Capital Punishment

?

Eggs are generally fertilized in the fallopian tubes, prior to attachment (they don't attach there, when they do it's a big problem). IUDs and birth control pills prevent attachment (through different mechanisms), they don't prevent fertilization. Plan B works after attachment IIRC, or perhaps just prior to attachment (since you have to take it X amount of time quickly after sex).

Therefore, the egg is fertilized and is a brand new human being prior to the actions of those devices. It's already a zygote, which you've already stated is equivalent to any other human being.

EDIT: I included birth control pills in error (which is kind of obvious since they alter ovulation so I'm stupid for making the mistake), but IUDs (that don't use hormones like birth control pills) and Plan B work by preventing attachment (IUDs can do both - preventing fertilization and attachment). Anything that acts after fertilization though, is at least eliminating a zygote. And since I looked it up, Plan B is definitely prior to attachment, not after.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh for fuck's sake. Preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg = beating a 5 year old child to death with a rusty spoon.

Yes? No? Does the condition of the spoon come into play? This is the question I'm trying to ask you, I'm assuming the answer is yes, that after an egg is fertilized it is a human.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Your opinion is noted. I consider a belief that killing off poor peoples children being good for the rest of us a detriment to anyone's position.

Not existing > Poverty all the way man. Morally sound.[/QUOTE]

Technically they are not children yet, and I am not doing the killing.
I think it is time I stop reading the crazy in this thread.
 
[quote name='Clak']Saying "you just don't get it" is a piss poor way of arguing.[/QUOTE]

Watch out. He's about to switch gears back into "Here look at this generic pregnancy article I googled 3 seconds ago. Its so fucking obvious what dont you get?"
 
I think what's really at issue here is spermal rights. They (sperm) have the right to impregnate an egg so ya'll gotta quit throwin' the little buggers down the drain now ya hear?

I think most of the severely anti-abortion people (either here on the board or elsewhere) just aren't into fucking for fun and thing fucking is only for procreation. At which point, fuck you. That's stupid.
 
It comes down simply to this, most of what we're talking about has the potential to be a human being, but it isn't yet. So if that is what we're talking about, then yeah jerking off is no different than aborting a still forming organism, because it all has that potential to be human. Same thing with women taking birth control, you're interrupting that potential. So yeah, we're basically arguing over protecting potential.
 
[quote name='Clak']It comes down simply to this, most of what we're talking about has the potential to be a human being, but it isn't yet. So if that is what we're talking about, then yeah jerking off is no different than aborting a still forming organism, because it all has that potential to be human. Same thing with women taking birth control, you're interrupting that potential. So yeah, we're basically arguing over protecting potential.[/QUOTE]

I wonder if Knoell threw a fit at his poker game when he lost all his money, like he threw a fit here when he roundly lost the debate.
 
Just because this thread has been taken for a turn:
http://www.10tv.com/live/content/lo...hio-abortion-heartbeat-bill-vote.html?sid=102

tl;dr: if you can't read the 8 sentences, maybe you shouldn't be involved in this discussion

Heartbeats can begin as early as 6 weeks. Anyone not anticipating a pregnancy usually aren't aware until their menstral cycle is off-schedule, which is usually more then 6 weeks. On the brightside, it still needs to go through the Senate, Governor, and then the courts.
 
Conservatives have the Supreme Court currently (as its been moving slowly to the right for nearly 100 years), which may be precisely why states are doing things like this. They're daring a suit.
 
In response to the whole egg is fertilized a life is created spasx argument, this is not a decent point. Even if a egg is fertilized there is an 80 percent chance it will just be passed during a period. Would you consider this fertilized egg a lifeform? Of course not, it is just a series of cells that were flushed by the body, yet why is it when one of these happens to attach we call it a new life. Both were fertile yet only one was smart enough to hold on as it were. If spasx is correct about fertilization being starring of new life then women are naturally murderers, but we don't consider this loss of life, only when a scary man in a white coat gives a woman some medication. Most of k and spasx arguments just seem antiwoman, I mean they are putting stringent constraints on the woman and not the man, and no, cutting a check is not the same as being forced to carry a child to term and then be forced to care for it.
 
[quote name='cindersphere'] and no, cutting a check is not the same as being forced to carry a child to term and then be forced to care for it.[/QUOTE]

Who are you kidding? The government has been making laws to force people to act morally for a lonnnng time. In this one instance in which people are trying to protect what they believe is a life, and you are going to say they would be alienating women? Oh I forgot, all of that other government interference is just for the good of us all so it is no bigee. Give me a break.

I love how you all don't think people can make decisions without the government until it comes to abortion. Then people can act responsible all they want (or not act responsible, who cares?). Otherwise the government needs to step in and take control wherever possible for the good of the people who can't make decisions for themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't mean to offend, just defend a position. As for knoelle, not saying you are anti woman just your solution leaves this avenue open. Secondly dude I am far from a pro govt dude, and secondly if you've nothing to say to advance the topic don't post.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Didn't mean to offend, just defend a position. As for knoelle, not saying you are anti woman just your solution leaves this avenue open. Secondly dude I am far from a pro govt dude, and secondly if you've nothing to say to advance the topic don't post.[/QUOTE]

I have advanced the off topic topic for pages and pages, it isn't my fault these people can't comprehend jack shit.

I mean look at this crap:

I think most of the severely anti-abortion people (either here on the board or elsewhere) just aren't into
shaqfu.gif
ing for fun and thing
shaqfu.gif
ing is only for procreation. At which point,
shaqfu.gif
you. That's stupid
Click to expand...


As for SpazX, He raises a great argument, one that pro life proponents struggle with, but the science is far more complex than he is making it out to be. Also he does not understand that a lot of pro life people are against birth control types that are abortifacient.

Yes there are the hypocrites who do not understand what they are saying. But look at camoor for an example of the other sides hypocrisy.
 
My whole point was that it's more complex than you made it out to be. And that your distinctions were as arbitrary as any others. I know many pro-life people are against those, I was asking if you were. I was trying to follow your logic.

Science can't really tell you when a human is a human, mostly because it's something that we kind of make up. All of these boundaries are things we've created for ourselves to explain the world around us, not something intrinsic, not something you can observe scientifically or be factually correct about.

I base my opinion of abortion (that opinion being that they should be perfectly legal) on a combination of my belief that a developing human is not the same as a developed human and that women should have full control of their bodies and what is developing in them. As long as it's developing inside of a woman she should be able to decide what happens to it, and obviously it's not possible for her to teleport it out and have it live some other way. Right now the only options available are abortion or carrying to term and I think the woman who is pregnant should decide which way that goes.

I think it gets morally murky once the child has developed to the point that it's close to being able to live on its own, but luckily most women make that decision far before that point. I think they should be encouraged to figure it out as soon as possible and regulations on later term abortions (life and health of the mother) make some sense.
 
[quote name='camoor']How so?[/QUOTE]

This.

[quote name='SpazX']Science can't really tell you when a human is a human, mostly because it's something that we kind of make up. All of these boundaries are things we've created for ourselves to explain the world around us, not something intrinsic, not something you can observe scientifically or be factually correct about.
[/QUOTE]

Rather than going on the scientific fact that the new organism begins with the zygote, which we KNOW to be human, you all rely on false boundaries that make you feel better about it.

Yet you (camoor) continue to mock the religious as the ones who are making up when these things happen.

Are womens rights an issue in this? Yes. However women cannot get pregnant from walking outside. Consenual sex carries with it a responsibility that cannot and should not be tossed away because of any reason, even if the poor kid will grow up to be poor.

We hold people to their morals through the law on many other aspects. For those that DO believe these are lives inside there, why should this be any different?
 
You understand your sense of responsibility is also a human construct. Just saying that if we're going to talk about people making things up that has to be included.
 
[quote name='Knoell']This.



Rather than going on the scientific fact that the new organism begins with the zygote, which we KNOW to be human, you all rely on false boundaries that make you feel better about it.

Yet you (camoor) continue to mock the religious as the ones who are making up when these things happen.

Are womens rights an issue in this? Yes. However women cannot get pregnant from walking outside. Consenual sex carries with it a responsibility that cannot and should not be tossed away because of any reason, even if the poor kid will grow up to be poor.

We hold people to their morals through the law on many other aspects. For those that DO believe these are lives inside there, why should this be any different?[/QUOTE]

The problem is that you are playing a wordgame where you jump from 'human zygote' to 'human'. It's cute that you think I could be tricked by your lame attempt at a jedi mind trick (unless you have fallen into the trap of your own semantic game, which then takes your "arguement" from merely insulting to ironic and comically absurd). The reason I believe it is a cheap trick is because you seem to understand the difference between adjectives and nouns on some level, for example when we talk about human sperm or a human egg you don't refer to them as simply human.

However I must confess that I'm beginning to believe I have been giving you entirely too much credit.
 
[quote name='camoor']The problem is that you are playing a wordgame where you jump from 'human zygote' to 'human'. It's cute that you think I could be tricked by your lame attempt at a jedi mind trick (unless you have fallen into the trap of your own semantic game, which then takes your "arguement" from merely insulting to ironic and comically absurd). The reason I believe it is a cheap trick is because you seem to understand the difference between adjectives and nouns on some level, for example when we talk about human sperm or a human egg you don't refer to them as simply human.

However I must confess that I'm beginning to believe I have been giving you entirely too much credit.[/QUOTE]


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."
******
From 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.."
******
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, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."
******
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
(updated, still the same)
"Human begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."
******
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.
"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."
******
Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."
*******
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.
"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."
******
Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization... is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."
******
William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.
"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
******
Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
******
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.
"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
******
Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
"In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun."
******
Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
"...but the whole story does not begin with delivery. The baby has existed for months before - at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by..."
******
Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
******
Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
******
Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53
"A zygote (a single fertilized egg cell) represents the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life."
******
Clark, J. ed., The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in the Human Body, Torstar Books Inc., Toronto, 1985, page 99
"Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum and a much smaller male sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into the complex ...structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection."
******
Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86
"The development of a new human being begins when a male's sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female's ovum, or egg....The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months."
******
Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
"The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual."
******
DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584
"The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world."
******
In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005 (Prenatal Development Video)
"The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated."
******
The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006. (Video)
"Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization."
******

Scientists say the new individual starts with the zygote. You are contradicing the science that you hold so dear. I love how science is the end all be all to arguments unless it contradicts what you want to believe. Nevermind, I was right to stop responding before. When you are educated on the subject come back. Or if you still think you are right, bring a scientists point of view that the new individual starts with the sperm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know why you keep bringing up this "new organism" thing. It's obviously a new organism. It's clearly not a sperm nor an egg. That doesn't make it a human, it makes it an organism that is not a sperm and not an egg.
 
This squabbling over life and human is ridiculous. I dont mind the designation of both human and life from the point of conception. I just think they are completely useless designations.
 
I didn't see your nice list of quotations before I posted Knoell. I don't get it though, do you actually think we don't know that humans develop from a zygote?

Do you think those quotes you took from some website mean something more than that?

While we're at it, when do scientists say you've murdered someone?
 
[quote name='SpazX']I didn't see your nice list of quotations before I posted Knoell. I don't get it though, do you actually think we don't know that humans develop from a zygote?

Do you think those quotes you took from some website mean something more than that?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's a pretty shitty response. On the plus side, it looks like he spent alot of time putting that post together while I went out and partied my ass off.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']The primary purpose of sex is to make babies.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='knoell']sex carries with it a responsibility that cannot and should not be tossed away because of any reason[/QUOTE]

What a couple of asshats.
 
I didn't see your nice list of quotations before I posted Knoell. I don't get it though, do you actually think we don't know that humans develop from a zygote?

Do you think those quotes you took from some website mean something more than that?

While we're at it, when do scientists say you've murdered someone?
Click to expand...

Camoor does not know zygotes are the beginning of the individual human life. This besides the fact that amongst all of the quotes from texts that label it the start of a new human individual, you still think of it as a zygote --> fetus --> Human when in reality it is zygote = human. This is not to say that the zygote does not go from one stage to another, but that it is always classified as a human individual.

I was only proving to camoor that scientists classify it as a new individual from the zygote, as he was so "convincingly" arguing the "oh yeah? Well a sperm is one too then!" argument that I had to gave him overwhelming proof. Notice how he heads for the "I don't care I went and partied" line, and the personal insults followed along quickly?

Again Scientists say that is when the life of the new individual begins, and like I said before sentience is the only argument one could have against that. Stage of development means nothing, whether it is a zygote, or a fetus it is still human at both stages. And proving it is separate from other mammalian creatures? Both common sense and science take care of that.

Sentience is the only logical argument any of you can possibly have. I don't agree with Dr Mario Karts view, and I don't think most people would, however he has a clear grasp of what he believes, and is not taking some BS that there is a imaginary moment when the unborn child becomes human besides sentience that science cannot figure out.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Only thing I will say in this thread:

You can freeze a fertilized egg and ship it via Fedex.

Try that with a baby and get back to me.[/QUOTE]

Like I said in a previous post, obviously there is an essential difference between a fertilized egg and a baby.

QED.

Personally, I think there is literally no reason to engage someone who believes they are the same until they the little experiment spoken off at the bottom of my earlier post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Camoor does not know zygotes are the beginning of the individual human life. This besides the fact that amongst all of the quotes from texts that label it the start of a new human individual, you still think of it as a zygote --> fetus --> Human when in reality it is zygote = human. This is not to say that the zygote does not go from one stage to another, but that it is always classified as a human individual.

I was only proving to camoor that scientists classify it as a new individual from the zygote, as he was so "convincingly" arguing the "oh yeah? Well a sperm is one too then!" argument that I had to gave him overwhelming proof. Notice how he heads for the "I don't care I went and partied" line, and the personal insults followed along quickly?

Again Scientists say that is when the life of the new individual begins, and like I said before sentience is the only argument one could have against that. Stage of development means nothing, whether it is a zygote, or a fetus it is still human at both stages. And proving it is separate from other mammalian creatures? Both common sense and science take care of that.

Sentience is the only logical argument any of you can possibly have. I don't agree with Dr Mario Karts view, and I don't think most people would, however he has a clear grasp of what he believes, and is not taking some BS that there is a imaginary moment when the unborn child becomes human besides sentience that science cannot figure out.[/QUOTE]

Now you're addressing me in the third person - grand, I have moved up a rung!

The difference is that you think that stage of development "means nothing" whereas I hold the position that it is of significant importance. Sentience is part of stage of development, and you concede that sentience is a logical arguement for the allowance of abortion. I'm not sure why physical characteristics of the developing fetus would automatically be discounted whereas the mental development is not (after all, even mental development is rooted in the physical development of the brain). Then again I've never really bought into that singularly western Cartisean separation of body and mind.
 
[quote name='camoor']Now you're addressing me in the third person - grand, I have moved up a rung!

The difference is that you think that stage of development "means nothing" whereas I hold the position that it is of significant importance. Sentience is part of stage of development, and you concede that sentience is a logical arguement for the allowance of abortion. I'm not sure why physical characteristics of the developing fetus would automatically be discounted whereas the mental development is not (after all, even mental development is rooted in the physical development of the brain). Then again I've never really bought into that singularly western Cartisean separation of body and mind.[/QUOTE]

I said it is a logical argument for considering it truely alive, however the definition of sentience would put most infants outside that criteria. Which is dr mario karts view. I disagree with this.

Now anything in between coming from a person that makes fun of the "fairy tale" religious people, that is pretty freaking hilarious. Science does not give you a scrap of aid when you draw your imaginary lines for abortion.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I said it is a logical argument for considering it truely alive, however the definition of sentience would put most infants outside that criteria. Which is dr mario karts view. I disagree with this.

Now anything in between coming from a person that makes fun of the "fairy tale" religious people, that is pretty freaking hilarious. Science does not give you a scrap of aid when you draw your imaginary lines for abortion.[/QUOTE]

But the Christian religion does, right Knoell? I guess if we all put on fundie glasses and read that quote about a zygote being a new organism twenty times then we will be off to a good start on the mental brainwashing needed to see your viewpoint.

Also I won't deign to speak for Dr. Mario Kart but I believe that any position allowing infanticide is patently ridiculous. I think you know this too and yet you still choose to reply the easier of the two opposing arguements. Stop dancing around the fence and debate me square like a man.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Arguing for infanticide is a pretty uphill battle, haha.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I didn't want to put words in your mouth but I was suspicious that Knoell was attempting to bluster his way through with a strawman arguement.

Ironically, check out this quote from Knoell's bible. Guess the Christian god doesn't care too much about infants (aka the suckling)

[quote name='"1 Samuel 15"']Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass[/QUOTE]
 
Attacking religion again I see? And outside of context as well? Great job!

So where does the scientific aspect stand without religion? Oh yeaaaaah, but that does not count.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Yes the context says those were evil babies so it's ok.[/QUOTE]

Yes, religion saying it is ok to kill babies 3000+ years ago justifies killing babies in the present day. Is that what you guys are going for? Pretty lame.

"Gods word is just awful, saying its ok to kill babies" two seconds later "religious people are so nuts, saying its not ok to kill babies"

Of course this is for anyone who won't bother to go and learn the contextual background of the passage.
 
For the death penalty or not, I think we can all agree that if you rape a kid you probably need to cease to exist. That's not really an "oops" kind of thing.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yes, religion saying it is ok to kill babies 3000+ years ago justifies killing babies in the present day. Is that what you guys are going for? Pretty lame.

"Gods word is just awful, saying its ok to kill babies" two seconds later "religious people are so nuts, saying its not ok to kill babies"

Of course this is for anyone who won't bother to go and learn the contextual background of the passage.[/QUOTE]

The irony is that this post is inconsistent. You acknowledge that the Christian god ok'd baby killings, and then pull a 180 and say the entire passage is taken out of context. So which is it?
 
[quote name='camoor']The irony is that this post is inconsistent. You acknowledge that the Christian god ok'd baby killings, and then pull a 180 and say the entire passage is taken out of context. So which is it?[/QUOTE]

Here I will explain it in your terms. If you believe that God really advocated the killing of babies, why does that hypocrisy of the religious make it ok to kill babies today?

You are trying to tell me that the religious point of view should not matter because they are hypocrites. I am telling you the scientific point of view, and am still getting roped in with the religious.

You crazy liberals, and your made up definitions of life. Go read a science book! ;)
 
[quote name='Knoell']You crazy liberals, and your made up definitions of life. Go read a science book!
icon_wink.gif
[/QUOTE]

Heh, I'd say the same to you conservatives, but it might contain some information about global warming or evolution. Might burn your eyes out of your sockets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top