- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
The Pope — Page 5
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
I know Ratzinger is ok, but wouldn't it be freaky if a former nazi got himself to be Pope?
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
A poster claimed that homosexuality was unnatural. I mentioned the prevalence of homosexuality in animals to show that it is indeed natural. Not all male and female animals produce offspring, and many primate species are built on the notion that only one male out of like every five mates. Therefore, homosexuality has no bearing on the survival of the species.
I believe my last question was which orientation is BEST suited towards the propogation of the species. Which you did not answer. And at some point the male primate does mate with a female, correct?
Occurance in nature of homosexuality does not make the behavior prevelant. It's an abberation, the exception rather than the rule. Occurance of certain behaviors or physical mutations in nature does not mean the rest of the species will adopt those behaviors or will become mutated in the same manner as the others. For instance...there was a case in the last 5-6 years somewhere in the US (I can't remember where) of a large number of small frogs who were being born with only 1 leg. The people investigating could not identify an environmental cause (ie: No chemical pollution). This did not indicate a condition that would affect the rest of the species.
Quote
As for being “hard-wired” into a genetic makeup, well, I doubt my peacock has a homosexual gene. It simply likes roosters. I don’t know why, but the peacock’s happy and the rooster doesn’t seem to mind, so who does it harm?
Again, sexual habits/orientation are LEARNED. I did not say they were genetic. Refer to one of my previous posts...I said anyone who's ever taken Behavioral Psych 101 will say the same thing. That's why people who were formally homosexual have changed and become heterosexual. It does happen.
Quote
Bottom line: calling homosexuality "abnormal" is not a judgement based on any reality ... you're basing it on taste. You might also be basing it on an interpretation of the bible, but I think such interpretations are sketchy at best (re: was Sodom really destroyed because of homosexuality, or the fact that the townspeople wanted to rape an angel?). Now, if you're the sort of person who can't see behavioral similarities between mankind and the animal world ... have fun living in your oblivion.
No, actually I'm basing it on what is being proven...it's not genetic, it's not natural. It's learned. To observe your peacock and make the leap that the behavior is "prevelant in nature"...now who's living in oblivion?
Quote
Being pro-choice means that I believe every woman can make up her own mind if the cells in her body are conscious. After all, the cells will essentially be a parasite consuming the woman's resources for nine months if she so chooses. If the woman chooses not to provide the resources, the cells can not grow into a human being. If a woman chooses not to provide nourishment to her newborn child, the child can still live if someone else provides the nourishment.
So now it's a utilitarian consideration? Convenience trumps life?
Quote
Not all women think as I do, either. People are different... kinda like how some mothers believe her baby is smiling and other think the babe's just passing gas. It’s still good to have choices.
This is pure relativism, which is part of the larger problem. If one person considers the unborn child alive, and the other doesn't, it's ok to have an abortion? Perhaps you should watch the film "The Silent Scream" and tell me if the unborn child is alive.
Quote
Personally, I think the most responsible route to choose is that of birth control if one wants to experience sex without reproducing. I’ll also admit that late-term abortions when the mother’s life is not at stake leave me uneasy. Yet I don't believe abortion is especially irresponsible .... it's more responsible than bearing a baby you will not love and are not willing to provide care for.
You've heard of adoption, right? However, I too believe birth control is a good alternative. Partial birth abortion can never be justified. The entire basis for the anti-life position collapses under the weight of this issue. They cannot say that life begins at birth, and then have the "right" to terminate life at this point.
Quote
"Better off is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."
Assuming that life begins at birth, which is not the case...and this seems almost like the evil of abortion will somehow make the world a better place...
I was going to let this thread go....oh well.
http://ttrim.blogspot.com
- Time
- Post link
Quote
I don't believe a fetus is a baby
Cute. So when does it magically become a baby? At what point do you feel guilty of this bloodshed?
Quote
I don't believe it's a conscious human life
Explain the significance of this. It is human life. Deep down, you know it's human life. All these excuses to justify killing out of convenience.
Quote
I’ve said what I wanted to say here … y’all think abortion is murder. I don’t.
Let me spell it out for you.
1. Fetus is alive
2. If fetus has 47 chromosomes, fetus is human. This means human life. Not plant life, not reptile life...human life.
2. Fetus has done nothing wrong by existing; therefore fetus is innocent.
3. Abortion- aborts fetus. Ends fetus' life. Therefore kills fetus because it used to be alive.
4. Since fetus=innocent human life and abortion=end of innocent human life, abortion= murder.
So explain to us why abortion isn't murder? Give us some info. Is it because
1. The fetus isn't human; it's a purple monster
2. I don't like the sound of that word
3. It was the fetus' fault I had sex
4. My pet peacock told me so
Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
Well put, Jedi Sage.
4. My pet peacock told me so
LOL...I know it's a serious subject, but lol.
http://ttrim.blogspot.com
- Time
- Post link
Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
1. Fetus is alive
on this we agree.
Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
2. If fetus has 47 chromosomes,
not being a scientist or a doctor, I will have to take your word on this.
Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
2. If fetus has 47 chromosomes, fetus is human. This means human life. Not plant life, not reptile life...human life.
so just because it has 47 chromosomes means that is human life? I'll grant you it is turning into a human, but is it a human yet? That is still the question.
Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
3. Fetus has done nothing wrong by existing; therefore fetus is innocent.
agreed.
Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
3. Abortion- aborts fetus. Ends fetus' life. Therefore kills fetus because it used to be alive.
agreed.
Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
4. Since fetus=innocent human life and abortion=end of innocent human life, abortion= murder.
this would be true if your point number 2, "If fetus has 47 chromosomes, fetus is human. This means human life. Not plant life, not reptile life...human life. " were true. But how are we to know for certain?
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
hey guys i was jsut looking at a pic of the new pope, and is it jsut me or does he have an evil/sinister look to him.
I was saying the very same thing here... He's evil... I'm pretty sure he threatened the cardinals to vote for him at the conclave... And when one of them opposed, he just threw him into the fire and black smoke came out.
Jokes apart, yes, he's kinda evil.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleiteQuote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
hey guys i was jsut looking at a pic of the new pope, and is it jsut me or does he have an evil/sinister look to him.
I was saying the very same thing here... He's evil... I'm pretty sure he threatened the cardinals to vote for him at the conclave... And when one of them opposed, he just threw him into the fire and black smoke came out.
Jokes apart, yes, he's kinda evil.
Maybe he's Ian McDiarmid in disguise!
Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: WarblerQuote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
1. Fetus is alive
on this we agree.Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
2. If fetus has 47 chromosomes,
not being a scientist or a doctor, I will have to take your word on this.Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
2. If fetus has 47 chromosomes, fetus is human. This means human life. Not plant life, not reptile life...human life.
so just because it has 47 chromosomes means that is human life? I'll grant you it is turning into a human, but is it a human yet? That is still the question.Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
3. Fetus has done nothing wrong by existing; therefore fetus is innocent.
agreed.Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
3. Abortion- aborts fetus. Ends fetus' life. Therefore kills fetus because it used to be alive.
agreed.Quote
Originally posted by: Trooperman
4. Since fetus=innocent human life and abortion=end of innocent human life, abortion= murder.
this would be true if your point number 2, "If fetus has 47 chromosomes, fetus is human. This means human life. Not plant life, not reptile life...human life. " were true. But how are we to know for certain?
We know for certain because the child at ANY stage has every body part it will ever have, and has a DNA sequence that is separate and distinct from the mother.
Per one of my previous posts, human life should not be measured as a point of development within a species, it should be measured by being a member of a species. Trying to ascribe rights to someone based on a measure of their physical abilitiy, their iq, etc is dangerous because it would open the way to governments trying to deny rights to people who are in comas, or who have Parkinson's disease, or MS, or whatever.
http://ttrim.blogspot.com
- Time
- Post link
As for abortion, it is not discussed in the Bible because they never thought of it as an issue then. However, the Bible does try to indicate where life begins. In Psalm 51:5, David states, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother concieved me." and in Luke 1, Mary, pregnant with Jesus, visits her cousin Elizabeth, pregnant with John, and John leaps for joy in Elizabeth's stomach. You have to be alive in order to sin or be joyful.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: GlopOfGrease
I just wanted to add a few things to the discussion. If you are debating homosexuality and abortion in the context of religion, it is different than if you are debating domestic policy. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin(1 Corinthians 6:9). That does not mean that it should be outlawed or people should stone homosexuals. It does mean that homosexuals should not be clergy, or even members of the church. Christians are still called to love them, but there is a difference between loving a person and accepting that person's sin.
As for abortion, it is not discussed in the Bible because they never thought of it as an issue then. However, the Bible does try to indicate where life begins. In Psalm 51:5, David states, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother concieved me." and in Luke 1, Mary, pregnant with Jesus, visits her cousin Elizabeth, pregnant with John, and John leaps for joy in Elizabeth's stomach. You have to be alive in order to sin or be joyful.
Well said. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Although, I do believe a good argument can be made outside of the bible for both issues that would lead to abortion being outlawed and no recognition for gay marriage.
Asha quoted a verse from Exodus where it seemingly indicates a price had to be paid if an unborn child were to be killed as the result of a fight between men, or more broadly stated as the result of an accident involving more than one person. However, the verse in question does seem to put a lesser price on the life of the unborn child than it does the mother, in which case it calls for a punishment of eye for eye, tooth for tooth. This being said, Christians are no longer under Mosaic law, and Christ commanded during his sermon on the mount that eye for eye and tooth for tooth was no longer the way, but that anyone who committs murder or holds contempt for his fellow man is in danger of hell fire.
My take on this whole discussion is I got into it to explain why Christian churches believe the way they do. My point was that the churches that understand their faith and their doctrine base these decisions on biblical principals, and are thus bound to obey them. As I said previously, nobody is forcing anyone to belong to these churches. Trying to coercing them to change their rules because you disagree is a little Orwellian.
http://ttrim.blogspot.com
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
We know for certain because the child at ANY stage has every body part it will ever have,
I do not believe a fetus has every body part immediatly after conception. The body parts take time to develope.
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Per one of my previous posts, human life should not be measured as a point of development within a species, it should be measured by being a member of a species.
But when does the fetus become a member of the species human? does having the correct DNA and the correct number of chromosomes automatically make somthing a member of the species human? this is a very difficult question.
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Trying to ascribe rights to someone based on a measure of their physical abilitiy, their iq, etc is dangerous because it would open the way to governments trying to deny rights to people who are in comas, or who have Parkinson's disease, or MS, or whatever.
This point involving abortion is somthing I had not thought of before. It is a good point. This is a serious concern.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Han Solo VS Indiana JonesQuote
Originally posted by: ricarleiteQuote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
hey guys i was jsut looking at a pic of the new pope, and is it jsut me or does he have an evil/sinister look to him.
I was saying the very same thing here... He's evil... I'm pretty sure he threatened the cardinals to vote for him at the conclave... And when one of them opposed, he just threw him into the fire and black smoke came out.
Jokes apart, yes, he's kinda evil.
Maybe he's Ian McDiarmid in disguise!
I don't think I even need to translate it...
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
I will concede that adding together the multiple verses quoted would seem to indicate that the bible says abortion is sin.Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
We know for certain because the child at ANY stage has every body part it will ever have,Quote
I do not believe a fetus has every body part immediatly after conception. The body parts take time to develope.
The lack of certain body parts would not invalidate the fact that at some point the child would manifest these parts, or that the child is alive.Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Per one of my previous posts, human life should not be measured as a point of development within a species, it should be measured by being a member of a species.Quote
But when does the fetus become a member of the species human? does having the correct DNA and the correct number of chromosomes automatically make somthing a member of the species human? this is a very difficult question.
A physical body, in addition to the DNA, chromosones, ability to grow, etc is enough to warrant protection, if anything.Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Trying to ascribe rights to someone based on a measure of their physical abilitiy, their iq, etc is dangerous because it would open the way to governments trying to deny rights to people who are in comas, or who have Parkinson's disease, or MS, or whatever.
This point involving abortion is somthing I had not thought of before. It is a good point. This is a serious concern.
Pretty scary one too, considering what's going on in Europe with institutionalized euthenasia, and the push for it here.
http://ttrim.blogspot.com
- Time
- Post link
Papa = Pope in portuguese.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
The lack of certain body parts would not invalidate the fact that at some point the child would manifest these parts, or that the child is alive.
but it might invalidate the fact the the fetus is a child, depending apon your point of view.
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
A physical body, in addition to the DNA, chromosones, ability to grow, etc is enough to warrant protection, if anything.
that is your opinion. not everyone would agree.
would the devoloping cells immediately after conception be regarded as having a physical body?
does a frozen embryo have the ability to grow?
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: WarblerQuote
Originally posted by: JediSage
The lack of certain body parts would not invalidate the fact that at some point the child would manifest these parts, or that the child is alive.Quote
but it might invalidate the fact the the fetus is a child, depending apon your point of view.
No, life is life. There's no point of view involved. Regardless of whether or not someone considers the child alive, life is present (again, there isn't a reputable scientist/doctor on the planet would disagree with this). The child does not spontaneously change species in the middle of it's growth.Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
A physical body, in addition to the DNA, chromosones, ability to grow, etc is enough to warrant protection, if anything.Quote
that is your opinion. not everyone would agree.
I'm not sure what it would take besides what I stated above to grant the status of life to the child. If we fail to protect life, ESPECIALLY the defenseless, we're all doomed.Quote
would the devoloping cells immediately after conception be regarded as having a physical body?
If it's not physical, what is it?Quote
does a frozen embryo have the ability to grow?
A frozen embryo is by definition not experiencing the natural growth process. Would the embryo grow if it were allowed to continue inside the womb?
http://ttrim.blogspot.com