babies wouldn't be born. Babies with defective immune systems, for one.

Do you believe that the genetic information mentioned will keep you healthy all your life.....will keep you from getting sick.....

WTF are you talking about..????

I'm talking about the following. “Possession of a genetic program. Francis Beckwith (1994) confirms that from conception, the fertilized egg has "its own unique genetic code." "The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the genetic information that will ever be needed.” That is an excerpt from Dixie’s link. http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm, The Definition of Life:Can the fertilized egg be included?

Anti-abortionists like to jump on the so-called scientific wagon when it comes to DNA saying DNA proves something is a human being and Dixie posted a link that states, “The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the genetic information that will ever be needed.”

That is false. In many cases there is either missing or defective genetic material that results in spontaneous abortion or children dying at a very young age. Therefore, those fertilized cells do/did not contain “all of the genetic information that will ever be needed.”

A human fertilized cell is supposed to develop into a human being capable of carrying on the functions of life and being able to reproduce. Those are necessary requirements for something to be classified as an organism and it is necessary for something to be classified as an organism before it can be classified as a human being. When genetic material is missing or defective the object in question can not carry on the processes of life and those missing/defective elements were present at the time of conception, meaning all the necessary material was not present.

If one wants to take a purely scientific view, as many anti-abortionists like to hang their argument on, then a child who develops tay-sachs disease does so due to defective genes at the time of conception. The necessary “genetic information that will ever be needed” in order to be classified as an organism and, thus, a human being is missing. (ie: The ability to carry on the processes of life and reproduce.)Therefore, neither the fertilized egg nor the child can not be classified as a human being, according to the criteria espoused by the author of the article and by most anti-abortionists.
 
Take a moment to think about this... The foundation and principles of Liberalism are all rooted and steeped in fundamentals closely related to Christianity. The humanity, caring, giving, helping the needy... all tenants of Christ's teachings. In fact, Liberals often lament that "Jesus was a Liberal." Almost everything about liberalism, comes directly from the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus Christ, it is found in every liberal argument and every liberal initiative. Health Care... we are supposed to be Christ-like and help the sick... it's the fundamental foundation to everything Liberal. But isn't it odd and bizarre, that Atheists and Agnostics most often are Liberals? At the same time, we are constantly told how evil and greedy the Right is, how they don't care about helping those in need, they are always looking to cut funding for some social program or 'do-good' work the liberals have established.... the diametric opposite of Christ-like behavior! Yet..... most devoutly religious people are Republicans. Isn't that strange?

Why is this the case? Why are most of the non-religious Atheist anti-God crowd, also Liberals... while, the religious zealots and fanatics are mostly Conservatives? It would seem, by the party policies and principles, it should be the other way around. It would make sense if Atheists and Agnostics weren't interested in helping the needy, didn't care if school kids starved, or old people had to eat dog food.... and it would seem that Christians and religious faithful, would be more inclined to want to be Christ-like and benevolent to the needy. It's strange and odd that it's the other way around, don't you think?

Oh now, before you all jump in on this, let me clarify, I am not speaking in absolutes by any means, don't take it that way. I know there are a LOT of religiously faithful people who vote Democrat, and certainly, there are many secular republicans... but in general, the religious tend to stick to the right and the non-religious tend to flock to the left... statistics will bear this out. That said, I thought it would make an interesting thread topic, to explore why there is such a strange conundrum in politics.

My take is this... I think Liberals, many times, will replace their spiritual faith in a God, with faith in Government. In short, Government becomes their God and Liberalism becomes their religion. Religious people already have a God and Religion, so they don't see government in this role. Where Liberals believe Government bestows blessings on the needy, Religious conservatives believe this is God's purpose, not Government.

Still... it is strange and odd that Godless Atheists and Agnostics would flock to a political ideology so closely tied to Christian philosophy.

If our government is 'of the people, by the people and for the people' and our country is founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs; shouldn't our government reflect those beliefs?

"Our sense of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply religious faith, and I don't care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that all men are created equal."
Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech to the Freedoms Foundation in New York
 
You don't realize your posts border on the insane ?...its literally nuts to post that nonsense and claim to actually believe it....

and liberals fear the nuttiness of Pat Robertson....?....and its you we have to fear......you're quite off you rocker, dude...

When I encounter people who believe in a God who destroyed entire cities of men, women and children because the citizens involved themselves in homosexual activities I can understand how they would have little concern over people unable to afford proper medical care and their support of wars that result in thousands of innocents dying.
 
If the thousands of eggs spontaneously aborted, logic dictates they had to "abort" from some process. The process is known as the process of life. Your OWN definition and depiction of events is evidence that something is alive and growing, and then stops that process... There is no argument from me, that once the organism stops the process of living, it is no longer a living organism.



If it lives for a microsecond, it was alive! What the fuck is wrong with you? You keep saying over and over, that it IS ALIVE... A LIVING ORGANISM... then it DIED.... and you somehow think that because it eventually died, it was never alive to begin with, which is FALSE! --IT CAN'T DIE UNLESS IT LIVED FIRST, DUMB SHIT!

Please educate yourself. A human being has to fulfill the requirements of an organism which is, in part, the ability to carry on the processes of life. "Carry on" are the key words. Defective cells may simulate the act of carrying on the processes of life but, in reality, they are not.
 
You're confusing me with your guilty conscience, Mr. Christian. Your argument is with your God, not me. I didn't write the scriptues.

No. You didn't write the scriptures. Some men wrote the scriptures, unless you think God sat an ancient typewriter and churned out text after text. You merely distort, and fail to understand what you read. I wouldn't dare put my eggs in the basket of a crazy person. My brain and discernment have served me well, lo, these 58 years. And my argument is not with God, but with people who claim to know him better than I, or that I can't read and interpret scripture (would be the word) for myself.
There are many faiths, all believing different things. I don't subscribe to your version of faith and religion. And therein lies the rub.
You don't talk or act like any Christian I know....therefore, I believe you to be a false Christian, and thus, having no credibility, insight, or wisdom to impart. You'd do better being quiet, instead of ejecting your diarrhea all over the forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top