• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

My take on the abortion issue.

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
jallman said:
First and foremost, I am not distressed at all since my argument still has the backing of the Supreme Court. But let me point something out to you. In the above posts, I accepted the information from my own source. I, in no way rejected that information, as you would believe. And it is not only my opinion that human life does not begin at conception...it has basis in hard science that is quantifiable and qualifiable. This is something you have, thus far, been unable to provide to back your opinion. Show me an undeniable life activity in a zygote that is shared with a late term fetus. This invocation of secular science was, after all, your challenge to start with.

As for my acceptance of my own source...I accept my own source fully. There were how many other views on when human life begins in my source in contrast to your conception argument? And besides, within your own quotation, I bolded further sections which refuted your argument...let me repeat...within your own quote from a source I handed you. I am simply stating, if you have nothing left to offer except drivel and quotations of song lyrics that have nothing to do with anything we are discussing, then the debate has ended with you failing to meet the burden you placed upon your opponent. In effect, you have defeated yourself, so I can't even claim credit. A pity, because I was really boning to win this one on my own merit.
As surprising as this may be to some people, there is no debate within the medical community as to when life begins. Life begins at conception. Therefore, every "succesful" abortion ends the life of a living human being.

Consider the testimony below from several leading embryology text books.

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."


Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."


Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

These books are available through Amazon.com in the event that you would like to test your opinion against them.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In all reality guys, let me offer you this "hypothetical" scenario: what if a female is raped? Should she conceive? Or does she, as I believe, have the right to abort the child? Let's drop our primitive, dreary, out-dated religious beliefs here. Condemning science (abortion) is a crime against humanity.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
posted by Fantansa;
"....A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm..."

I would like to interject a foot note:
"a Human Being" in the exact legal definition of "Person".
http://dictionary.law.com
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
kal-el said:
In all reality guys, let me offer you this "hypothetical" scenario: what if a female is raped? Should she conceive? Or does she, as I believe, have the right to abort the child? Let's drop our primitive, dreary, out-dated religious beliefs here. Condemning science (abortion) is a crime against humanity.
This is the classic "what if".

Think about it.

How many rapes occur each day in the US?

Treatment received by victims of rape virtually ensures that no pregnancy will occur. In the event that some few do occur, contrast them to the four thousand abortions which occur every day. Staggering odds, wouldn't you say?

The child is an innocent party. Why kill it? Let it live. Let it be born. Let it be offered for adoption.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
In all reality guys, let me offer you this "hypothetical" scenario: what if a female is raped? Should she conceive? Or does she, as I believe, have the right to abort the child? Let's drop our primitive, dreary, out-dated religious beliefs here. Condemning science (abortion) is a crime against humanity.

Huh...lets keep this a level playing field. If I can not observe religion then you can not observe science.
Deal?
I do not condemn abortion as a crime because of science. I condemn it because of faith. If Kasyade had not defied God and given us this knowledge of abortion, there would not be a problem.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
This is the classic "what if".

Think about it.

How many rapes occur each day in the US?

Treatment received by victims of rape virtually ensures that no pregnancy will occur. In the event that some few do occur, contrast them to the four thousand abortions which occur every day. Staggering odds, wouldn't you say?

The child is an innocent party. Why kill it? Let it live. Let it be born. Let it be offered for adoption.

Death is always a bad thing. But suffering is terrible, and everything must be done to prevent this. Now that we know how to prevent suffering, it's a crime not to put an end to it.

Here's another "hypothetical" situation: What if a mother carried a fatal hereditary disease? Should she give birth to a diseased child and by doing so, condemn it to a life of suffering and misery? I think not. I feel she should do the noble thing and abort the child.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Busta said:
Huh...lets keep this a level playing field. If I can not observe religion then you can not observe science.
Deal?
I do not condemn abortion as a crime because of science. I condemn it because of faith. If Kasyade had not defied God and given us this knowledge of abortion, there would not be a problem.

Well Busta, whether you like it or not, abortion Is science. These people against abortion are usually the same people against stem cell research, they were against IVF, and other things. These people are Hypocrites, because they use science everday without realizing it.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Posted by Kal-el;
"Should she give birth to a diseased child and by doing so, condemn it to a life of suffering and misery?"

Who are you to give council with out knowledge? You do not know the purpose for that child's existence. Death is never the answer.
 

battleax86

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
209
Reaction score
3
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
kal-el said:
In all reality guys, let me offer you this "hypothetical" scenario: what if a female is raped? Should she conceive? Or does she, as I believe, have the right to abort the child? Let's drop our primitive, dreary, out-dated religious beliefs here. Condemning science (abortion) is a crime against humanity.
Uh, since when does the killing of a human being count as "science?" If a woman is raped, then she has every right to give the child up for adoption, but killing the child through abortion would be equivalent to executing an innocent party for the father's crime.

As for "outdated religion," you strike me as quite the intolerant atheist, but this is the Abortion forum, so I won't debate that here.

kal-el said:
Death is always a bad thing. But suffering is terrible, and everything must be done to prevent this. Now that we know how to prevent suffering, it's a crime not to put an end to it.
To begin with, there is no physical suffering associated with a pregnancy from rape any more than any other pregnancy. Secondly, even if this were the case, one's "suffering" does not justify the killing of an innocent human being.

kal-el said:
Here's another "hypothetical" situation: What if a mother carried a fatal hereditary disease? Should she give birth to a diseased child and by doing so, condemn it to a life of suffering and misery? I think not. I feel she should do the noble thing and abort the child.
A mercy killing, eh? First, there is no way of knowing for sure if the child will get the disease. Beethoven's parents had a hereditary history of tuberculosis and hearing deficiency. Under your line of thinking, they should have aborted Beethoven. Yet, like so many of the 40 million lives lost, it would have been society's loss.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
Well Busta, whether you like it or not, abortion Is science. These people against abortion are usually the same people against stem cell research, they were against IVF, and other things. These people are Hypocrites, because they use science everday without realizing it.

W.M.D's are a product of science as well. I oppose their casual use just as I oppose casual abortion. I oppose embryonic steam cell research because it promotes abortion.
If anything what we need is more science and knowledge. This can be accomplished while respecting life at the same time. I can only imagine what the world would be like today if Meccanos continued toward and succeeded in an industrial revolution @ 2000 years ago.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Originally posted by battleaxe86
Uh, since when does the killing of a human being count as "science?" If a woman is raped, then she has every right to give the child up for adoption, but killing the child through abortion would be equivalent to executing an innocent party for the father's crime.

As for "outdated religion," you strike me as quite the intolerant atheist, but this is the Abortion forum, so I won't debate that here.

As for killing , in your little comparison, I fail to see the relevance. Science saves lives, while religion and superstition kill.

To begin with, there is no physical suffering associated with a pregnancy from rape any more than any other pregnancy. Secondly, even if this were the case, one's "suffering" does not justify the killing of an innocent human being.

Ohh, I see now, I'm so glad you are not calling the shots, bro. I guess you'd rather have a child with down syndrome, cancer, or even AIDS, suffer for its entire life.

[A mercy killing, eh? First, there is no way of knowing for sure if the child will get the disease. Beethoven's parents had a hereditary history of tuberculosis and hearing deficiency. Under your line of thinking, they should have aborted Beethoven. Yet, like so many of the 40 million lives lost, it would have been society's loss.

First of all, abortion was'nt even invented in Beethoven's time. So don't give me that. Secondly, let's say the child gets the disease, do you hospitalize it and try to treat it its entire life? It will suffer endless poking and prodding by unfamiliar doctors all it's life.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Busta said:
W.M.D's are a product of science as well. I oppose their casual use just as I oppose casual abortion. I oppose embryonic steam cell research because it promotes abortion.
If anything what we need is more science and knowledge. This can be accomplished while respecting life at the same time. I can only imagine what the world would be like today if Meccanos continued toward and succeeded in an industrial revolution @ 2000 years ago.

Yes, they are, and why are there "ethic" commities trying to outlaw stem cell research, and abortion? When at the same time, should'nt committies be in place to protect us from Nuclear, bacteriological, and other such weapons?
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
Yes, they are, *1* and why are there "ethic" commities trying to outlaw stem cell research, and abortion? *2* When at the same time, should'nt committies be in place to protect us from Nuclear, bacteriological, and other such weapons?

*1* Umm, because abortion is Murder.
*2* You mien like the U.N. weapon inspectors that Saddam refused to comply with for @12 years? Or the U.N. weapon inspectors that N. Korea kicked out so that they could restart nuclear production?
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Busta said:
*1* Umm, because abortion is Murder.
*2* You mien like the U.N. weapon inspectors that Saddam refused to comply with for @12 years? Or the U.N. weapon inspectors that N. Korea kicked out so that they could restart nuclear production?

Please,#1 you need to let go of your stone-age beliefs my friend, there is no consequences to an abortion If it is performed by competent people. #2 I'm saying that nuclear, and bacteriological, and other such chemicals are the real threat, not abortion, or stem cells, that is nothing but nonsense. And saying that abortion is murder, is simply propaganda, propaganda which will snowball and propogate further.
 

battleax86

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
209
Reaction score
3
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
kal-el said:
As for killing , in your little comparison, I fail to see the relevance. Science saves lives, while religion and superstition kill.
Um, what comparison? :neutral:

I never made any comparison. I asked you how abortion, the killing of a human being, qualifies as "science." It's your views on religion that are irrelevant in this thread and until you can tell me how exactly an abortion is "science" any more than killing somebody with a high-tech weapon is science, then I'll stop considering your statements to be BS.

kal-el said:
Ohh, I see now, I'm so glad you are not calling the shots, bro. I guess you'd rather have a child with down syndrome, cancer, or even AIDS, suffer for its entire life.
To begin with, the most serious consequence of Down's syndrome is a learning disability, so don't try to tell me that we should kill children because of it. As for cancer and AIDS, there's no way to tell if they have either of those things in the womb. However, if you find killing them preferrable to allowing them to live with a disease, why not kill everyone who has Down's syndrome, AIDS, or cancer? By your logic, they should die in order to relieve themselves of their "suffering." :roll:

kal-el said:
First of all, abortion was'nt even invented in Beethoven's time. So don't give me that.
Wrong. Abortion and infanticide were widely practiced by the Romans, around 1,500 years before Beethoven's time. You know, you really ought to have better knowledge of a subject before trying to argue a position on it.

kal-el said:
Secondly, let's say the child gets the disease, do you hospitalize it and try to treat it its entire life? It will suffer endless poking and prodding by unfamiliar doctors all it's life.
No, that person's life will mean more than that. At least the person will have the chance to experience the world, all the tastes and sounds and sights. The person will have a chance to love and experience love. Also, you're failing to account for the possibility that the child will not get the disease, much like Beethoven.

Furthermore, who are you to determine that the child should be killed based on your prediction of how the child's life will turn out? No one knows what life will bring. No one knows if that child, in spite of his or her disease, will make a contribution to society that will save lives or otherwise enrich our culture. No one knows if, somewhere down the road, that child will be cured and live disease-free. No one knows the profound positive impact that this person, diseased or not, will have on the people around him. The problem is that you don't think about the possibility's of one's life. All you see is a disease and, much like the Nazis, seek to eliminate the people who should be getting the most care.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Busta said:
Notice how vergiss has to resort to attempted personal insults because she is unable to compeat intellectually....

You're the one who accidentally knocked up his wife five times without learning anything. How's it insulting to mention what happened?

Fantasea said:
If human life was not present prior to the twelfth day, then nothing could happen at that point, could it?

The fact that two lives may result simply underscores the presence of life from the very beginning, doesn't it?

Uh huh. Then you explain to me how one life can become two.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
kal-el said:
Death is always a bad thing.
I agree. That's why death should be prevented whenever possible.
But suffering is terrible, and everything must be done to prevent this.
Suffering may be terrible, but it can and should be aleviated. We don't kill cancer patients, do we?
Now that we know how to prevent suffering, it's a crime not to put an end to it.
I take it that you are attempting to rationalize the nearly fifty million human children who have died as a result of 'legal' abortions which have occurred since Roe v. Wade.

Your attempt has failed.

Who are you to judge who should be put out of their misery as if you were extending mercy to a severely injured animal?
Here's another "hypothetical" situation: What if a mother carried a fatal hereditary disease? Should she give birth to a diseased child and by doing so, condemn it to a life of suffering and misery? I think not. I feel she should do the noble thing and abort the child.
I can only respond that any person who can label the killing of any child, for any reason, as a noble act, has a truly twisted understanding of both terms.

The next time you come across a disabled person, ask him whether he would prefer to be dead.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
vergiss said:
Uh huh. Then you explain to me how one life can become two.
Your posts never add anything of substance to the discussions. Perhaps this is because your knowledge of the subject is sparse.

If you wish to know the answer to your query, do a google search on the words -- fetal twinning -- and read what you find.

Your knowledge will then have been enhanced and you will then be able to contribute more interestingly.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
Location
Nevada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, okay, you have a fertilized egg, and it splits into two, and then two again, and so on and so forth until you have this huge collection of shapeless cells gathered up.... By this point, I think an abortion is viable and the cells could easily be used to further stem cell research... Then, when it is still embryo, and doesn't have define-able figures, I agree, you could still have an abortion. Then, a fetus betins to form, there is a rough shape of human, but lacks eyes fingers, toes, noses etc. The baby is still inactive, doesn't move or have any sensual input. By this point, I don't still don't give a crap. Then, it starts to form into a moving, kicking, sleeping and breathing animal inside your stomach. Its ears activate and it begins recieving input from this sense.(Somewhere between week 12 and 16) Here, I think it's already getting too late or close to to late to allow an abortion. It's already more advanced than insects and nearing as advanced as rodents. Motion is detected, and it is activated and turned on. By week 20 and 21, where the figures are fully formed and some babies can exist as preemies. At this point, how can you deny that having an abortion is to litterally KILL a living creature? Sure you can go on and on about how it's not human yet or doesn't think mature thoughts... I just don't care. I don't care if the baby is like a rabbit at this point. It's still not right to kill it. Late term (and near "late" term) abortions are "oppressive" to the child which you allowed to exist. If you think that babies are only alive after they are completely born and crying in its fathers hands, than you are stuck in a 18th century mentality.

If there was a rabbit in your yard (not a pest rabbit, more of a pet rabbit), that you kept feeding every day, and then you shot it when you decided that it was going to be too expensive and time consuming to continue feeding it, that seems a cruel and sadistic action. Unless, well, you wanted rabbit for dinner, but that's a different story.

That's what separates the rabbit from child who is still "rabbit-intelligence."
The rabbit isn't going to get any smarter than a rabbit, the child will.

I'm not against the will of women, and not for the suffering of children who will be brought into a cruel and hard world. I'm of the mentality though, that I'd rather live in a cruel and hard world, than be dead right now. It's not that life is so short, it's that death is so long. Where do you draw the line between when something is alive or no more alive than a rock? I say that when it can recieve sensory input and can think, it is alive. (You don't need to understand a language to think, just look at animals and babies who don't yet know a language.)

I don't base my opinion off of religion, nor do I believe in any religion.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Posted by vergiss;
"You're the one who accidentally knocked up his wife five times without learning anything. How's it insulting to mention what happened?"

Notice how vergiss must continue with attempted personal insults because she is still unable to compeat intelligently.....

Vergiss obviously did not read or comprehend anything that I posted on that thread. My posts on that thread have already detailed what happened, when I leaned what, what choices my wife and I made, how birthcontrole was constantly used and how I came to the reasoning and understanding that I posses Toddy.

Vergiss posted;
"Don't stress yourself. That guy wouldn't know what *1*birth control was if it slapped him in the face, *2*so he's hardly qualified to talk about anything more advanced."

*1* No one was talking about birth controle, so why bring it up? Given your history of only issuing attempted personal insults to me, it stands to reason that the only reason why you would bring up the irrelevant is to issue another attempted personal insult.

*2*= attempted personal insult which proves *1*.

Jallman...you wanted an intelligent debate. You need to check your girl so that this thread does not continue to be watered down with petty bickering.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
PhotonicLaceration said:
Well, okay, you have a fertilized egg, and it splits into two, and then two again, and so on and so forth until you have this huge collection of shapeless cells gathered up.... By this point, I think an abortion is viable and the cells could easily be used to further stem cell research... Then, when it is still embryo, and doesn't have define-able figures, I agree, you could still have an abortion. Then, a fetus betins to form, there is a rough shape of human, but lacks eyes fingers, toes, noses etc. The baby is still inactive, doesn't move or have any sensual input. By this point, I don't still don't give a crap. Then, it starts to form into a moving, kicking, sleeping and breathing animal inside your stomach. Its ears activate and it begins recieving input from this sense.(Somewhere between week 12 and 16) Here, I think it's already getting too late or close to to late to allow an abortion. It's already more advanced than insects and nearing as advanced as rodents. Motion is detected, and it is activated and turned on. By week 20 and 21, where the figures are fully formed and some babies can exist as preemies. At this point, how can you deny that having an abortion is to litterally KILL a living creature? Sure you can go on and on about how it's not human yet or doesn't think mature thoughts... I just don't care. I don't care if the baby is like a rabbit at this point. It's still not right to kill it. Late term (and near "late" term) abortions are "oppressive" to the child which you allowed to exist. If you think that babies are only alive after they are completely born and crying in its fathers hands, than you are stuck in a 18th century mentality.

If there was a rabbit in your yard (not a pest rabbit, more of a pet rabbit), that you kept feeding every day, and then you shot it when you decided that it was going to be too expensive and time consuming to continue feeding it, that seems a cruel and sadistic action. Unless, well, you wanted rabbit for dinner, but that's a different story.

That's what separates the rabbit from child who is still "rabbit-intelligence."
The rabbit isn't going to get any smarter than a rabbit, the child will.

I'm not against the will of women, and not for the suffering of children who will be brought into a cruel and hard world. I'm of the mentality though, that I'd rather live in a cruel and hard world, than be dead right now. It's not that life is so short, it's that death is so long. Where do you draw the line between when something is alive or no more alive than a rock? I say that when it can recieve sensory input and can think, it is alive. (You don't need to understand a language to think, just look at animals and babies who don't yet know a language.)

I don't base my opinion off of religion, nor do I believe in any religion.
You are clearly on the right track.

Increase your knowledge of secular biology and you will find that human life is present earlier than you think. One's beliefs adjust as one's knowledge and understanding increase.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Post 327 by PhotonicLaceration;
Though I disagree with you about the, let me call it...personhood, of the unborn child at the very early stages of development, since you do not practice a religion nor posses faith in God (I think), it would be completely pointless for me to argue my counter point since my objection to abortion is based in theology and philosophy.

I like the way you think, however. You are articulate and reasonable...that's probably why you kicked so much liberal @$$ in the gun controle thread.

Good post!
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
Location
Nevada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Though I disagree with you about the, let me call it...personhood, of the unborn child at the very early stages of development, since you do not practice a religion nor posses faith in God (I think), it would be completely pointless for me to argue my counter point since my objection to abortion is based in theology and philosophy.

I like the way you think, however. You are articulate and reasonable...that's probably why you kicked so much liberal @$$ in the gun controle thread.

Good post!

Thanks Busta! If you have philosophies based upon science, it's still open game as far as I'm concerned. The Greeks learned a great deal about the Earth from philosophy and discussion. Though they were wrong about a lot of the specifics, they got a lot right too. Especially with mathematics.
 
Last edited:

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Fantasea said:
You are clearly on the right track.

Increase your knowledge of secular biology and you will find that human life is present earlier than you think. One's beliefs adjust as one's knowledge and understanding increase.

This is pure drivel. The medical community does not even agree on when human life begins. You look at a zygote under a microscope and tell me it even remotely resembles a human being. In fact, for the first few weeks of development, it more closely resembles a tadpole. If you would like, I can provide you with links to photographs.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
PhotonicLaceration said:
Thanks Busta! If you have philosophies based upon science, it's still open game as far as I'm concerned. The Greeks learned a great deal about the Earth from philosophy and discussion. Though they were wrong about a lot of the specifics, they got a lot right too. Especially with mathematics.

The problem that I continually encounter, when I speak about philosophy and throe in some supporting science, is that there is always some random reader who will interject and demand a full scientific explanation with irrefutable scientific proof.

Such persons always fail to see that it is because I do not have all the answers, that I bring up the ideas that I do.

Even when I unscientifically declare "God exists" and spell out that faith in God is only provable to the individual, and not the masses, some one will always demand that I scientifically prove God exists.

And then there are those who do nothing but issue attacks and personal insults....

I wish that this site had privet rooms. Maybe then I could learn more.
 
Top Bottom